Creation V Evolution Debate

robindch

A propos of my various postings about the intellectual vacuity of creationism and the deeply dishonest habits of creationists, the following article by Richard Dawkins which was published in the Times last week seems relevant:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-196-1619264,00.html

On a slightly lighter note ('coz it's the weekend), the infamous 'institute for creation research', a California-based bunch of creationists (on the internet here), has spawned a chemical counterpart, the reDiscovery Institute) which highlights the controversy surrounding the periodic table (see here).

Enjoy!

Spudminister

God is gay.

Eoghan-psych

J C wrote:

Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculated the odds of producing the biochemical sequences of an Amoeba using undirected processes at 10^^-40,000. This means that all life including any ET life that may be discovered must have been created.

I should point out that Sir Fred Hoyle was a former Astronomer Royal i.e. the top astronomer in Britain – and so his calculations carry considerable academic “weight”.

Chemical interactions are not "undirected", so WHOOSH goes that silly argument. Given elements interact in given ways with other elements - e.g. the well known interaction preferences of Carbon.

Fred Hoyle may have been a great astronomer, but astronomers aren't biochemists.

The chances of selecting the correct lottery numbers are *highly* improbable [(52x51x50x49x48x47)/(1x2x3x4x5x6) if my leaving cert maths are holding up - and that's just one draw] yet people do it, week in and week out.

Eoghan-psych

J C wrote:

You are correct, science cannot claim to know how the universe was CREATED because Creation Week was a once-off event that cannot be repeatably observed (which is a condition required by The Scientific Method).

Wrong - only the *effects* must be repeatedly observable. Unless you want to argue that pompeii didn't happen? I hope not, because you'll look silly.

J C wrote:

You are also correct that Science should come up with theories based on evidence and should be willing to change it's opinions based on new evidence. However, the evolutionists on this thread have shown a distinct reluctance to change their opinions in the face of mounting evidence proving Evolution to be invalid – and Creation to be true.

Citations for this please - Nature and Science publish dozens of papers a month on this area. Please direct us to *five*. Unless you're lying?

J C wrote:

Creation Science IS based on repeatably verifiable evidence – some of which I have already shared with you on this thread.

Citations for peer reviewed journals please.

J C wrote:

As a Creation Scientist, I can confirm that Galileo was correct on both of these issues!!!

If you are a creation scientist, please provide us with citations of your work from peer reviewed sources.

Eoghan-psych

J C wrote:

1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.

Quantum physics says you're lying. Your pathetically simplistic notions of cause and effect have been shown to be false. Strike one.

J C wrote:

2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.

Again, science says you're lying. Strike two - certain domains of the universe work no more like clockwork than they work like giant parsnips.

Your baseless assertion that this god has testicles is also noted.

J C wrote:

3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.

Only possible solution? Bollocks. Strike three - you're out.

Oh wait, there's more:

J C wrote:

4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.

Bollocks. Ever stare at clouds? Information is a post-hoc phenomenon. Strike four [not looking good for you, is it?]

J C wrote:

5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.

Nylon bug. Stop lying. Strike five.

J C wrote:

6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God.

Bollocks again. Demonstrate that this fairy of yours exists, period, and then set about demonstrating that she had anything to do with the universe.

You're worse than the climate change deniers - they at least have economic reasons for their lies, whereas you have only dogma. Pathetic.

J C

Quote Playboy
Jc if you cant understand that the evolution theory has practical applications to modern science (esp. genetics) then I am not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. You are obviously too narrow minded to accept that there is a distinct possibility that the evolution theory is correct.
Evolution can only have practical applications if it is TRUE. As a former evolutionist myself I am open to all possibilities. I have looked for evidence of ‘muck to man evolution’ and I didn’t find any. I must also say that I am not alone in this – nobody on this thread has provided any evidence either.
It most certainly wouldn’t be a waste of time for you to share any discoveries that you may have made in this regard – you would be the first evolutionist to produce repeatably observable evidence for evolution – and you would therefore be in line for a Nobel Prize!!!


Quote Playboy
Evolutionists generally accept that like most theories evolution is under constant revision in order to try and improve and perfect it.

But Evolution is NOT like most SCIENTIFIC theories – which remain largely unchanged once they have been established and tested by empirical evidence. Evolution is a SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESIS that has undergone massive change over the past 100 years – and unlike valid scientific theories it still has no repeatably observable evidence to support it.

Quote Playboy
Creationism has no evidence to support it apart from the fact that it was written in a book (which is not evidence btw). Your 'proofs' for the existence of God are completely laughable, unfounded and immature.

Please note that none of my proofs mentions the Bible, which is a faith-based book – and I have explicitly stated that my proofs for the existence of God were CIRCUMSTANTIAL and therefore not SCIENTIFIC. However, these circumstantial proofs are most definitely well founded on observable reality – and circumstantial evidence has a status of proof approaching scientific evidence.
If you have an alternative better explanation for any of the following circumstantial proofs I would certainly like to see it.
Each proof provides FACT, EVIDENCE and REASONING as PROOF for the existence of a personal God and His activities in the Universe.


1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God


Quote Playboy
If you honestly use them (proofs of God) to convince yourself of the existence of God then you really don’t show much interest in trying to understand it properly or else you would have realised that practically every point you gave, as a proof is completely unfounded

Every proof that I gave is founded on observable reality and uses evidentially based logical reasoning.


Quote Playboy
What proof do you offer that the creation story is true?

The proofs that Divine Special Creation occurred are contained in Proofs 4 to 6 above.


Quote Playboy
You gave us your proofs of the existence of God but what makes this God the God of the bible?

The God of the Bible is the only God that I know of who has claimed to be a transcendent personal God who single-handedly created the Universe and all life therein in six days. He is also the only God that I am aware of who ‘fits’ every one of my six proofs above and many more besides.
He also happens to be the only God that I am aware of who loved you and me personally so much that He humbled Himself to take on our Human nature and to suffer the most horrible death imaginable in perfect atonement for ALL of our sins. All that He asks in return is that we turn to Him and repent of our sins – which is literally ‘nothing’ in comparison with what He has done for us.

Quote Playboy
I am not an atheist and I do believe in a God. I also believe that the essential message of loving and forgiveness given to us by the New Testament is amazing.

If you do believe in a God – why do you reject my objective fact-based proofs for His existence?
I would also point out that belief in “a God” or indeed in “loving and forgiveness” will not save you – you must believe on Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour in order to be saved.

Quote Robin
if one wishes to fritter one's life away propagating rather poorly-written and unimaginative Sumerian legends, then going to all the hassle of receiving a proper education in science, or anything else, is certainly a complete waste of time!

The Holy Bible is the infallible word of God – any resemblance, which may exist, between it and deficient Sumerian legends is due to the fact that various cultures around the world have passed down corrupted versions of historical events such as Divine Special Creation and Noah’s Flood through ‘word of mouth’ folklore. The Sumerian creation and flood legends are obvious examples of such stories. The full definitive truth of these events however, is only to be found in the Bible.
On your second point it is self-evidentially a waste of time to fritter away one’s life propagating a belief in an unfounded assertion that ‘muck evolved into man’. The resultant conclusion from such a belief that each person comes from nothing and leads a meaningless, unaccountable existence while waiting to go nowhere is quite depressing and pointless indeed.

Quote Robin
On a slightly lighter note ('coz it's the weekend), the infamous 'institute for creation research', a California-based bunch of creationists (on the internet here), has spawned a chemical counterpart, the reDiscovery Institute) which highlights the controversy surrounding the periodic table (see here).

If you wish to comment on the Discovery Institute then please direct people to the real Discovery Institute site and not a SPOOF “reDiscovery Institute” site which has no links whatever to the real Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/.

Evolutionists should read the writings of Creation Scientists rather than wasting their time on spoof creationist sites.


Quote Robin
A propos of my various postings about the intellectual vacuity of creationism and the deeply dishonest habits of creationists

All Creation Scientists that I know are honourable people who believe in Jesus Christ’s statement that ‘the truth will set you free’.

In relation to the Times article I would make the following observations:-
1. The religious right AREN’T trying to ban the teaching of Evolution in Kansas. Creation Scientists and indeed other professional scientists are asking that the balancing evidence against Evolution be presented in public schools AS WELL AS any evidence, which may exist for Evolution. The questioning of existing theory is quite normal for all other scientific disciplines – the amazing thing is that a hearing must be held into allowing ANY criticism of Evolution.
2. Creation Scientists certainly don’t take pleasure in science’s inability to explain certain phenomena. In fact, just like all other professional scientists, they devote their working lives in the pursuit of new knowledge on precisely such issues. All they ask is that what is known to science currently should be clearly identified and equally what is not scientifically established should also be clearly flagged. They also reasonably ask that any scientist (including themselves), who is engaging in speculation, should state that they are doing so. All of this is encompassed in the Scientific Method and it is actually a pre-requisite to scientific progress.

robindch

> nobody on this thread has provided any evidence either

Because you're looking to have religious people provide you with facts about biology -- perhaps you should try asking a biologist, or maybe you could try again in the skeptics forum, where you were provided with plenty of evidence (all of which you cheerfully ignored) and where your half-baked opinions were given a good roasting earlier in the year? That's before your threads were locked for your habit of continuously going around in circles and not listening to a word that anybody was saying to you.

BTW, as though it weren't obvious, asking about biology in a religious forum is as useful as landing in a vegetarians' forum looking for recipes for rump steak.

> The religious right AREN’T trying to ban the teaching of
> Evolution in Kansas.

Almost -- they're doing their best to discredit 'theories' and all that frightful business with honesty and limitations -- see this link. Actually, since I know that you almost never follow any references which folk like me go to the trouble of finding for you, I'll quote this useful article here in full:

Kansas Board of Ed Bans All Theories From Classroom
The Kansas Board of Education has determined that every element of the school curriculum based on anything called a theory should be re-evaluated and that alternative views should be presented. "Our recent inquiries into the biology curriculum and the role of the so-called theory of evolution have made it abundantly clear that "science" is full of theories," said board member Kathy Martin. "We've heard compelling evidence to suggest that evolution does not deserve a place in our classrooms, and I think we owe it to the children of Kansas to make sure that other questionable theories don't slide in under the radar." The Board's four-day hearings on the teaching of evolution, held in early May, ended in acrimony as mainstream scientists accused the Board of attempting to sneak creationist views into the science curriculum under the guise of "intelligent design." Scientists say this is a form of creationism veiled in pseudoscientific jargon to appear more palatable as an alternative to the widely accepted theory of evolution. While many observers anticipated that the Kansas hearings would end favorably for intelligent design proponents - since several members of the Kansas Board of Education stated prior to the hearings that they did not accept the theory of evolution - many were surprised at the sweeping scope of their recommendations.

"One does wonder what exactly they expect Kansas schoolchildren to study," said Martin Freeman, professor of geology at the University of Kansas. "If the Board's intention was to send a message to the world, they've succeeded. The message is: "Stay Away From Kansas.""

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data available.

"By definition, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know," explained Freeman. "Aha!" shouted Martin. "See? They admit they can't prove any of it! On the other hand, the truth of the Bible is absolute. This can be easily proven, because the Bible says so. Q.E.D., mister scientist. Q.E.D."

Among the theories besides evolution that would be eliminated from the curriculum by the Kansas Board of Education's ruling are the theories of gravity, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, acoustic theory, plate tectonics, algorithmic information theory, computation theory, graph theory, number theory, and probability theory. Critical theory and literary theory would also be banished, effectively removing virtually all books from the curriculum as well. "Well, that's not really a loss," said Martin. "You see, we figure that if the books agree with the Bible, they are superfluous; if they contradict it, they are dangerous. We are really just doing our job to make schools safe for our children."

"This is obviously some strange use of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of," said Freeman. "Anyone leaving Kansas now? Can I get a lift?"

Even though this is a joke, I still can't distinguish it from what's going on in Kansas. Perhaps the Wizard of Oz knows? Perhaps it's another one of Bush's attempts to render the sabre-tusk of satire toothless?

> Every proof that I gave is founded on observable reality
> and uses evidentially based logical reasoning. [...] Creation
> scientists who devote their working lives in the pursuit of
> new knowledge on precisely such issues. [...] questioning of
> existing theory is quite normal [...] a pre-requisite
> to scientific progress.

I have to agree with Eoghan-psych and say that this is complete and total bollocks. The six points above which you listed above are fantasy and have been pulled, still steaming, out of a horse's ass. For your 'new knowledge', you're as indebted to your imagination as you are to the twitchless quill of a four-thousand-year dead Iraqi scribe and your opinions belong back then too; your convictions need a ground-up reconstruction as much as present-day Iraq does now, and for much the same reasons. Your understanding of science would discredit an idiot and your grasp of truth is sweaty and kak-handed. Your grasp of scientific principle shows that for every front row in a science class, there must be a back row too and your contribution to this debate, for all the converts you've gained to this square-jawed creed, might as well have been farted in triplicate from the top of the Cliffs of Moher in a hurricane. Progress for you is a backwards three-legged race uphill with a bag on your head and chips up your nose, and you wouldn't notice a good question if it sprouted legs, jumped up, and exploded at chest height. You wouldn't recognise reality if it came up and offered you the keys to its car. Logic and you have never met and you couldn't identify reason if it was squat-bang in front of you with a orange fireworks on top. You can't distinguish evidence from tapioca; you couldn't observe something even if it produced twelve-foot flames under your nose and you can't tell a solid proof from a West Clare catfish.

