Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

That is true of course, but atheists and agnostics do not use a belief in religion as an automatic sign of "goodness", as many religious people do, ie a Priest must be a good person etc.

On the contrary, all of the Catholic priests I know are sinners.

Wicknight wrote:

The phrase "God-fearing" springs to mind, also the fact that Bush probably won the election because he is a born again Christian, a sign for many middle-Americans that he is a "good, moral person"

H.L. Mencken probably had people like Bush and his supporters in mind when he said, "It is hard for the ape to believe he descended from man." Bush gives Christianity a bad name.

There is no shortage of fools, Christian and non-Christian, in the USA.

Wicknight wrote:

But anyway I was originally replying to this statement -

It is unfair to suggest a teacher of religion (Jew, Muslim, Shinto, Christian, etc.) would call a student's question about God, "silly."

It is not only fair, but all too common, having witness hundreds of such events in my life time

I am sorry. You have experienced some very poor teachers. Given your poor quality teachers your knowledge of God naturally suffered. This explains everything.

robindch

> We have different definitions of "god." Most dictionaries define the term as [...]

I should have called my 'definition' an 'understanding' instead, since that what it is.

Nonetheless, the arguments presented are entirely circular -- one *declares* the existence of a prime mover, endows it with the most wonderful, heart-warming qualities of truth, love, wisdom, generosity (etc, etc), then goes on to declare a *belief* in such a prime mover as the source and ultimate expression of such qualities.

Statements such as the following:

> Robin's all-powerful crocodile living outside of space and time is
> infinite and therefore does not require a cause as it is a supreme
> being.

...being a case in point, demonstrating the arbitrary creation of an entity with infinite powers, existing in some strange, unknown and meaningless state. I, for one, simply can't fathom why, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, one would consciously create something simply so that one could 'believe in' it.

It just seems very weird to me

- robin.

Danno

Wicknight wrote:

You have obviously never been in a R.E class in a Ireland School

Questioning any basis of the Catholic religion has been considered blasphemy for the last 2000 years. In these more "enlightened" times, questioning what you were taught in R.E class was frowned on as an annoyance. My uncle tells a very funny story about a friend of his who continued to question his priest when the Catholic church decided that in fact it wasn't a mortal sin to go to Trinity College. My uncles friend in class was asking did all the people who were in hell for going to Trinity get to go to Heaven now. And how could it have been a sin and now not a sin. What else was also a sin now but would soon not be a sin. This greatly annoyed the priest who eventually gave my uncles friend a clip around the ear and told him not to question the wisdom of the church.



What religious people agree to do and what they actually do are entirely two different things, as 1200 years of Christianity in Ireland can testify to

It is important to seperate the Catholic Church from Christianity here, the Catholic Church in my opinion is wrong in critical parts of it's operations and teachings. It is merely a dictatorship, abusive of it's power. It is an organisation that decieved the Irish public for many years, and now the Irish Society is in rebel mode after shaking off it's grip on us.

Now, before you start zapping that Quote/Reply button frantically, there is more I want to add.

I state the above as my opinion of the organisation, not the many individual priests on the ground who do a marvellous service for our community. These marvellous individuals are "on the ball" with todays society.

But, there are a fair few priests, even more bishops and persons further up the hierarchy that are not on the ball and are more interested in personal gain, abuse, hoarding of wealth etc... Of course we don't get to see them much as that would be bad PR.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I am sorry. You have experienced some very poor teachers. Given your poor quality teachers your knowledge of God naturally suffered. This explains everything.

Excuse me?

What exactly does it explain?

Zombrex

Danno wrote:

It is important to seperate the Catholic Church from Christianity here

I am not quite sure what you mean here

"Christianity" is a description it isn't a religion, just like "Protestant" isn't a religion, it is a description of a number of different Churches and belief systems.

People who are Christian belong to a specific Church. If they aren't Catholic they are Baptist or Mormon.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

What exactly does it explain?

Your statement, "It is not only fair, but all too common, having witness hundreds of such events in my life time."

Zombrex

Was that not implied?