Actually, upon reflection, maybe you should indeed stick to creationism and let us all know what kind of wooden eggs can be found at the end of the wild-goose chase laid on by the clueless pseuds in the fake "discovery institute" and its bogus friends. Because with such feeble and faulty analytical powers as your own on offer, I can assure you that you'd be laughed off any team of real biologists before you could uncork your hookah and unroll your mat on your first tea-break. But then again, you probably knew that anyway

J C

Quote Eoghan-psysch
Chemical interactions are not "undirected", so WHOOSH goes that silly argument. Given elements interact in given ways with other elements - e.g. the well known interaction preferences of Carbon.

All “ordinary” chemical reactions of random chemical mixtures only produce impure (and biologically useless) compound mixtures – and chemicals must be purified and reacted in controlled specific ways to produce specific organic compounds – ask any chemical engineer. All living processes are observed to be based on extremely complex cascades of highly controlled specific chemical reactions. If these go out of control you die!!!
The “well known interaction preferences of Carbon” have never been observed to produce anything approaching life spontaneously – so WHOOSH my proof remains valid!!!


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Fred Hoyle may have been a great astronomer, but astronomers aren't biochemists.
As Astronomer Royal, Sir Fred Hoyle also had legitimate overview responsibility for examining the origins and possible distribution mechanisms of life in the Universe – and he therefore would have had professional access to biochemists in this regard. We can therefore take his pronouncements in regard to the mathematical impossibility of the spontaneous generation of the bio molecules required for a simple organism as scientifically valid – and they haven’t been successfully challenged in this regard, as far as I am aware.


Quote Eoghan-psysch
The chances of selecting the correct lottery numbers are *highly* improbable [(52x51x50x49x48x47)/(1x2x3x4x5x6) if my leaving cert maths are holding up - and that's just one draw] yet people do it, week in and week out.

The odds of winning the National Lottery are a highly PROBABLE c 5 million to one – and the Law of Big Numbers ensures that the Lotto is won on average every time that c 5 million tickets are purchased which is roughly every week. In fact all Lotteries are deliberately designed to have odds of winning to match their target markets.
Sir Fred Hoyle’s number however, is in a completely different league at 10^^-40,000. To put this number into perspective the estimated number of electrons in the Universe is only 10^^82. The Law of Big Numbers would indicate that the bio-molecules for an Amoeba would be produced on average after 10^^40,000 attempts – an impossible task even if every electron in the Universe were harnessed effectively almost for eternity to do so.


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Originally Posted by J C
You are correct, science cannot claim to know how the universe was CREATED because Creation Week was a once-off event that cannot be repeatably observed (which is a condition required by The Scientific Method).

Wrong - only the *effects* must be repeatedly observable. Unless you want to argue that pompeii didn't happen? I hope not, because you'll look silly.

I did say that the EVENTS of Creation Week cannot be repeatably observed – so the EVENTS of Creation itself cannot be verified scientifically.

You are correct that the EFFECTS of Creation and it’s aftermath CAN be subjected to scientific research – and this is precisely what Creation Scientists do every day in their work.


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Originally Posted by J C
You are also correct that Science should come up with theories based on evidence and should be willing to change it's opinions based on new evidence. However, the evolutionists on this thread have shown a distinct reluctance to change their opinions in the face of mounting evidence proving Evolution to be invalid – and Creation to be true.

Citations for this please - Nature and Science publish dozens of papers a month on this area. Please direct us to *five*. Unless you're lying?

The fact is that Evolutionary scientists in general refuse to recognise the work of former Evolutionary Scientists who become Creation Scientists. To refuse to recognise work and then demand that the author of the work produce proof that it is recognised is certainly an interesting idea!!!!

I believe that it is called a ‘Catch 22’.


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Originally Posted by J C
1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.

Quantum physics says you're lying. Your pathetically simplistic notions of cause and effect have been shown to be false. Strike one.

Quantum mechanics only applies at sub-atomic levels of resolution. Could I remind you that what we are dealing with in living systems is decidedly above the sub-atomic level.
Quantum mechanics has no relevance to any plausible mechanisms for the undirected production of living organisms whose life processes work at a distinctly macro atomic levels.
Please do bear in mind that science is actually all about identifying and measuring the effects of causes and indeed the causes of effects!!!!
Your strike one is OUT!!


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Originally Posted by J C
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.

Again, science says you're lying. Strike two - certain domains of the universe work no more like clockwork than they work like giant parsnips.

The observed Universe down to atomic level is so predictable and machine-like that we can literally set our (atomic) clocks by it.
Parsnips of all possible sizes also show evidence of purposeful design and are made up of cells that work like micro-precision machines.
Your strike two is OUT!!


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Originally Posted by J C
3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.

Only possible solution? Bollocks. Strike three - you're out.

Ignoring your un-parliamentary language for a moment – I would like to point out that this point is based upon the Second LAW of Thermodynamics – which remains a valid Law of Physics last time I checked – or do you believe in Perpetual Motion Machines?
Your strike three is OUT!!!


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Originally Posted by J C
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.

Bollocks. Ever stare at clouds? Information is a post-hoc phenomenon. Strike four [not looking good for you, is it?]

Again, ignoring your un-parliamentary language – I would like to point out that this point is based upon Information Theory. Clouds are random accumulations of largely inert water vapour – and a random cloud has no meaningful relationship with the massive amounts of purposeful encoded information observed in even the simplest cell?
You may well believe that the information encoded in your writings is “a post hoc phenomena”.
My purposeful logical comments certainly aren’t – nor is any other information that I have ever observed!!!!!
Your strike four is OUT!!!


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Originally Posted by J C
5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.

Nylon bug. Stop lying. Strike five.

Do tell me about the Nylon bug – and why are you accusing IT of lying?
Your strike five is OUT – I think??!!!
Or maybe your lying Nylon bug can ‘save the day’ for you!!!!


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Originally Posted by J C
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God.

Bollocks again. Demonstrate that this fairy of yours exists, period, and then set about demonstrating that she had anything to do with the universe.

Once again, I have to say that your un-parliamentary language is very unbecoming.
I would like to point out that my point is based upon the Law of Biogenesis – which is actually one of the few currently valid Scientific Laws of Biology – or have YOU observed life spontaneously generating from inanimate matter recently – if so and you can prove it, a Nobel Prize will be making it’s way to you soon!!!!
The sovereign awesome Creator God of the Universe certainly exists and objectively proves that He does. His invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Your strike six is OUT!!!

GAME SET AND MATCH TO GOD!!!!

solas

havent participated in this discussion for a while and so I'm not so up to date on the posts but after reading this over at paranormal I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on it.

J C

Quote Robin
I have to agree with Eoghan-psych and say that this is complete and total bollocks. The six points above which you listed above are fantasy and have been pulled out of a horse’s ass. For your ‘new knowledge’, you’re as indebted to your imagination as you are to the quill of an Iraqi scribe from four thousand years ago and your opinions belong back then too; your convictions need a ground-up reconstruction as much as present-day Iraq does now, and for much the same reasons. Your understanding of science would discredit an idiot and your grasp of truth is sweaty and kak-handed. Progress for you is a backwards three-legged race with a bag over your head and you wouldn’t know a good question if it sprouted legs and exploded. You wouldn’t recognise reality if it came up and offered you the keys to its car. Logic and you have never met and you couldn’t identify reason if it was squat-bang in front of you with a flashing blue light on top, spitting both fire and brimstone. You can’t distinguish evidence from tapioca; you couldn’t observe something even if it produced twelve-foot flames under your nose and you can’t tell a solid proof from a West Clare catfish.

Actually, upon reflection, maybe you should indeed stick to creationism and let us all know what kind of wooden goose-eggs can be found at the end of the wild-goose chase laid on by the clueless pseuds in the “discovery institute”. Because with such feeble, but resolutely square-jawed, analytical powers as your own on offer, I can assure you that you’d be laughed out of any team of real biologists before you could even unroll your mat and hookah on your first tea-break.

I hope that you are feeling better now that you have ‘coughed up’ all of this ‘bile and vitriol’ – are you sure that you have got rid of it all, Robin?
In any event, you haven’t made a single valid criticism of ANY of my proofs for the existence of God.
Such personalised attacks show that when you have NO answer to the message of my evidence, reasoning and logic you try to ‘shoot the messenger’. I might also add that your intemperate language also doesn’t help persuade any objective observers of your argument – but then you don’t have a real argument to present against my views or indeed in favour of Evolution – do you?
The people of Kansas are waking up to the truth about Evolution – and the ‘overselling’ of this invalid theory does indeed threaten the very credibility of all of Science in the minds of the general public. It is quite likely that other branches of science will have to call Evolutionists to account on this issue – if they are unwilling to do so themselves. The very authority of all of science is 'on the line' on this one.

robindch

> you have NO answer to the message of my evidence

As I said above, you can't distinguish evidence from tapioca. Do feel free to read my message again if you've forgotten it already

> His invisible qualities [...] have been clearly seen,

Aww... it's little gems like this which make me want to reply and get you to produce a few more little baby clangers!

Here's a relevant quote from the start of HL Mencken's excellent reporting of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, where a biology teacher was prosecuted for daring to teach biology in a state controlled by religious fundies:

Such obscenities as the forthcoming trial of the Tennessee evolutionist, if they serve no other purpose, at least call attention dramatically to the fact that enlightenment, among mankind, is very narrowly dispersed. It is common to assume that human progress affects everyone -- that even the dullest man, in these bright days, knows more than any man of, say, the Eighteenth Century, and is far more civilized. This assumption is quite erroneous. The men of the educated minority, no doubt, know more than their predecessors, and of some of them, perhaps, it may be said that they are more civilized -- though I should not like to be put to giving names -- but the great masses of men, even in this inspired republic, are precisely where the mob was at the dawn of history. They are ignorant, they are dishonest, they are cowardly, they are ignoble. They know little if anything that is worth knowing, and there is not the slightest sign of a natural desire among them to increase their knowledge.

Such immortal vermin, true enough, get their share of the fruits of human progress, and so they may be said, in a way, to have their part in it. The most ignorant man, when he is ill, may enjoy whatever boons and usufructs modern medicine may offer -- that is, provided he is too poor to choose his own doctor. He is free, if he wants to, to take a bath. The literature of the world is at his disposal in public libraries. He may look at works of art. He may hear good music. He has at hand a thousand devices for making life less wearisome and more tolerable: the telephone, railroads, bichloride tablets, newspapers, sewers, correspondence schools, delicatessen. But he had no more to do with bringing these things into the world than the horned cattle in the fields, and he does no more to increase them today than the birds of the air.

On the contrary, he is generally against them, and sometimes with immense violence. Every step in human progress, from the first feeble stirrings in the abyss of time, has been opposed by the great majority of men. Every valuable thing that has been added to the store of man's possessions has been derided by them when it was new, and destroyed by them when they had the power. They have fought every new truth ever heard of, and they have killed every truth-seeker who got into their hands.

The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his congenital hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows more than he does, and so gets more out of life. Certainly it cannot have gone unnoticed that their membership is recruited, in the overwhelming main, from the lower orders -- that no man of any education or other human dignity belongs to them.

Good heavens, things haven't changed much in eighty years, now, have they?! The full text of Mencken's excellent reporting is here.

Enjoy!

Eoghan-psych

I had to laugh heartily at his delusional ramblings before replying -

J C wrote:

All “ordinary” chemical reactions of random chemical mixtures only produce impure (and biologically useless) compound mixtures – and chemicals must be purified and reacted in controlled specific ways to produce specific organic compounds – ask any chemical engineer.

All compound mixtures, by definition, are impure. Biologically useless? Yes, amino acids are *absolutely* useless. Oh wait, no they're not. Self replicating molecules based on the interaction properties of carbon have been demonstrated many times. I suggest you check the literature before making pronouncements about it and looking like an idiot.

J C wrote:

As Astronomer Royal, Sir Fred Hoyle also had legitimate overview responsibility for examining the origins and possible distribution mechanisms of life in the Universe – and he therefore would have had professional access to biochemists in this regard. We can therefore take his pronouncements in regard to the mathematical impossibility of the spontaneous generation of the bio molecules required for a simple organism as scientifically valid – and they haven’t been successfully challenged in this regard, as far as I am aware.

Mathematical impossibility? If you go and check, you will see that not only did Hoyle not posit the scenario you claim, he also vehemently opposed the scenario *you* are trying to propose. An argument from authority collapses once your chosen authority disagrees with your fundamental argument. Hoyle wan't a creationist - quite the opposite.

J C wrote:

The odds of winning the National Lottery are a highly PROBABLE c 5 million to one – and the Law of Big Numbers ensures that the Lotto is won on average every time that c 5 million tickets are purchased which is roughly every week. In fact all Lotteries are deliberately designed to have odds of winning to match their target markets.
Sir Fred Hoyle’s number however, is in a completely different league at 10^^-40,000. To put this number into perspective the estimated number of electrons in the Universe is only 10^^82. The Law of Big Numbers would indicate that the bio-molecules for an Amoeba would be produced on average after 10^^40,000 attempts – an impossible task even if every electron in the Universe were harnessed effectively almost for eternity to do so.