Obni

Turley wrote:

You can see how by looking at what has been written, then make up your own mind if God is simple or not. The pages from the Summa can be viewed with the click of a mouse at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100300.htm

Searching "simplicity" and "God" at google brings thousands of hits.

Christ said, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." -Matt 7:7

The idea that God is simple, in the sense that Aquinas intends, is that God is not a composite body; not, as I understand it, that God is simple in the sense of easy to fabricate. God may not be composite, but given His purported nature, He must be a rather complex being.

Arguments have been raised against evolution, based on evolution's inability to cross the required gulfs of complexity. Without disputing those arguments at this point, I would ask if you really feel that you have answered the question how the crossing the gulf of complexity from vacuum to god is any less challenging than evolution's crossing similar gulfs.

Requiring evolution's supporters to answer this issue, while claiming it does not apply to God given the non-composite nature of God, leads me to ask ...

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? " Matt 7:3

J C

Originally Posted by Wicknight
The theory of evolution is "true" as far as we can possibly tell it is true, and so far nothing has come along to say that it is false.

You ARE joking I assume?

For the past two weeks we have examined, in exhaustive detail, the reasons why the theory of evolution couldn't possibly be “true” because of it’s many conflicts with observed reality.

To summarise AGAIN:-

We have never observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true. However, it can easily be shown to be a MATHEMATICAL impossibility – so maybe it’s no surprise that it hasn’t been observed!!

We have observed millions of different species which are distinctly different and whose cells are packed with organised information of amazing density and unimaginable complexity – there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures, if Evolution is true. Not even ONE continuum has ever observed.

We have observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind. Random Evolution doesn’t even “get to the starting gates” on this one.

We have observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are orders of magnitude greater than our most powerful computer systems. Random Evolution is also a “non-runner” on this one.

We have observed great perfection and genetic diversity in all species – Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity.

We have observed evidence that the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide for the massive INCREASE in information evident at all points between “muck and man”.

We have observed that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and the production of DNA itself requires the pre-existence of DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”. A “chicken and egg” situation that Evolution cannot even start to explain.

We have never observed any "higher species" to actually INCREASE genetic information over time – Not good news for an Evolutionary Theory that postulates an increase in genetic information over time.

I have also tapped my fingers for the past week awaiting a definitive rebuttal of my valid scientific hypothesis “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein and therefore gradual random evolution of life is an impossibility”.

To date no rebuttal has been received. I must therefore now conclude that the gradual random evolution of life IS an impossibility – and all “Theories of Evolution” are therefore faith-based beliefs. Of course, being a scientific hypothesis, my hypothesis remains open to continuous challenge and testing by empirical evidence – so please feel free to do so!!