Hahahahaahaha! How many times per second do electrons interact?

As for "on average" - tested many universes have you? *One* successful occurrence is all that is needed, and there is *no* requirement for that to be the last possible solution to be tried. Add to that the effects of a selection mechanism and your argument collapses, again.

J C wrote:

I did say that the EVENTS of Creation Week cannot be repeatably observed – so the EVENTS of Creation itself cannot be verified scientifically.

You are correct that the EFFECTS of Creation and it’s aftermath CAN be subjected to scientific research – and this is precisely what Creation Scientists do every day in their work.

Where? Five citations from the last 12 months of Nature and Science. Unless you're lying? [Science and Nature are the most appropriate places to publish such work, which means that these "scientists" would be publishing there]

J C wrote:

The fact is that Evolutionary scientists in general refuse to recognise the work of former Evolutionary Scientists who become Creation Scientists. To refuse to recognise work and then demand that the author of the work produce proof that it is recognised is certainly an interesting idea!!!!

I believe that it is called a ‘Catch 22’.

No, it's called "peer review". Any quick perusal of the literature shows that your argument is, again, nonsense. Peer review keeps creationism out because it isn't science. Period. Said quick perusal shows that many many scientific areas gain acceptance purely because the peer review process is data driven - a new idea might appear crazy, but if there is sufficient data, from properly conducted investigation, it makes it into the literature. Creationists have existed *far* longer than science - and *still* they don't make it into the literature. Why is that? It's because they aren't doing science - they're doing religious apologetics.

J C wrote:

Quantum mechanics only applies at sub-atomic levels of resolution. Could I remind you that what we are dealing with in living systems is decidedly above the sub-atomic level.
Quantum mechanics has no relevance to any plausible mechanisms for the undirected production of living organisms whose life processes work at a distinctly macro atomic levels.
Please do bear in mind that science is actually all about identifying and measuring the effects of causes and indeed the causes of effects!!!!
Your strike one is OUT!!

Eh, no. Science is about measuring temporally contiguous, correlated events and inferring "cause" and "effect" from that. But, again, your pathetically simplistic position is duly noted and placed in the silly pile along with all your other arguments.

J C wrote:

The observed Universe down to atomic level is so predictable and machine-like that we can literally set our (atomic) clocks by it.
Parsnips of all possible sizes also show evidence of purposeful design and are made up of cells that work like micro-precision machines.
Your strike two is OUT!!

Purposeful? Please outline the criteria you use to distinguish "purposeful" from "purposeless" and then demonstrate the source of this "purposefulness".

Unless, again, you are just lying?

J C wrote:

Ignoring your un-parliamentary language for a moment – I would like to point out that this point is based upon the Second LAW of Thermodynamics – which remains a valid Law of Physics last time I checked – or do you believe in Perpetual Motion Machines?
Your strike three is OUT!!!

A spade is a spade, not a terrain redistribution implement. Your argument is bollocks, so bollocks it has been labelled.

Ah yes, that old creationist chestnut, the 2LT. The second law of thermodynamics refers to thermodynamically closed systems. The biosphere is a thermodynamically *open* system, so your argument [notice a pattern emerging?] is bollocks.

See that big yellow thing in the sky? You know, the sun? That showers this planet with energy all day, every day, for billions of years.

Until such time as the sun goes POOF and swallows the planet, the 2LT argument is nonsense.

J C wrote:

Again, ignoring your un-parliamentary language – I would like to point out that this point is based upon Information Theory. Clouds are random accumulations of largely inert water vapour – and a random cloud has no meaningful relationship with the massive amounts of purposeful encoded information observed in even the simplest cell?
You may well believe that the information encoded in your writings is “a post hoc phenomena”.
My purposeful logical comments certainly aren’t – nor is any other information that I have ever observed!!!!!
Your strike four is OUT!!!

There is a small cloud outside my window. It looks like a dog. Why does it look like a dog? Because my history of experience has consolidated an image of 'dogness' in my brain. My brain is an 'information filter'.

Please outline the criteria you use to distinguish "information" from "non information".

The information encoded in my writing *is* a post hoc phenomenon. It means *nothing* until two or more people with a shared history in the verbal community have access to it. The writing is not information - it's just patterns of light and dark on a monitor.

J C wrote:

Do tell me about the Nylon bug – and why are you accusing IT of lying?
Your strike five is OUT – I think??!!!
Or maybe your lying Nylon bug can ‘save the day’ for you!!!!

That you have never head of the nylon bug says volumes about your abilty to discuss this area. Google is free - go use it.

J C wrote:

The sovereign awesome Creator God of the Universe certainly exists and objectively proves that He does. His invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Your strike six is OUT!!!

The bizarre speech and delusions you show above are indicative of profound disorder.

Most noticeable is that you have abandoned all pretense at arguing sensibly, instead reverting to type and splashing religious dogma on the page. Pathetic. Any semi literate christian here will agree with that assessment, by the way.

J C wrote:

GAME SET AND MATCH TO GOD!!!!

Yes, if the point of this "match" is to score no points whatsoever your "god" has indeed won.

Have an m&m.

Eoghan-psych

J C wrote:

The people of Kansas are waking up to the truth about Evolution – and the ‘overselling’ of this invalid theory does indeed threaten the very credibility of all of Science in the minds of the general public. It is quite likely that other branches of science will have to call Evolutionists to account on this issue – if they are unwilling to do so themselves. The very authority of all of science is 'on the line' on this one.

Only in the US. You know, that place where about a third of the population are convinced that they have been taken up into spaceships by the aliens? That place. Yes, we should definitely be taking the people of Kansas as a valid authority on the validity of tens of millions of hours of scientific research. Pfft.

Capt'n Midnight

robindch wrote:

which highlights the controversy surrounding the periodic table (see here). Enjoy!

Nice - http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/foldedtable.html the original one ! - I can't find a link to one that has H linked to both sides and diagonal lines linking properties on both sides of the table from second row to transition elements.

If creationists can explain all observed facts then I would be very worried.

Here is a classic theory that did not match all observed facts, in fact some parts of it ignored experimental evidence BUT it predicted future observations very accurately and later expirements explained the discrepencies.. http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/perhist.htm

At the time that Mendeleev developed his periodic table since the experimentally determined atomic masses were not always accurate, he reordered elements despite their accepted masses. For example, he changed the weight of beryllium from 14 to 9. This placed beryllium into Group 2 above magnesium whose properties it more closely resembled than where it had been located above nitrogen. In all Mendeleev found that 17 elements had to be moved to new positions from those indicated strictly by atomic weight for their properties to correlate with other elements. These changes indicated that there were errors in the accepted atomic weights of some elements (atomic weights were calculated from combining weights, the weight of an element that combines with a given weight of a standard.) However, even after corrections were made by redetermining atomic weights, some elements still needed to be placed out of order of their atomic weights. From the gaps present in his table, Mendeleev predicted the existence and properties of unknown elements which he called eka-aluminum, eka-boron, and eka-silicon. The elements gallium, scandium and germanium were found later to fit his predictions quite well. In addition to the fact that Mendeleev's table was published before Meyers', his work was more extensive predicting new or missing elements. In all Mendeleev predicted the existence of 10 new elements, of which seven were eventually discovered -- the other three, atomic weights 45, 146 and 175 do not exist. He also was incorrect in suggesting that the element pairs of argon-potassium, cobalt-nickel and tellurium-iodine should be interchanged in position due to inaccurate atomic weights. Although these elements did need to be interchanged, it was because of a flaw in the reasoning that periodicity is a function of atomic weight.

So I have one little question, what testable predictions has creation science made that differ from evolutionary science ?

Myksyk

I have to agree with Eoghan-psych and say that this is complete and total bollocks. The six points above which you listed above are fantasy and have been pulled, still steaming, out of a horse's ass. For your 'new knowledge', you're as indebted to your imagination as you are to the twitchless quill of a four-thousand-year dead Iraqi scribe and your opinions belong back then too; your convictions need a ground-up reconstruction as much as present-day Iraq does now, and for much the same reasons. Your understanding of science would discredit an idiot and your grasp of truth is sweaty and kak-handed. Your grasp of scientific principle shows that for every front row in a science class, there must be a back row too and your contribution to this debate, for all the converts you've gained to this square-jawed creed, might as well have been farted in triplicate from the top of the Cliffs of Moher in a hurricane. Progress for you is a backwards three-legged race uphill with a bag on your head and chips up your nose, and you wouldn't notice a good question if it sprouted legs, jumped up, and exploded at chest height. You wouldn't recognise reality if it came up and offered you the keys to its car. Logic and you have never met and you couldn't identify reason if it was squat-bang in front of you with a orange fireworks on top. You can't distinguish evidence from tapioca; you couldn't observe something even if it produced twelve-foot flames under your nose and you can't tell a solid proof from a West Clare catfish.

Extremely bold but funniest and truest post I've read this year!!!

Eoghan-psych

Myksyk wrote:

Extremely bold but funniest and truest post I've read this year!!!

I agree - it made me laugh out loud. Got me some strange looks from people walking by the office.

J C

Quote Eoghan-psysch
All compound mixtures, by definition, are impure. Biologically useless? Yes, amino acids are *absolutely* useless. Oh wait, no they're not. Self replicating molecules based on the interaction properties of carbon have been demonstrated many times. I suggest you check the literature before making pronouncements about it and looking like an idiot.

You are correct that compound chemical MIXTURES are obviously impure. You are WRONG that an amino acid is a compound MIXTURE – it is in fact, a PURE COMPOUND MOLECULE with a SPECIFIC chemical formula.
BTW Amino Acids on their own ARE biologically useless – they must be incorporated into the very complex chemical cascades in living systems to become BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE.
“Self replicating molecules based on the interaction properties of carbon” have nothing in common with the complex purposeful sophisticated biochemical systems observed in living organisms.

Quote Eoghan-psysch
Mathematical impossibility? If you go and check, you will see that not only did Hoyle not posit the scenario you claim, he also vehemently opposed the scenario *you* are trying to propose. An argument from authority collapses once your chosen authority disagrees with your fundamental argument. Hoyle wan't a creationist - quite the opposite.

I agree that Sir Fred Hoyle wasn’t a Creation Scientist – but he proved that Evolution was an impossibility. His conclusion that Evolution is scientifically invalid remains, and that was the only point that I wished to make in relation to this eminent scientist.
I disagree with many of Sir Fred Hoyle’s other speculations, but I respect him as a brilliant fellow scientist who helped to push out the boundaries of scientific knowledge.
The previous use of the word ‘idiot’ in relation to both Sir Fred Hoyle and myself by contributors to this thread puts me in very good academic company indeed.
The recent routine use of 'expletives of the testicular variety' on this thread without any intervention from the moderator, is quite amazing – doubly so in view of the fact that I have been censured on this thread for merely using capital letters to emphasise certain words to improve the clarity of what I was trying to say!!!!!
Is there one rule for the sceptics on this thread and another one for the Christians – or is it only Creation Scientists that can be abused with impunity?


Quote Eoghan psych
How many times per second do electrons interact?

As for "on average" - tested many universes have you? *One* successful occurrence is all that is needed, and there is *no* requirement for that to be the last possible solution to be tried. Add to that the effects of a selection mechanism and your argument collapses, again

The fastest possible reaction time theoretically possible is one nano-second i.e. one thousand millionth of a second which bumps the figure of 10^^82 up to 10^^91 and if you then multiply it by the number of seconds in 20,000 million years the figure still only reaches 10^^109.
Please do bear in mind that most electrons in the universe are in either dark matter or stars and an electron isn’t obviously capable of producing a bio-molecular sequence anyway.
Please also note that ALL of these numbers are of the order of 10^^100 and they therefore bear no comparison to Sir Fred Hoyle’s 10^^-40,000. There is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to produce life without the application of massive intelligence.
Please bear in mind that these are only the odds of producing the bio-molecular SEQUENCES for an Amoeba. The whole array of molecular “machinery” observed operating in living systems to actually MANUFACTURE AND MANIPULATE the bio-molecules themselves is not addressed at all in Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculation.
Any ‘selection mechanism’ would require the pre-existence of life itself, and so it cannot be logically postulated as contributing to the spontaneous generation of life, in the first place. But even if such a mechanism were to miraculously arise, it would still be useless unless a conservation mechanism also miraculously arose. The failure by Evolutionists to propose ANY PRIMITIVE gradually evolving conservation mechanism to preserve information that might be accidentally acquired by any postulated primitive ‘selection mechanism’ makes the whole idea of Evolution quite laughable.
Evolution demands so many miracles that Evolutionists must be people of very deep faith – it is just a terrible pity that they don’t place their faith in the only person who can ultimately save them - The Lord Jesus Christ!!!!

Quote Eoghan psych
Peer review keeps creationism out because it isn't science. Period. Said quick perusal shows that many many scientific areas gain acceptance purely because the peer review process is data driven - a new idea might appear crazy, but if there is sufficient data, from properly conducted investigation, it makes it into the literature. Creationists have existed *far* longer than science - and *still* they don't make it into the literature. Why is that? It's because they aren't doing science - they're doing religious apologetics.

Peer review keeps Creation Science out because the reviewers are committed Evolutionists full stop.
As I have just shown above, the only people actually engaged in “religious apologetics” on the ‘Origins Question’ are the Evolutionists who continue to hold to a scientifically invalid theory DESPITE overwhelming evidence against it and NO supporting data.