You have collectively and individually failed to disprove my hypothesis that Evolution is scientifically invalid.
I am not blaming you for this – it is impossible to disprove the TRUTH using objective verifiable means – in fact, our Criminal Justice System is based on this very premise. The TRUTH is that Evolution is a completely inadequate explanation for the presence of life on this Planet. Equally, the TRUTH that Evolution is not a valid scientific theory, because it isn’t precisely defined nor verifiable by repeated testing, is also manifest.
In any event, the “game is up” for random chance gradual evolution. I am aware of high level meetings of the top EVOLUTIONARY biologists in the USA which have concluded that evolution is an invalid hypothesis. No real surprise in that for me – but obviously for you, a very different matter.
The last “tonne of bricks that broke the evolutionary camel’s back” (to coin a phrase) came from “cutting edge” research in Molecular Biology and Information Science. The meetings have concluded that the “Theory of Evolution” was a quite reasonable interpretation of the known facts in Darwin’s time when living cells were perceived to be little more than “blobs of protoplasm jelly”. However Random Evolution, has now become completely untenable with modern scientific advances showing living cells to be of a greater complexity than large cities, but at a molecular level. Achieving the PRECISION, ORDER and COMPLEXITY of even the simplest cell, using non-intelligent means, can be shown to be a mathematical impossibility. In addition, Evolution hasn’t even attempted to explain how the “spark of life” was infused into inanimate matter in the first place.
The real problem for biological science now, is where to go to from here in trying to find a replacement for Evolution. I have no doubt that some scientists will not be found wanting in their eager imaginings on this one. Parallel Universes, Innately Intelligent Matter, Chemical Predestination, Panspermia and an Infinity of Space/Time are among some of the radical “solutions” which have been proposed at these meetings. These “solutions” are even dafter that the current defunct “Evolutionary Theory”. None of them are testable by observation/experimentation and so they are all on the “faith” side of the line so to speak. The one positive aspect of all of this is that leading EVOLUTIONARY biologists recognise that Evolution is now defunct – which is the first step in doing something about it.
The Biological Sciences cannot afford to make the same mistake twice – it was bad enough that they have supported a scientifically invalid theory for the past 150 years. If they repeat their mistake and don’t apply the Scientific Yardstick of being PRECISE and TESTABLE to any new theories that are about to “emerge from the woodwork” on the origins of life they will lose all credibility.
I believe that we are about to enter the “Information Age of Biology”. Living matter is packed full of exact purposeful information – which in any other context would be instantly recognised as having an intelligent source. DNA is analogous to a very complex computer programme. The Human Genome consists of over 3 billion nucleic acid “bits” of information stored in a PRECISE SEQUENCE made up using 4 Nucleic Acids. The chances of the perfect Human Genomes that we observe, occurring through blind chance are ¼ x ¼ x ¼ ………3 billion times which is a number that is about 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 – in other words NO CHANCE.
The ONLY WAY that this “baby” ever happened is through the appliance of MASSIVE INTELLIGENCE – and the only plausible source of this intelligence is GOD – a faith based observation which I BELIEVE and which YOU are FREE to BELIEVE or to REJECT as you see fit.

I have found that Irish Skeptics take an active interest in the faith-based opinions of others and your postings show you to be people of great faith (in Evolution) even after it’s many shortcomings have been repeatedly pointed out to you. The free-will granted to you by God allows you to BELIEVE what you wish and that is fair enough, as far as I am concerned. However, the flip side of this coin is that you should also grant me and my fellow Christians our God-given rights to believe in what we wish.

I would now like to move on to make a few faith-based comments of my own. It is on-topic as the subject matter of this thread is the visit of Dr Ken Ham to Ireland, a visit that touched upon both faith and science – and we have exhaustively examined the science dimension already on this thread.

As a Man of both SCIENCE and FAITH – I have the best of both worlds.

I can use Science, applied to observable REALITY (and not INVISIBLE Goats or other ILLUSIONS), to provide ME and EVERYBODY ELSE with useful reliable knowledge.

Faith takes over where science leaves off – and I BELIEVE that GOD has given Humanity the information that we need to lead happy and fulfilled lives in both this World and in the next – and it is contained within the covers of the Holy Bible. YOU are FREE to BELIEVE or to REJECT this as YOU see fit.

I believe that the Almighty Sovereign God that created the entire Universe allowed me, a wretched sinner, to FREELY MAKE UP MY OWN MIND to accept Him as MY Lord and Savour Jesus Christ. I believe that He has GUARANTEED EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY irrespective of their past lives, that they will be saved if they simply believe in Him. This small gesture of obedience is the least that we could do, in thanks to God for creating us as eternal beings. YOU are FREE to BELIEVE or to REJECT this as YOU see fit.

I somehow find all of the above very comforting - and supported by the reality that I observe all around me. The contrast is quite dramatic with the opposite end of the Faith-Spectrum – the Nihilistic ‘bottom line’ belief that “we have come from NOTHING, our existence is MEANINGLESS and we are going NOWHERE.
YOU are also FREE to BELIEVE or to REJECT this as YOU see fit.

My BELIEFS are of course on the “faith” side of the line and therefore NOT subject to Scientific validation, or testing through observation – but then so are Evolution, Nihilism and indeed Parallel Universes.

God says in Deut 30:15 “See, I set before YOU today life and prosperity, death and destruction”.