Quote Eoghan psych
Science is about measuring temporally contiguous, correlated events and inferring "cause" and "effect" from that. But, again, your pathetically simplistic position is duly noted and placed in the silly pile along with all your other arguments.

Would you please then explain how Evolutionary Science can infer any “temporally contiguous, correlated” cause or effect between Evolutionary events that are supposedly separated by billions of years.


Quote Eoghan psych
Purposeful? Please outline the criteria you use to distinguish "purposeful" from "purposeless" and then demonstrate the source of this "purposefulness".
Sounds like you must have sat the Leaving Cert English paper today Eoghan!!!
At the risk of incurring Robin’s semantic grammatical wrath, I will try to answer your question!!!
A live chicken behaves “purposefully” – a headless chicken behaves “purposelessly”.

The source of all “purposefulness” is observed to be intelligence – and the ultimate source of this intelligence is God.


Quote Eoghan psych
Ah yes, that old creationist chestnut, the 2LT. The second law of thermodynamics refers to thermodynamically closed systems. The biosphere is a thermodynamically *open* system, so your argument [notice a pattern emerging?] is bollocks.

See that big yellow thing in the sky? You know, the sun? That showers this planet with energy all day, every day, for billions of years.

Until such time as the sun goes POOF and swallows the planet, the 2LT argument is nonsense.

My point was in relation to the SOURCE of ALL of the energy in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
The entire Universe IS a thermodynamically CLOSED system – so the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument IS valid.


Quote Eoghan psych
The information encoded in my writing is a post hoc phenomenon. It means nothing until two or more people with a shared history in the verbal community have access to it. The writing is not information – it’s just patterns of light and dark on a monitor.

Your point is actually another proof for Creation. All information is observed to be ENCODED – and is incomprehensible, as you have pointed out, unless it can be DECODED. Living systems have SEPARATE encoding and decoding systems – but the systems “understand” each other because they have a COMMON LANGUAGE.
To believe that an encoding system AND a decoding system AND a common language could be developed in an undirected manner is another miracle that Evolutionists must also believe in through faith. As I have said you really are people of VERY DEEP FAITH.


Quote Eoghan psych
The bizarre speech and delusions you show above are indicative of profound disorder.

Most noticeable is that you have abandoned all pretense at arguing sensibly, instead reverting to type and splashing religious dogma on the page

Both my faith-based observations and my scientific statements are ‘rock solid’ - and you haven’t been able to challenge ANY of them.


Quote Capt’n Midnight
So I have one little question, what testable predictions has creation science made that differ from evolutionary science ?

Speculating about testable predictions, framing testable hypotheses, observing the Universe and all life therein – are things that BOTH Evolutionary and Creation Scientists engage in every day.
Therefore, the answer to your question is that many TESTABLE PREDICTIONS are routinely made and tested every day by BOTH Creation Scientists and their Evolutionary colleagues – testing the predictions of theories is after all a key component of science!!!!

It is when Evolutions begins to speculate about the UNTESTABLE hypothesis ‘that muck evolved into man’ and claims that it is scientifically valid in spite of both evidence and logic being profoundly opposed to such a notion that Creation Scientists take issue with Evolutionists.

Phil_321

JC, what makes you so certain that the text in a 2000 year old book is infallible? Have you got any concrete proof?

Playboy

To argue for the existence of a creator or a God of some sort isnt that illogical, its a philosophical debate that has been ongoing for millenia, but to try and argue for the 'truth' of the creation myth is ridiculous. There is no evidence, circumstantial or scientific, to support the claim that God made the world in 7 days.

Eoghan-psych

Anyone else want to trash JC? His arguments have gone even further down hill [trying to argue, for example, that the entire universe forms out biosphere].

robindch

> Anyone else want to trash JC?

Nah, it's getting boring -- and I don't think that JC's able to appreciate the humor anyway; "coughing up vitriol and bile"? Now, really!!

Anyhow, lightening up the mood a bit:

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote:

Quote Eoghan psych
How many times per second do electrons interact?

As for "on average" - tested many universes have you? *One* successful occurrence is all that is needed, and there is *no* requirement for that to be the last possible solution to be tried. Add to that the effects of a selection mechanism and your argument collapses, again

The fastest possible reaction time theoretically possible is one nano-second ...Please do bear in mind that most electrons in the universe are in either dark matter or stars and an electron isn’t obviously capable of producing a bio-molecular sequence anyway.

Lets kick this one in the head.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~iangould/reallife/howfast/howfast.html - these guys were using femtosecond lasers and one reaction that was not dependent on activation energy was too fast to measure.This reaction occurs is less than a billionth of a billionth of a second! Also you have the entire volume of the ocean to work with, and in every 20g of sea water there are over 6.022x10^23 atoms all buzzing arround.

Have you ever mixed oil and water ? Using Fred Hoyle's methods would lead you to believe that the separation by random chance would take longer than the age of the universe ! But because of interactions like steric (shape) and hydrophilic and hydrophobic interactions so many possible configurations are ruled out that your degrees of freedom are far more limited. Activation Energies mean that many molecules once formed are semi stable. In a world without free oxygen or life polypeptides could last for a very long time. Lets not forget that bacteria have been found in the mantle many Km below the surface, a vast area of cracks and high pressure and metal salts and ores and surfaces, the mother of all pressure cookers with conditions that Stanley Miller could only dream about.

Many of the steps to life have been replicated. DNA has been decoded and for simple organisms most of the proteins have been investigated , not fully yet but bit by bit our knowledge grows. Self replication liposomes can be generated. The old idea of a vital force lasted until Urea was synthesised.

Then again if someone does produce an RNA filled liposome capable of self-replication using RNA enzymes a people like yourself will still argue.

And I'm still waiting for a prediction based upon creation science that is/was at odds with evolution science so we can review it.

J C

Quote Robin (from HL Mencken)
Such immortal vermin, true enough, get their share of the fruits of human progress, and so they may be said, in a way, to have their part in it…………………………….. he had no more to do with bringing these things into the world than the horned cattle in the fields, and he does no more to increase them today than the birds of the air…………………..The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his congenital hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows more than he does, and so gets more out of life. Certainly it cannot have gone unnoticed that their membership is recruited, in the overwhelming main, from the lower orders -- that no man of any education or other human dignity belongs to them.

Robin, have you REALLY READ this stuff?

Could I gently point out that it was the same type of religious and ethnic intolerance as expressed above in 1920’s America that ultimately led to the Death Camps in 1940’s Germany!!! The use of the word “vermin” is very chilling indeed as is the equivalence of certain Human Beings with beef cattle and the conclusion being drawn that they are a useless burden on society.

The use of the words “conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters”” parallels the unfounded paranoid propaganda used by the Nazis against Jews and born-again Christians in Europe. This ’paved the way’ for the killing of millions of the former and thousands of the latter in Hitler’s satanically-inspired reign of terror.
The phrase referring to “the lower orders” is straight out of the ‘evolutionary lore’ of the time which classified various races of Men as “higher” or “lower” on the Evolutionary Tree so to speak. This idea, of course, is totally unfounded – like the rest of Evolution.
All of mankind is actually of ‘one blood’ and we are ALL descended from one man and one woman who were specially created by God c 7,000 years ago.

Christian men and women working down the years for the glory of their creator and in the service of their fellow man have, in fact, greatly contributed to enlightened progress and knowledge. Based on the above shocking writings I cannot say the same for HL Mencken!!!!

Quote Robin
Good heavens, things haven't changed much in eighty years, now, have they
I certainly HOPE that they have – but I wouldn’t bet on it!!!.


Quote Phil 321
JC, what makes you so certain that the text in a 2000 year old book is infallible? Have you got any concrete proof?
We have very strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL proof that the Bible is true – the writings in the Old Testament have been around for in excess of 2,500 years and the writings of the New Testament for almost 2,000 years and not a single word has been proven to be untrue.


Quote Playboy
To argue for the existence of a creator or a God of some sort isnt that illogical, its a philosophical debate that has been ongoing for millenia, but to try and argue for the 'truth' of the creation myth is ridiculous. There is no evidence, circumstantial or scientific, to support the claim that God made the world in 7 days.

There is no need for a “philosophical debate” on the existence of God. The existence of the creator God of the Bible can be proven beyond all doubt by objective means – see my earlier circumstantial proofs.

You are correct that it is impossible to prove that God made the world in EXACTLY 6 days. However, there is very strong observable (i.e. scientific evidence) that living creatures and the biosphere were created over a very short time span.
For example, there is no evidence for gradual Evolution, and all of the evidence available indicates that animals and plants were created with phenotypes that were similar to what they now are. This indicates that individual animals had to be almost instantaneously created – if any lengthy creation process were to be used to produce a mammal, for example, they would be dead by the time that it was completed.
The interdependence that we observe in the biosphere would also rule out a lengthy creation process. For example, some plants require insects for pollination/reproduction and most members of the animal kingdom require plant food to survive. Equally, plants produce vast excesses of vegetation, which would be a total waste if there were not animals created simultaneously to utilise it.
Therefore, both plants and animals must have been created in close time proximity to each other because of their strong inter-dependence upon each other. A maximum of a few days seems to be just about right!!!!


Quote Eoghan-psysch
Anyone else want to trash JC? His arguments have gone even further down hill [trying to argue, for example, that the entire universe forms out biosphere].

The only arguments being well and truly trashed on this thread are the Evolutionist ones.
I have never said that “the entire universe forms our biosphere” – which is patent nonsense. PLEASE READ WHAT I HAVE SAID!!!!.

Could I gently remind you that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law of physics (and not biology) – and therefore it applies to the ENTIRE universe – and is not confined to any local biosphere.

My original third proof for the existence of God was “The fact that ALL ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe”.
Please note that this point concerned itself with ALL of the energy in the TOTAL universe – and wasn’t confined to any local biosphere or indeed any other local energy system. So, as I have already said, proof number 3 remains valid.


Quote Robin
Anyhow, lightening up the mood a bit:

So what have we got here, Robin – obviously when Evolutionists have lost the scientific argument they resort to cartoons – and fairly boring ones at that.
Some Evolutionist also did a great job in creating the “made-up” photograph as well!!!!!

Could I remind you that Creation Scientists argue that the EXISTENCE of entropy PROVES that God exists – they DON’T argue that entropy doesn’t exist, as implied in the photo.

Actually the guy with the “no entropy” sign must be an Evolutionist “entropy denier” like Eoghan-psysch (see his previous postings denying the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics).
Come to think of it, the lady who doesn’t accept the “fundamental tenets of science” (such as the requirement for scientific theories to be based upon REPEATABLY OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE) must also be an Evolutionist. Maybe it is a genuine photo after all – taken at an Evolutionist’s Convention!!!!

With spoof Creationist sites, cartoons and crude jokes at other people’s expense, evolutionists should really go into the entertainment industry.
Oh, but I forgot you have been entertaining us for over 100 years with glorious fairytales. The best story I think, is the one about the frog that evolved into a prince – my nine year old laughs in disbelief every time that I tell it to him.
Amazingly, I have seen grown men ponderously expand on this story (or ones just like it) to appreciative audiences of Evolutionists who then gave them a standing ovation at the end!!!


And finally news of another ‘nail in the coffin’ of Evolution.
According to The Washington Times of 09/03/05 British philosopher Anthony Flew, long renowned as ‘an intellectual ambassador of secular humanism’ has turned his back on atheism. He says that it is impossible for evolution to account for the fact that a single cell can carry more data than all of the volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The Washington Times reports ‘a growing consensus’ among philosophers, intellectuals and scholars that atheism is in decline worldwide. But this does not mean that ‘re-Christianisation’ is occurring – instead Anthony Flew and others now believe in some undefined form of ‘intelligence’ behind the design of the universe.
I can confirm that the ‘intelligence’ behind the universe is God. Anthony Flew has made a good start by rejecting Evolution – but to be saved for eternity, he must believe on The Lord Jesus Christ.

Playboy

J C wrote:

We have very strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL proof that the Bible is true – the writings in the Old Testament have been around for in excess of 2,500 years and the writings of the New Testament for almost 2,000 years and not a single word has been proven to be untrue.

There is no need for a “philosophical debate” on the existence of God. The existence of the creator God of the Bible can be proven beyond all doubt by objective means – see my earlier circumstantial proofs.

You are correct that it is impossible to prove that God made the world in EXACTLY 6 days. However, there is very strong observable (i.e. scientific evidence) that living creatures and the biosphere were created over a very short time span.
For example, there is no evidence for gradual Evolution, and all of the evidence available indicates that animals and plants were created with phenotypes that were similar to what they now are. This indicates that individual animals had to be almost instantaneously created – if any lengthy creation process were to be used to produce a mammal, for example, they would be dead by the time that it was completed.
The interdependence that we observe in the biosphere would also rule out a lengthy creation process. For example, some plants require insects for pollination/reproduction and most members of the animal kingdom require plant food to survive. Equally, plants produce vast excesses of vegetation, which would be a total waste if there were not animals created simultaneously to utilise it.
Therefore, both plants and animals must have been created in close time proximity to each other because of their strong inter-dependence upon each other. A maximum of a few days seems to be just about right!!!!

I have no problem with someone believing in a higher intelligence or a creator. I do have a problem with some fundamentalist christian telling me that the bible is fact. There is no evidence circumstantial or scientific that even hints that the creation story is true. There are so many holes in your argument even from a theological perspective that its quite worrying to see someone so deluded. The human race did not start in a big incestous sex festival. Are you really telling me that Adam and Eve slept with their children and their children slept with each other and they all went off to live in the land of Nod and thats how we started our lives on earth? The story is symbolic not literal. I do believe that there is something out there akin to a God that we cannot define or understand yet but creation did not happen in 6 days with an apple, a rib from man, an untrustworthy woman, and a devil snake who got us all kicked out of paradise.

robindch

Hey, JC, didn't think you'd like the Mencken very much -- the truth always hurts, doesn't it?!!!!!

Anyway, as you're interested in fairy tales, I thought you'd like this little one which you can read at beddie-byes -- I hope that it doesn't frighten you too much -- enjoy!

A Parable
Michael E. Suttkus, II

Once upon a time, there were two cops, Henry and
Phillip, who were called to a house on Evidence Street.
A neighbor called and reported a break in. Arriving
at the house, they find that the front door has been
knocked off of its hinges and a man wearing a ski mask
and holding a bag of jewellery and a bloody knife is
leaving.

"Excuse me, sir," says Henry. "A break in has been
reported at this residence. We're here to investigate."

The masked man glances around. "Looks fine to me, but
I've really got to get going..."

"Sorry, sir, but we've really got to investigate," says
Phillip.

The two cops and the masked man walk up to the front
door. It is hanging by only the bottom hinge and the
deadbolt has clearly been forced out of the doorframe.

"Sir," says Henry, "Can you explain why your door
appears to have been forced in if there hasn't been a
break in?"

"Well," says the masked man, "When I bought this house,
they explained to me that the builder was a little
worried that if the house looked too new, people would
be afraid to live in it, being afraid to damage it. So,
he built in an appearance of age, of a history that
never happened, damaging it before hand."

Meanwhile, Phillip has stepped inside. He notices what
looks like signs of a struggle. He asks, "Sir, can you
explain why your sofa is on its back?"

"It was that way when we moved in, our interior
decorator put it there."

"On it's back?"

"Yes. He was a great designer, the best ever."

"Why would he place it like that? Isn't it hard to sit
on?"

"A little, but intelligent placement doesn't mean
optimal placement. I can still sit here." He
demonstrates this by sitting on the front of the couch.
"See? It works."

Henry, meanwhile, had walked through the living room
and into the bedrooms. From there, he called, "Hey,
there appear to be two dead bodies in here." Phillip
and the masked man go to see. Indeed, two dead bodies,
both with obvious knife wounds.

"Well," asks Henry, "How can you explain this?"

"Well," says, the masked man, "Obviously the two bodies
can't have just formed from the floor boards, right?
That is obviously impossible. They are too complicated
for that. They must have been created here by a magical
fairy that poofed in here, created two dead bodies
magically, and then vanished, leaving no trace of his
presence."

Phillip and Henry walk out of the house. "Well," asks
Phillip, "What did you think?"

"Hmm, well, appearance of age, a history that seems to
have happened, but didn't, obviously inferior design
attributed to great intelligence, refutations of a
straw man argument that nobody produced and a false
dichotomy, followed by dependence on unevidenced
supernatural events to fill in any gaps, it all leads
to only one conclusion."

"Quite right," says Phillip. He calls dispatch. "Nobody
was here to see what happened and that means that
nothing at all happened. We're going back on patrol.
Thanks for your co-operation and telling us the whole
truth and keeping us on the one straight road to
truth and perfection! Praise the Lord!"

And the moral of this story is, if you commit a crime,
make sure that you get creationist cops.

toiletduck

^^^^
lol

Myksyk

Interesting Robin. I was reflecting this morning on the loo (where else) that JC's strange conception of science seems to rule out any knowledge that may be gleaned by deduction and seems to insist (ad nauseum) on direct observation of events, as if this makes the study of something scientific. I was just thinking that this, in his mind, would rule out the successful solving of a crime through scientific methods as it means making deductions about past events based on current information. Then here I come and see your hilarious and true vignette ... spooky!!

J C

Quote Capt’n Midnight
these guys were using femtosecond lasers and one reaction that was not dependent on activation energy was too fast to measure.This reaction occurs is less than a billionth of a billionth of a second! Also you have the entire volume of the ocean to work with, and in every 20g of sea water there are over 6.022x10^23 atoms all buzzing arround.

To recap the number of possible attempts if EVERY ELECTRON in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE produced a biochemical sequence every nano-second for 20,000 million years is c10^^109. a nano-second is one billionth of a second. If femtosecond lasers were used by each electron the number of possible attempts could be bumped up to c10^^118 – which still bears no comparison to Sir Fred Hoyle’s 10^^-40,000. There is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to produce life without the application of massive intelligence
There may well be 6.022 x 10^23 atoms buzzing around in 20g of sea water – but there are only 2.17 x 10^82 electrons buzzing around in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE – and either number is pathetically small in comparison with 10^-40,000.
These figures are the main reason why eminent Evolutionists like Sir Fred Hoyle and Anthony Flew have rejected Evolution as an irredeemably defunct idea.


Quote Capt’n Midnight
Have you ever mixed oil and water ? Using Fred Hoyle's methods would lead you to believe that the separation by random chance would take longer than the age of the universe ! But because of interactions like steric (shape) and hydrophilic and hydrophobic interactions so many possible configurations are ruled out that your degrees of freedom are far more limited.

Yes, I have observed mixtures of oil and water to produce either a homogenous emulsion or those boring blobs of oil and coloured water that used be projected onto disco walls in the 70’s and 80’s – but you are probably too young to remember them. In either state, mixtures of oil and water are indeed pretty boring phenomena – and completely unlike the multi-faceted dynamic processes observed in living systems.


Quote Capt’n Midnight
Lets not forget that bacteria have been found in the mantle many Km below the surface, a vast area of cracks and high pressure and metal salts and ores and surfaces, the mother of all pressure cookers with conditions that Stanley Miller could only dream about.

How do you think that bacteria came to be many Km below the surface of the Earth? The obvious reason is that they were brought down there from the surface through the massive movement of geological materials, which evidentially occurred all over the Earth. There is absolutely no evidence that bacteria were created down there – or is Evolution taking another wild lurch away from it’s previous theory that life originated in some kind of primordial swamp on the SURFACE of the Earth.
I have a pressure cooker at home and ALL of the LIVE vegetables and DEAD meat that is put into it ALWAYS comes out DEAD from it. I don’t think that “the mother of all pressure cookers” is going to perform any better.
If you belief in “pressure cooker Evolution” is based on the fact that exceptionally well designed creatures “cling to life” around deep sea vents, I am sorry to disappoint you, but these creatures show the same evidence of intelligent design by God as all other living organisms.


Quote Capt’n Midnight
Many of the steps to life have been replicated. DNA has been decoded and for simple organisms most of the proteins have been investigated , not fully yet but bit by bit our knowledge grows.

Yes, DNA has been DECODED using thousands of “man hours” of intensely applied intelligence and vast resources including the most powerful super-computers know to man – and we are still a very long way off understanding how the DNA code actually works to produce a living creature. The analogy of a monkey examining the workings of a Jumbo Jet comes to mind!!!!


Quote Capt’n Midnight
The old idea of a vital force lasted until Urea was synthesised.

And it still continues in a modified form in the Evolutionary hypothesis!!!


Quote Capt’n Midnight
Then again if someone does produce an RNA filled liposome capable of self-replication using RNA enzymes a people like yourself will still argue.

If somebody were to PRODUCE an RNA filled liposome capable of self-replication using pre-existing RNA enzymes that certainly wouldn’t prove anything.
If they were to synthesise the whole ‘kit and caboodle’ through the purposeful application of massive resources, Human effort and intelligence – this would only PROVE that the application of massive effort and intelligence were required to originally produce life. It certainly wouldn’t provide any evidence that undirected processes did so.


Quote Capt’n Midnight
And I'm still waiting for a prediction based upon creation science that is/was at odds with evolution science so we can review it.

And I’m still waiting a lot longer for YOUR answers to my four basic questions in my posting on page 3 of this thread on 31/03/05 @ 21.20 – so that I can ‘review’ them!!!!!

However, be that as it may, here are just a few of the predictions of the Evolutionary and Creation working models and how they compare with the 'real World':-

I will use the following sequence for each Category:-
(1)Category (2)Evolution Model Prediction (3)Creation Model Prediction & (4)Observed Reality.

(1)Galactic Universe (2)Galaxies Changing (3)Galaxies Constant (4)Galaxies Constant.

(1)Structure of Stars (2)Stars changing into other types (3)Stars Unchanged or dying (4)Stars Unchanged or dying.

(1)Other Heavenly Bodies (2)Building up or being formed (3)Breaking down or stable (4)Breaking down or stable.

(1)Geology (2)No evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe (3)Evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe (4) Evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe.

(1)Life (2)Life observed evolving from non-life (3)Life only observed coming from other life (4) Life only observed coming from other life.

(1)Array of organisms (2)Continuum of organisms (3)Distinct Kinds of organisms separated by ‘gaps’ (4)Distinct Kinds separated by ‘gaps’.

(1)Appearance of new Kinds (2)New kinds appearing (3)No new kinds appearing (4)No new kinds appearing.


(1)Mutations (2)Nearly always Beneficial (3)Nearly always Harmful (4)Nearly always Harmful.

(1)Natural Selection (2)Creative process (3)Conservation Process (4)Conservation Process.

(1)Fossil Record (2)Clear Transitions evident (3)Systematic Gaps (4)Systematic Gaps.

(1)Fossil Record (2)Small numbers of poorly preserved specimens (3)Large numbers of well preserved specimens (4)Large numbers of well preserved specimens.

(1)Appearance of Man (2)Ape-like Intermediates (3)No Intermediates (4)No Intermediates.

(1)Nature of Mankind (2)Quantitatively superior to animals (3)Qualitatively distinct from animals (4)Qualitatively distinct from animals.

(1)Origin of Civilization (2)Slow & gradual (3)Contemporaneous with Mankind (4)Contemporaneous with Mankind.

(1)God (2)Doesn’t exist (3)Can be objectively proven to exist (4)Can be objectively proven to exist.

Playboy

Jc how does your thinking jump from scientifically observing the world and making an assumption that there is some sort of divine intelligence or creator to believing that the bible is a literal account of that creator or intelligence? I dont think many people have a problem with someone believing that there is some kind of higher power at work in the universe but it is a problem when people try and define that intelligence or power. The fact is that no christian can be sure that the bible is true, thats why it requires faith to believe. If it were obvious and you could prove that the bible is true then why would anyone be an unbeliever?

robindch

Hi Playboy + Capt'n Midnight

I don't want to seem like I'm stating the bleedin' obvious here, but you're wasting your time dealing with JC, and that's of course assuming that JC hasn't alter-ego'd himself as either, or both, of you (a well-known tactic of online evangelists and rather sad people). JC's ravings, as you're well aware, have been debunked widely on the internet, as well as regularly here on boards.ie, and you're no more likely to get him/her to think, or to understand his nose (or the first thing beyond it) than you are to get a jellyfish to sing the national anthem.

Anyway, back to you JC -- can you give us another of one of your famous jaw-dropping, forehead-slapping clangers? Pleasey, please with sugar on top?!!!!?? I liked your one above about "the EXISTENCE of entropy PROVES that God exists"! That was really cool, and the bit about the invisible bits of god being clearly visible -- that was grrrreat too! But I'm wondering if you can give us one about the flat earth or something -- go on! I'd really love to hear it again and I know that you're really dying to!!!! Or maybe you could tell us about the astronomer Hoyle's wacky biological sums again? It's been over a day since you posted them the last time and I've completely forgotten them already!!!!! Gwan anyway, tell us all agin!!!!!!!!

Cthulhu

---

(1)Structure of Stars (2)Stars changing into other types (3)Stars Unchanged or dying (4)Stars Unchanged or dying.

This isn't correct. Space telecopes have observed new stars in the process of being formed.

(1)Geology (2)No evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe (3)Evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe (4) Evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe.

There is no evidence of a global flood in the geological record.

(1)Life (2)Life observed evolving from non-life (3)Life only observed coming from other life (4) Life only observed coming from other life.

Evolution does not predict we will observe life evolving from non-life so your argument is flawed.

(1)Array of organisms (2)Continuum of organisms (3)Distinct Kinds of organisms separated by ‘gaps’ (4)Distinct Kinds separated by ‘gaps’.

You have not defined what a kind is.

(1)Appearance of new Kinds (2)New kinds appearing (3)No new kinds appearing (4)No new kinds appearing.

You have not defined what a kind is.

(1)Mutations (2)Nearly always Beneficial (3)Nearly always Harmful (4)Nearly always Harmful.

Evolution does not predict mutations are nearly always Beneficial so your argument is flawed.

(1)Natural Selection (2)Creative process (3)Conservation Process (4)Conservation Process.

Evolution does not say natural selection is a creative process, so again your argument is flawed.

(1)Fossil Record (2)Clear Transitions evident (3)Systematic Gaps (4)Systematic Gaps.

There are clear transitions in the fossil record. Plus the Creation model has never made any predictions about the fossil record.