Choose life!!!

YOU are of course totally FREE to BELIEVE or to REJECT this as YOU see fit.

davros

OK, we are back where we started. I don't think there is any point arguing against that last post - all the counter-arguments have been clearly made earlier in the thread.

I suggest leaving it there as regards Creationism for this discussion. If anyone has anything particular to say about Ken Ham and his recent visit (anyone see him in Cork?), by all means...

Turley

davros wrote:

OK, we are back where we started. I don't think there is any point arguing against that last post - all the counterpoints have been clearly made earlier in the thread.

Not only are we back to where we started, it started before we started. When Cyril Joad died on April 9, 1953, The Times wrote in his obituary:

"The Recovery of Belief is certainly the most interesting and important of his books. It is marked by a humility which contrasts notably with the intellectual arrogance of his earlier writing. It follows the arguments which led him from agnosticism to Christianity with a fearless honesty, and it equally fearlessly faces and rejects the claims of science as 'a stick to beat religion'. It concernrs itself with the fundamental problems of the universe and human nature, about which he had previously been so superficial."

robindch

> the visit of Dr Ken Ham to Ireland, a visit that touched upon
> both faith and science

'faith' in the sense of a dictated belief system -- certainly true, and you're quite right to point it out. However, to suggest that Ham 'touched upon' 'science'? Having sat through two of his tedious talks, I can tell you that his only comments about science in either of these talks were as inaccurate as they were insulting , and the books, to which he went to such successful lengths to sell, were doubly so -- see any of the vindictive and scornful cartoons in the books which littered the table on the left of the stage, near his backup sales team (and which books I didn't buy, so you'll forgive me forgetting their forgettable names).

> OK, we are back where we started.

Since JC is still talking about "random evolution", I would cautiously suggest that we never left the starting blocks.

- robin.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

We have never observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true.

False

J C wrote:

However, it can easily be shown to be a MATHEMATICAL impossibility – so maybe it’s no surprise that it hasn’t been observed!!

False

J C wrote:

We have observed millions of different species which are distinctly different and whose cells are packed with organised information of amazing density and unimaginable complexity – there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures, if Evolution is true. Not even ONE continuum has ever observed.

False, and shows a complete lack of understanding of what evolution is. Every creature alive today is an "intermediate" form of life.

J C wrote:

We have observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind. Random Evolution doesn’t even “get to the starting gates” on this one.

False, and again shows a complete lack of understand of even the most basic principles of evolution ... sigh...

J C wrote:

We have observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems. Random Evolution is also “at the starting gates” on this one.

Now you are just taking the piss :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

We have observed great perfection and genetic diversity in all species – Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity.

False

J C wrote:

We have observed evidence that the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time.

False

J C wrote:

We have observed that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and the production of DNA itself requires the pre-existence of DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”. A “chicken and egg” situation that Evolution cannot even start to explain.

False

J C wrote:

We have never observed any "higher species" to actually INCREASE genetic information over time – Not good news for an Evolutionary Theory that postulates an increase in genetic information over time.

False

J C wrote:

I have also tapped my fingers for the past week awaiting a definitive rebuttal of my valid scientific hypothesis “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein and therefore gradual random evolution of life is an impossibility”.

You have been shown, I think at last count, 4

J C wrote:

You have collectively and individually failed to disprove my hypothesis that Evolution is scientifically invalid.

False

Ok .. moving on

Zombrex

JC is probably going to response with a demand that I produce links that what he says is false. You know what I couldn't be arsed because I, and everyone else on this thread has already done that about 5 times each, so I really don't want to do it again. He has simply ignored them. Like someone said, I think it is time to move on and ignore the trolls of this "trained scientist" because he is clearly not interested in discussing evolution

davros

Wicknight wrote:

JC is probably going to response with a demand that I produce links that what he says is false.

Right. Nothing will be served by any more back'n'forth among the participants on this thread.

I think the only sure way to draw a line under it is to close the thread. If anyone has anything new to say about Ken Ham's visit, please start a new thread.