(1)Fossil Record (2)Small numbers of poorly preserved specimens (3)Large numbers of well preserved specimens (4)Large numbers of well preserved specimens.

The fossil record does contain poorly preserved specimens. A well preserved specimen is a rarity.

(1)Appearance of Man (2)Ape-like Intermediates (3)No Intermediates (4)No Intermediates.

There are dozens of intermediates.

(1)Nature of Mankind (2)Quantitatively superior to animals (3)Qualitatively distinct from animals (4)Qualitatively distinct from animals.

All evidence suggests man is quantitatively superior to animals (man IS an animal).

(1)God (2)Doesn’t exist (3)Can be objectively proven to exist (4)Can be objectively proven to exist.

Evolution does not say God doesn't exist, and God cannot be objectively proven to exist.

---

Too easy.

Phil_321

Your 'proof' that God exists JC is absurd. But what about the Creation itself which is what this thread was originally about. What kind of proof do you have of to offer that God created the world in 7 days?
All you have to back you up here is the origin of the story itself, the Bible. Surely you can agree that a 2000 year old book is not conclusive proof of anything.

Excelsior

Hey Robin, be nice. You are much more convincing when you aren't rubbing JC's nose in it.

I'd just like to interject again and challenge JC on his idea that God can be proved. Seperate from the fact that if this were true, JC would have a hard time explaining the 2/3s of the Earth's population who don't believe in this provable God, the idea is very flawed when you consider the revealed picture of the God of Christianity. My argument can be best summed up in an aphorism from Bonhoeffer, "A God whose existence could be proven would be nothing more than an idol."

JC, God hates being put in boxes. Pharisee is the term we now use for people who think they have a systematic explanation and apology for God. Tackling only the theology of your postings so far, with deep respect I propose that you re-assess whether you have slipped into such territory.

J C

Quote Playboy
I have no problem with someone believing in a higher intelligence or a creator. I do have a problem with some fundamentalist Christian telling me that the bible is fact.

If you have a personal ‘problem’ with any fact that still doesn’t invalidate the fact.


Quote Playboy
The human race did not start in a big incestous sex festival. Are you really telling me that Adam and Eve slept with their children and their children slept with each other

Adam and Eve were perfectly created by God and lived in a perfectly created environment. They therefore lived very long and healthy lives (in the case of Adam he lived 930 years). They also were highly fertile and had MANY children as the Bible confirms.

Yes, some of Adam and Eve’s children MARRIED EACH OTHER i.e. they formed LIFELONG PAIRED marriage partnerships – but they did NOT engage in orgies as implied in your question.

The marriage of adult siblings was OK THEN because:-
1. They didn’t have any choice in the matter as they had nobody else to marry, and indeed it was sanctioned by God who told Adam and Eve (and by extension their children) in Gen 1:28 to “Be fruitful and increase in number”(NIV).
2. There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).
Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when full solar radiation greatly increased the mutation rates – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Although not advisable because of our increasing ‘mutation loads’, near cousins may still legally marry – so there was no great difficulty for the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve finding suitable marriage partners.


Quote Playboy
I do believe that there is something out there akin to a God that we cannot define

You’re beginning to 'sound' like Anthony Flew.
God is not some kind of indefinable ‘nothingness’ – He is the awesome sovereign God who created the Universe and all life therein. God also has made it clear that He is a personal just and loving God who wants us to be with Him in Paradise for ever.
God gave you the free will to believe whatever you wish.
However, the fact remains that the existence of the creator God of the Bible can be proven beyond all doubt by objective means – see my earlier circumstantial proofs.


Quote Robin
Hey, JC, didn't think you'd like the Mencken very much -- the truth always hurts, doesn't it

There was nothing truthful or indeed progressive about Mencken’s outrageous eugenic fascism as evidenced in the quotation you posted.

Quote Myksyk
JC's strange conception of science seems to rule out any knowledge that may be gleaned by deduction and seems to insist (ad nauseum) on direct observation of events, as if this makes the study of something scientific.

Science IS CONFINED to the observation of events and their effects – everything else must self-evidently be believed in through faith.
You statement deriding me for insisting “(ad nauseum) on direct observation of events, as if this makes the study of something scientific” – reveals that YOU don’t really know what the Scientific Method is all about.

I have been thinking recently about how the apparently qualified scientists on this thread don’t seem to know what science actually is. The repeated use of the words ‘trained scientists’ by many of the contributors to this thread is quite revealing in this regard. TECHNOLOGISTS are actually TRAINED to perform various DEFINED TASKS.
SCIENTISTS on the other hand SHOULD be QUALIFIED as capable of using the Scientific Method in their professional careers to examine, assess and evaluate ANY AND ALL phenomena that the may come up against in their particular fields of expertise.
Self-evidently most of you seem to have actually only achieve the academic distinction of being TRAINED TECHNOLOGISTS who are currently unwilling or unable to comprehend the importance of using the Scientific Method (i.e. USING REPEATABLY OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE) as the basis of all endeavours for which you wish to claim SCIENTIFIC validity.


Quote Myksyk
I was just thinking that this, in his mind, would rule out the successful solving of a crime through scientific methods as it means making deductions about past events based on current information.

Could I clarify a few things about ‘Police Evidence’ – since you seem to be just as confused about this topic as you are about Evolution and indeed Science itself?
The criminal justice system is based upon Police proving a charge ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to a jury. To do this police use a number of DIFFERENT types of EVIDENCE.
Firstly, and most importantly is the EVIDENCE from any statements made by the accused, either voluntarily or under questioning.
Secondly, and often just as important, is EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE – which is very strong if given by independent persons and especially if collaborated by two or more people.
Thirdly, there is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – which is very strong if the accused doesn’t have an adequate alibi and s/he is independently ‘placed’ at the scene and the time of the crime.
Fourthly, there is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE – which must be REPEATABLY OBSERVABLE and linked to the scene of the crime through an unbroken evidential chain – and that is why a policeperson must always personally accompany any objects or samples and place them in a secure premises if they are to be subjected to scientific evaluation with a view to introducing them as SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
It should be borne in mind that scientific evidence ALONE will rarely achieve a conviction – and even if such a conviction were to be achieved it would be highly likely to be subsequently quashed as ‘unsafe’.
Eyewitness and circumstantial evidence are almost invariably MORE IMPORTANT than scientific evidence, which in any event is always based on DIRECT REPEATABLE OBSERVATION of the objects or samples concerned.
Deductions about past events which are not DIRECTLY supported by one or more of the above four evidence types would be regarded as speculation and would not be allowed in a court of law.
Scientific evidence has a strictly defined role in relation to criminal prosecutions – but most definitely if you were to go to court as a forensic scientist and make deductions about events that you never personally OBSERVED your evidence would be struck out by the judge as speculation.
To illustrate, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE could be that the only finger print ‘lifted’ at the scene of a crime belonged to the defendant. Please note that such a finger print would be REPEATABLY OBSERVABLE on the tape that was used to ‘lift’ it at the scene and it’s link to the scene would be ‘iron clad’ because an unbroken evidential chain would have been established by the police in this regard. A follow on deduction that the presence of the finger print indicated that the defendant committed the crime would have no scientific validity – unless the person making the deduction DIRECTLY OBSERVED the defendant committing the crime.

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote:

If you have a personal ‘problem’ with any fact that still doesn’t invalidate the fact.

J C wrote:

(in the case of Adam he lived 930 years). They also were highly fertile and had MANY children as the Bible confirms.

J C wrote:

Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when full solar radiation greatly increased the mutation rates – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Although not advisable because of our increasing ‘mutation loads’, near cousins may still legally marry – so there was no great difficulty for the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve finding suitable marriage partners.

So how did the plants survive before the full solar radiation ?
Below the compenstaion point plants can't survive, never mind grow or replace foliage lost to grazers.

When did nuclear reactions happen in the sun / when did rocks become radioactive / when was the first Radon in the air / when did the first supernova explode / when were the first coronal mass ejections - all of these things cause radiation that causes mutations !

When did the sun get hot enough to emit ultraviolet light ?- as this also causes mutations.

Playboy

JC ... Prove that the God of the bible exists. When it comes to the question of God all that anybody can say is that they don’t know. You cannot prove that evidence of a creator is evidence that the God of the bible exists. Can you make that distinction? Are you afraid to answer the simple question that everyone has been asking you? It is impossible to prove that the God of the bible exists and made the world in 6 days. It is NOT A FACT. You constantly avoid discussing the real issue here that creationism is a valid alternative to evolution. Creationism has absolutely no supporting evidence and it is a disgrace that you would consider to teach it in schools as factual. People like you give Christians a bad name.

Playboy

J C wrote:

Quote Playboy
The human race did not start in a big incestous sex festival. Are you really telling me that Adam and Eve slept with their children and their children slept with each other

Adam and Eve were perfectly created by God and lived in a perfectly created environment. They therefore lived very long and healthy lives (in the case of Adam he lived 930 years). They also were highly fertile and had MANY children as the Bible confirms.

Yes, some of Adam and Eve’s children MARRIED EACH OTHER i.e. they formed LIFELONG PAIRED marriage partnerships – but they did NOT engage in orgies as implied in your question.

The marriage of adult siblings was OK THEN because:-
1. They didn’t have any choice in the matter as they had nobody else to marry, and indeed it was sanctioned by God who told Adam and Eve (and by extension their children) in Gen 1:28 to “Be fruitful and increase in number”(NIV).
2. There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).
Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when full solar radiation greatly increased the mutation rates – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Although not advisable because of our increasing ‘mutation loads’, near cousins may still legally marry – so there was no great difficulty for the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve finding suitable marriage partners.

Oh btw i had a great laugh at that. I think u need to see a shrink m8

J C

Quote Playboy
Jc how does your thinking jump from scientifically observing the world and making an assumption that there is some sort of divine intelligence or creator to believing that the bible is a literal account of that creator or intelligence? I dont think many people have a problem with someone believing that there is some kind of higher power at work in the universe but it is a problem when people try and define that intelligence or power. The fact is that no christian can be sure that the bible is true, thats why it requires faith to believe. If it were obvious and you could prove that the bible is true then why would anyone be an unbeliever?

An excellent summary question which I will answer as follows:-
1. I am a person of BOTH faith and science. I can prove / know what I observe in the sensory-accessible universe using science and I can only BELIEVE IN what I can’t repeatably observe.
2. All atheists and most Evolutionists reject the idea that ANY ‘higher power’ is at work in the Universe - but everybody has a God created need for God.
3. I KNOW that a ‘Higher Power’ created and continues to maintain the Universe and all life therein – see my objective proofs for the existence of this ‘Higher Power’ aka God.
4. I can make a logical deduction that this ‘Higher Power’ IS the creator God of the Bible because the features claimed for this God over 2,000 years ago are NOW being confirmed by ‘cutting edge’ science– see my objective proofs for the existence of this ‘Higher Power’. The people who wrote the Bible were either unbelievably insightful – or they were actually directly inspired (as they claimed to be) by the creator God of the Universe. Applying the rules of logical induction I can validly conclude that they WERE being directly inspired (as they claimed to be) by the creator God of the Universe. Therefore the Word of God in the Bible is TRUE.
5. All true Christians must believe that EVERY word in the Bible is true. For example Prov 30:5-6 states that “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar”.
6. Down the years many people have refused to believe in many things that are obvious such as the geocentric nature of the Solar System, the fact that biogenesis always occurs and the circular nature of the Earth. In addition Evolutionists continue to reject the fact that the massive amounts of SEDIMENTARY rocks and their catastrophically entombed fossils which are observed worldwide could only have been laid down under a flood of catastrophe worldwide proportions. It is therefore TO BE EXPECTED that some people will reject God despite overwhelming objective evidence, which proves His existence.
7. You are correct that Christians must BELIEVE in Jesus Christ through FAITH – but this is a well-founded faith which is supported by a Bible that has proved to be inerrant over 2,000 years and a God that can be PROVEN to exist using objective means.
8. St Paul has confirmed in Acts 16:31 that you should “BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved – you and your household” (NIV). but in Rom 1:19-20 St Paul also confirmed that God can be PROVEN to exist ”Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been CLEARLY SEEN, being UNDERSTOOD from what has been made, so that men are without excuse (NIV).”


Quote Cthulhu
This isn’t correct. Space telescopes have observed new stars in the process of being formed.
What HAS been observed are dust and gas clouds in Nebulae from Supernovae with small stars within them – these small stars are clearly by-products of the “death” of a much larger star in the original Supernova. My statement remains valid that stars are observed to be unchanged or dying.

There is no evidence of a global flood in the geological record.
What do you think then caused the enormous quantities of sediment to be generated and laid down catastrophically, as evidenced in sedimentary rocks worldwide? How do you explain the billions of fossilised creatures showing evidence of instantaneous death by drowning and instantaneous burial in rock layers all over the Earth?

Evolution does not predict we will observe life evolving from non-life so your argument is flawed.
How than does undirected ‘muck to Man’ Evolution account for the transition from inanimate ‘muck’ to animate life at some point on this supposed continuum?

Evolution does not predict mutations are nearly always Beneficial so your argument is flawed. Evolution does not say natural selection is a creative process, so again your argument is flawed.
Mutations are the primary ‘motive force’ postulated for producing the variety upon which natural selection supposedly acted to produce ‘muck to Man’ Evolution. The amount of “progress” implied by Evolution would be mathematically impossible unless the majority of mutational changes were beneficial. Equally, if natural selection isn’t a creative process the other possible source of any possible “Evolutionary progress” is also lost.

There are clear transitions in the fossil record. Plus the Creation model has never made any predictions about the fossil record.
There are NO transitions in the fossil record. Creation Science claims that the fossil record is largely a record of the order of burial of creatures during Noah’s Flood – and so it predicts that similar ‘Kind gaps’ will be observed among fossilised creatures as among living ones – and this is in fact the case.

The fossil record does contain poorly preserved specimens. A well preserved specimen is a rarity.
The fossil record contains amazingly WELL PRESERVED specimens down to leaves and skin – which would require INSTANT burial and preservation. Any field trip will confirm that well-preserved fossils are actually the norm – which can only be explained by instantaneous catastrophic burial (as expected with the Flood but not with gradualist sedimentation).

There are dozens of intermediates (between apes and man). All evidence suggests man is quantitatively superior to animals (man IS an animal).There are NO intermediates between apes and man – all so-called ‘missing links’ have been debunked as either frauds or straightforward errors.
Mankind IS QUALITATIVELY different to animals - if you doubt me try asking a monkey to work out the square root of 36 or try having a sensible conversation with an Elephant!!! Equally, ask a policeman if he will treat you differently if you kill a person or a rat.

Evolution does not say God doesn't exist, and God cannot be objectively proven to exist.
Evolution certainly says that there is NO NEED for God to exist. As I have already shown the existence of God can be proven using objective means.


Quote Quote Eoghan-psysch
Only in the US. You know, that place where about a third of the population are convinced that they have been taken up into spaceships by the aliens? That place. Yes, we should definitely be taking the people of Kansas as a valid authority on the validity of tens of millions of hours of scientific research.
An evolutionist scoffing at people who believe in aliens is like 'a KETTLE calling another KETTLE black’ (to coin a phrase). It is a fact that most Evolutionists believe in the existence of ET (i.e.alien) life – while Creation Scientists largely DO NOT!!!!
Please do bear in mind that America is a ‘super power’ democracy with it’s people among the leaders in all forms of current Human endeavour.
Therefore, when an American STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION holds a public hearing at which both evolutionary scientists and creation scientists present the EVIDENCE for their theories and the BOARD concludes that Evolution has NO serious evidence to support it – all professional scientists must take serious note of such an event.
The lack of VALID evidence for Evolution presented by Evolutionists to the Kansas State Board of Education should not come as a surprise to anybody following this thread where NO evidence has been presented for Evolution either!!!
The fruits of the "tens of millions of hours of scientific research" into Evolution seems to be pretty paltry indeed - as the lack of evidence for evolution on this thread amply demonstrates!!!

Cartoons YES, and plenty of old guff YES - but evidence NO!!!

J C

Quote Excelsior
I'd just like to interject again and challenge JC on his idea that God can be proved. Seperate from the fact that if this were true, JC would have a hard time explaining the 2/3s of the Earth's population who don't believe in this provable God, the idea is very flawed when you consider the revealed picture of the God of Christianity. My argument can be best summed up in an aphorism from Bonhoeffer, "A God whose existence could be proven would be nothing more than an idol."
JC, God hates being put in boxes

The main reason that 2/3 rds of Humanity doesn’t believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ (including a significant number of nominal Christians) is precisely because most Christians don’t bother to prove the existence of God in the first place.

The typical Christian explanation to others goes something like this :-
We can’t prove that God exists, the Bible is full of nice stories that have no basis in fact and you can take my word for it that Jesus Christ loves you.
The miracle is that even 1/3 rd of Humanity believes in Jesus Christ under these circumstances - I certainly wouldn't do so.

Could I make the observation that a God whose existence cannot be objectively proven is very likely to be classified as a figment of somebody’s imagination!!!! And you are CONTRIBUTING to this process by not pointing out the objective proofs for the existence of God. But of course, how can you provide these proofs when you don’t even know that they exist in the first place!!!

God certainly will not allow sinful Mankind to put Him into a box labelled “figments of the imagination” as most contributors to this thread have tried to do.
Therefore He TELLS US in Rom 1:19-20 that His existence can be PROVEN ”Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been CLEARLY SEEN, being UNDERSTOOD from what has been made, so that men are without excuse (NIV).”
If you are an atheist you are free to deny the Word of God quoted above – but if you are a Christian you are NOT free to do so.
In any event, whether you are an atheist or a Christian you cannot deny the OBJECTIVE proofs that I have offered for the existence of God.


Quote Excelsior
Pharisee is the term we now use for people who think they have a systematic explanation and apology for God. Tackling only the theology of your postings so far, with deep respect I propose that you re-assess whether you have slipped into such territory.

Pharisee WAS the term used by Jesus Christ to describe the religious hypocrites and the useless ‘blind guide’ religious theologians of His time – who certainly DID’NT “have a systematic explanation and apology for God”. They were far too busy inventing new laws with which to burden and control people to bother defending God before men or even to read His Word in the Bible.
Your usage of the word Pharisee for people who present a systematic proof for the existence of God, therefore has NO BIBLICAL BASIS whatsoever.

Jesus Christ’s description of the Pharisees in Mt 23:13-39 concerns RELIGIOUS LEADERS who, among other things, 'strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel' – a perfect description of many Christians today who argue over minor and irrelevant points of ‘religion’ but who have ‘swallowed the camel’ of Theistic Evolution – which is a straight DENIAL of the Word of God and ultimately of God Himself and His role in our Direct Creation!!!

Please also bear in mind that Christians are placed under an obligation in 1Pet 3:15 to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”(NIV). That is PRECISELY what I have been doing on this thread!!!

As a weak sinful Human Being, I don’t need to make apologetics for God – He is more than adequately able to do that Himself ‘in the things that He has made’!!!
As I have said before, the existence of God can be proven beyond all doubt – but to be saved we must have FAITH and believe on Jesus Christ as Our Lord and saviour.

In summary, we can objectively prove the existence of God but we can only be saved by faith (and faith alone) in Jesus Christ.

The Pharisees weakness for courting the praise and adulation of men certainly doesn’t apply to Creation Scientists – as even a cursory reading of this thread will confirm.
It is not a good idea to label people - but if you must label Creation Scientists, a more biblically correct name would be Bereans. Acts 17:11 confirms that the Bereans “received the message with great eagerness and EXAMINED THE SCRIPTURES EVERY DAY TO SEE IF WHAT PAUL SAID WAS TRUE” (NIV).

Quote Capt’n Midnight
So how did the plants survive before the full solar radiation ?
Below the compenstaion point plants can't survive, never mind grow or replace foliage lost to grazers.

When did nuclear reactions happen in the sun / when did rocks become radioactive / when was the first Radon in the air / when did the first supernova explode / when were the first coronal mass ejections - all of these things cause radiation that causes mutations !

When did the sun get hot enough to emit ultraviolet light ?- as this also causes mutations.

The background to all of this is that Creation Scientists SPECULATE about what caused the lifespans of Humans and other creatures to shorten dramatically, especially after Noah’s Flood.
Long anti-diluvian lifespans are confirmed in the Bible and also by the giant size to which reptiles grew prior to the Flood as evidenced by the fossils of certain Dinosaurs.
Please note that reptiles are one of the few types of creature that continue to grow throughout their lives – unlike mammals or birds, for example, who stop growing when they reach their mature sizes. Very large reptiles are therefore almost invariably very old reptiles – and there are plenty of very large (and therefore very old) reptiles in the fossil record and therefore presumably killed by Noah’s Flood.

Many explanations have been proffered for the contractions in lifespan evident in the Bible. It would appear that the first mutations occurred immediately after the ‘fall of mankind’ when God told Adam and Eve that “dying they would die”. However, the ageing process greatly accelerated in the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood and this is currently explained by some Creation Scientist to be in part due to an increase in incident solar radiation upon the Earth due to the collapse of a postulated ‘water canopy’ in the upper atmosphere that covered the entire Earth before the Flood. This ‘water canopy’ could also have maintained a ‘greenhouse effect’ and a stable warm climate all over the Earth – and this could explain the presence of fossilized tropical vegetation, which has been found in polar regions. Please also note that such a ‘water canopy could allow sunlight in at levels that would produce photosynthesis rates greatly in excess of the compensation point of plants.
Additional sources of radiation could have been released from deep within the Earth during the massive upheavals that were evidently caused by Noah’s Flood – thereby further shortening lifespans. Please note that all of the above is highly speculative and subject to active ongoing Creation Science research.


Quote Phil 321
What kind of proof do you have of to offer that God created the world in 7 days?
All you have to back you up here is the origin of the story itself, the Bible. Surely you can agree that a 2000 year old book is not conclusive proof of anything.

A 2000 year old book that has never been proven wrong is certainly to be taken seriously – especially when it’s author claims to be God!!!!


Quote Playboy
... Prove that the God of the bible exists. When it comes to the question of God all that anybody can say is that they don’t know. You cannot prove that evidence of a creator is evidence that the God of the bible exists. Can you make that distinction? Are you afraid to answer the simple question that everyone has been asking you? It is impossible to prove that the God of the bible exists and made the world in 6 days. It is NOT A FACT. You constantly avoid discussing the real issue here that creationism is a valid alternative to evolution. Creationism has absolutely no supporting evidence and it is a disgrace that you would consider to teach it in schools as factual. People like you give Christians a bad name.

Could I refer you to my posting of 09/06/2005 @23:42 for the answers to these questions.

Could I also point out that I am not advocating the teaching of Intelligent Design or indeed the weaknesses of Evolutionary Speculations in schools. The Kansas State Board of Education however IS planning to do so in schools under their authority – having had four days of public hearings into these issues. That is obviously something that all educationalists and professional biologists should at least take note of.

I am only concerned as a professional scientist with the scientific validity of Evolution.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Evolution does not say God doesn't exist, and God cannot be objectively proven to exist.
Evolution certainly says that there is NO NEED for God to exist. As I have already shown the existence of God can be proven using objective means.

Evolution describes how drifts in the frequency of alleles causes changes in species over a given interval.
It says nothing about the necessity of God.

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Evolution describes how drifts in the frequency of alleles causes changes in species over a given interval.
It says nothing about the necessity of God.

Conventional Evolution claims to provide a scientific framework describing the evolution of all life from primordial chemicals to Man using undirected natural processes and excluding the need for the intervention of any 'Higher power' aka God.

The measurement of "drifts in the frequency of alleles causing changes in a species over a given interval" is actually part of the science of genetics and the statistical analysis of plant & animal breeding.

Son Goku

Conventional Evolution claims to provide a scientific framework describing the evolution of all life from primordial chemicals to Man using undirected natural processes and excluding the need for the intervention of any 'Higher power' aka God.

Conventional Evolution only claimed the species changed through natural selection and wasn't capable of extrapolating that far back.

I'm speaking of the view of evolution today.

Phil_321

Phil 321 wrote:

What kind of proof do you have of to offer that God created the world in 7 days?
All you have to back you up here is the origin of the story itself, the Bible. Surely you can agree that a 2000 year old book is not conclusive proof of anything.

J C wrote:

A 2000 year old book that has never been proven wrong is certainly to be taken seriously – especially when it’s author claims to be God!!!!

So if someone came up to you in the street claiming to be God and handed you a book he'd written you'd take him seriously? Sure you'd have to, how could you prove that he wasn't God? For that matter, how could you prove that anybody claiming to be God is lying?

Or maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Maybe it's the fact that it's 2000 years old that makes you so certain. So can I take it you also believe that the Pharoahs of ancient Eygpt were Gods as can be seen in writings even older than the Bible. Like your God they've never been proven to be wrong (likewise, they haven't been proven right either). And the same can be said for lot of ancient cultures and their beliefs.

A reasonable person doesn't believe any old claim without proof.

Cthulhu

This isn’t correct. Space telescopes have observed new stars in the process of being formed.

What HAS been observed are dust and gas clouds in Nebulae from Supernovae with small stars within them – these small stars are clearly by-products of the “death” of a much larger star in the original Supernova. My statement remains valid that stars are observed to be unchanged or dying.

When stars go supernova they disperse matter across space. Gravity then pulls this matter together into nebulae and clumps of matter eventually undergo nuclear fusion and form small stars. As more matter gets pulled in the stars will increase in size. Im sorry but your objection is beside the point. These new stars might be made of the material of formed expired stars, but they are observations of new stars forming none-the-less.

There is no evidence of a global flood in the geological record.
What do you think then caused the enormous quantities of sediment to be generated and laid down catastrophically, as evidenced in sedimentary rocks worldwide? How do you explain the billions of fossilised creatures showing evidence of instantaneous death by drowning and instantaneous burial in rock layers all over the Earth?

Sediment gets gradually laid down. Over billions of years there would be an awful lot of sediment. Animals also die, and some get buried in favorable conditions for fossilisation.

On the other hand how can a flood explain the non-random pattern of fossils in the fossil record? How come they fit into a certain pattern? How come we don't find mammals lower than a certain point? How come we don't find birds lower than a certain point? How does a flood explain "extinction events" where a lot of fossil animals that exist below a point suddenly cease to exist higher than that point? Why do we never find certain types of animals together? (humans with t-rex for example). How can a flood explain fossilised coral that is thousands of feet thick? How can a flood explain animal burrows throughout the fossil record? How can a flood explain distinct layers of lava?
If there had been a global flood the fossil record would be a random jumble of pebbles, boulders and dirt, with a random assortment of various animals that were alive at that time. There wouldn't be the high level of order we see today. Order implies a gradual laying down of sediments over time.

Evolution does not predict we will observe life evolving from non-life so your argument is flawed.
How than does undirected ‘muck to Man’ Evolution account for the transition from inanimate ‘muck’ to animate life at some point on this supposed continuum?

The theory of evolution is only about how life changes over time, not about where it came from.

Evolution does not predict mutations are nearly always Beneficial so your argument is flawed. Evolution does not say natural selection is a creative process, so again your argument is flawed.

Mutations are the primary ‘motive force’ postulated for producing the variety upon which natural selection supposedly acted to produce ‘muck to Man’ Evolution. The amount of “progress” implied by Evolution would be mathematically impossible unless the majority of mutational changes were beneficial. Equally, if natural selection isn’t a creative process the other possible source of any possible “Evolutionary progress” is also lost.

Evolution does not predict mutations are always Beneficial, and also it is not "mathematically impossible unless the majority of mutational changes were beneficial". I think you have pulled that claim out of a hat or something.

There are clear transitions in the fossil record. Plus the Creation model has never made any predictions about the fossil record.

There are NO transitions in the fossil record. Creation Science claims that the fossil record is largely a record of the order of burial of creatures during Noah’s Flood – and so it predicts that similar ‘Kind gaps’ will be observed among fossilised creatures as among living ones – and this is in fact the case.

If you know there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record then you must know what a transitional fossil is. So how do you tell if a fossil is transitional in your opinion? What features does a fossil have to have in order to be transitional in your opinion. Then we can see if there are any that fit your definition. Of course if you don't actually have a definition of what a transitional fossil is, which is what I suspect, then you can't possibly know there aren't any.

The fossil record does contain poorly preserved specimens. A well preserved specimen is a rarity.

The fossil record contains amazingly WELL PRESERVED specimens down to leaves and skin – which would require INSTANT burial and preservation. Any field trip will confirm that well-preserved fossils are actually the norm – which can only be explained by instantaneous catastrophic burial (as expected with the Flood but not with gradualist sedimentation).

Well preserved fossils are not the norm. Most fossils are fragmentary, consisting of just one or two bones. And as I have already mentioned, instant burial does still occur even without a global flood (land slides, local floods, volcanic burials, etc).

There are dozens of intermediates (between apes and man). All evidence suggests man is quantitatively superior to animals (man IS an animal).

There are NO intermediates between apes and man – all so-called ‘missing links’ have been debunked as either frauds or straightforward errors.
Mankind IS QUALITATIVELY different to animals - if you doubt me try asking a monkey to work out the square root of 36 or try having a sensible conversation with an Elephant!!! Equally, ask a policeman if he will treat you differently if you kill a person or a rat.

You simply aren't up to date with the field if you think all of them have been debunked as frauds or errors. There are literally hundreds of hominid fossils of various intermediate stages between ape-like ancestor and modern human. Some of the more represented species:

Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster

Humans are simply animals with larger brains. That is the only thing that sets us apart. All of our uniqueness you use as an example (language, maths) is just a consequence of our large brain. Well the hominid fossil series shows brain size increasing over 6 million years from ape-sized to human sized.

Evolution does not say God doesn't exist, and God cannot be objectively proven to exist.

Evolution certainly says that there is NO NEED for God to exist. As I have already shown the existence of God can be proven using objective means.

It cannot be proved using objective means. Evolution doesn't say there is no need for God to exist. All it can possibly do in this situation is mean that there is no need to invoke supernatural explainations for how life changes over time. It doesn't say God is not needed, that comes down to a persons personal view.

Excelsior

J C wrote:

Quote Excelsior
Therefore He TELLS US in Rom 1:19-20...

It is funny that the vast majority of Christian; evangelical, mainline Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, would understand and interpret this verse as the fulcrum around which any Christian epistemology of science must be built. Yet while subtly punching out the accusation of nominal Christianity you stand against paleo-orthodoxy back to the church fathers.

JC, what this passage means is that God can be known from His creation. This is very different to God can be proven.

Independent of the scientific flaws in your argument as laid out so comprehensively, when you claim that the Pharisees didn't have a systematic theology of God you invalidate any theological credibility you may have had since such an opinion could only be held by someone who was:
a) fundamentally ignorant of 2nd temple Judaism in which Christianity arose
-or-
b) blinded utterly by a pre-subscribed position.

To those debating JC, I feel at this point like reiterating that Christians since the earliest church (like their Jewish brothers before them) understand Genesis' first chapters as allegory. There is no contradiction between subscribing to the modern theory and fact of evolution while believing in the Christian God and his revelation in the Bible.

What JC is doing is disrespecting the author of Scripture by refusing to read the text as He intended it. In a very ironic twist, his approach to Scripture is parallel to a Foucaultian post-modernist reading where the author is dead. His interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is analagous to someone deciding to take CS Lewis' The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe as literal history (out of respect for the greatness of the author). A propensity to walk into the back of every wardrobe he could find would be the most benign affect of such a preposterous worldview. Equally, Creation Science is a recent warping of theology and science to bulwark against a modern (in the sociological sense, without any qualitative meaning) worldview that threatened their interpretation of existence.

robindch

> I am only concerned as a professional scientist

You've claimed in the past to have a scientific education resulting in an accredited qualification in biology from an Irish university. Can you please tell us exactly what your qualification is, where and when you received it, where you are working now, and what your job is?

The reason I am asking is because, given the lively ignorance of knowledge that you've demonstrated time and again on these boards, I do not believe that you can have had a scientific education and I do not believe that you are working as a 'professional scientist'.

robindch

> Robin, be nice.

Hey, I'm almost always nice

What's happening in this forum is the same as what happened in the skeptics forum back in February and March -- JC endlessly repeating the same nonsense, time after time after time after time and ignoring any answers, which, of course, is what you have to do as a creationist. See JC's early postings here, here, here, here and compare them with his latest utterances -- same junk, different month. The skeptics, btw, had the same problem shortly afterwards with a similarly frantically-scribbling Nazi apologist.

JC is simply an online evangelist, no doubt linked to some outfit like Billy Graham's one, or this one. Evangeloids and fundies like this aren't interested in 'debating', but just getting online airspace for their anti-social views, no doubt in the hope of collecting a few of the gullible in passing, and are quite prepared to post as much second-hand junk as they're allowed to, wherever they turn up.

J C

Quote Son Goku
Conventional Evolution only claimed the species changed through natural selection and wasn't capable of extrapolating that far back.

If you are correct then I have no issue with either you or Evolution as you have defined it – Evolution/Natural Selection is a valid scientific theory that explains observed changes WITHIN populations of particular species over time.
However, you should inform your other evolutionary colleagues of your conclusion – and please also inform the Theistic Evolutionists who have contorted the plain Word of God to fit a ‘muck to man’ Evolutionary Theory that has now collapsed scientifically and which you have confirmed to apparently have never really existed.


Quote Phil 321
So if someone came up to you in the street claiming to be God and handed you a book he'd written you'd take him seriously? Sure you'd have to, how could you prove that he wasn't God? For that matter, how could you prove that anybody claiming to be God is lying?

I certainly would not take him seriously on the basis of only what you have described.
The reason that the Bible must be taken seriously is because it is extant for over 2000 years and not one ‘jot or tittle’ has been proven to be in error. In addition the author of the bible can be proven to be God through objective means.


Quote Phil 321
Maybe it's the fact that it's 2000 years old that makes you so certain. So can I take it you also believe that the Pharoahs of ancient Eygpt were Gods as can be seen in writings even older than the Bible.

Of course, many aspects of the Egyptian God Cult have been proven to be wrong. For example, the belief that the 'sun god' Ra rode across the sky in a chariot is obviously disproven by science – as is most of the rest of it’s unfounded myths.


Quote Phil 321
A reasonable person doesn't believe any old claim without proof.

Exactly Phil, and that is why Evolution is on ‘its last legs’ scientifically speaking at present.
It is also one of the reasons why many modernist churches that adopted Theistic Evolution as an 'article of faith' have gone rapidly downhill.


Quote Cthulhu
When stars go supernova they disperse matter across space. Gravity then pulls this matter together into nebulae and clumps of matter eventually undergo nuclear fusion and form small stars. As more matter gets pulled in the stars will increase in size. Im sorry but your objection is beside the point. These new stars might be made of the material of formed expired stars, but they are observations of new stars forming none-the-less.

My original contrast between the prediction of Evolution that Stars should change into other (improved) types of star and the prediction of Creation Science that Stars remain Unchanged or die / degenerate is still valid.

Even if a by-product of the explosive ‘death’ of a LARGE star, is some SMALL stars – this is patently downwards Devolution rather that upwards Evolution.


Quote Cthulhu
Sediment gets gradually laid down. Over billions of years there would be an awful lot of sediment. Animals also die, and some get buried in favorable conditions for fossilisation

Sediment is observed to be BOTH gradually and catastrophically laid down.

How would you describe ‘favourable conditions for fossilisation’?

Could I help you by giving you my view?
Observed reality indicates that when an animal dies, it decomposes with its soft tissue disappearing rapidly. Equally, scavengers ensure that even bones are rapidly ‘recycled’. Therefore the only way that the amazingly perfect fossils that we observe in rocks could be preserved is through instantaneous or almost instantaneous burial. The massive scale of fossil deposition worldwide indicates a massive catastrophic burial of organisms under sediments suspended in massive quantities of water – which provides strong circumstantial evidence for a worldwide flood catastrophe.


Quote Cthulhu
On the other hand how can a flood explain the non-random pattern of fossils in the fossil record? How come they fit into a certain pattern? How come we don't find mammals lower than a certain point? How come we don't find birds lower than a certain point? How does a flood explain "extinction events" where a lot of fossil animals that exist below a point suddenly cease to exist higher than that point?

The pattern of fossil deposition observed in the fossil record matches the pattern to be expected in a flood catastrophe – bottom dwelling marine creatures and flocculated micro organisms buried first and fishes next. The last animals you would expect to be buried on top would be larger land animals and birds who could obviously flee to higher ground as the floodwaters arose before eventually succumbing to the waves of sediment and water.
When it comes to “extinction events” Noah’s Flood was ‘the mother of all extinction events’ with 99.999% of all life being destroyed.
As I have already pointed out it is to be expected that large numbers of a particular species would be located at a certain point in the rocks due to it’s ‘location’ of the species in the three dimensional biosphere so to speak.
For example, you wouldn’t expect to see many marine invertebrates in close fossil proximity to land dwelling Dinosaurs in a flood catastrophe – but you wouldn’t rule it out completely due to the enormous upheavals obviously on-going in such a process.


Quote Cthulhu
Why do we never find certain types of animals together? (humans with t-rex for example). How can a flood explain fossilised coral that is thousands of feet thick? How can a flood explain animal burrows throughout the fossil record? How can a flood explain distinct layers of lava?

The last thing that you would expect would be for Human Beings to be ‘rubbing shoulders’ with hungry and frightened meat-eating Dinosaurs as the Flood catastrophe proceeded apace – and that is a very good reason why they would not be found fossilised together.
A coral reef that is SUDDENLY inundated with millions of tonnes of disturbed sediment will rapidly become a fossilised coral reef with the amazing details of it’s structures preserved.
Equally the presence of fossilised animal burrows is indicative of instantaneous inundation rather than gradualist processes which would be incapable of preserving such ‘soft’ structures.
Distinct layers of lava are evidence of the massive geomorphic strains that accompanied the enormous movements of sediment and water unleashed during the Flood.


Quote Cthulhu
If there had been a global flood the fossil record would be a random jumble of pebbles, boulders and dirt, with a random assortment of various animals that were alive at that time. There wouldn't be the high level of order we see today. Order implies a gradual laying down of sediments over time.

You might well think so – but observations during the Mount St Helens volcanic explosion which created a localised sedimentation event in Spirit Lake on the side of the mountain actually laid down perfectly sorted layers of sedimentation – with hundreds of thousands of micro-layers in a matter of hours.
Some localised conditions may have resulted in random jumbles of pebbles, etc during Noah’s Flood and these are now observed to have formed into pebblestone rocks , etc.


Quote Cthulhu
The theory of evolution is only about how life changes over time, not about where it came from.

Please inform all other Evolutionists who believe that Evolution explains the origins of life (and that the Genesis account doesn’t) of your conclusion in this regard.


Quote Cthulhu
Evolution does not predict mutations are always Beneficial, and also it is not "mathematically impossible unless the majority of mutational changes were beneficial". I think you have pulled that claim out of a hat or something
The fact that ALL observed mutations result in a LOSS of genetic information doesn’t provide much of a basis for ‘upwards and onwards evolution’.


Quote Cthulhu
If you know there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record then you must know what a transitional fossil is. So how do you tell if a fossil is transitional in your opinion? What features does a fossil have to have in order to be transitional in your opinion. Then we can see if there are any that fit your definition. Of course if you don't actually have a definition of what a transitional fossil is, which is what I suspect, then you can't possibly know there aren't any.

Leaving aside the oxymoron of Punctuated Evolution for a moment, Conventional Evolution postulates that species evolved upwards and onwards into other species through the accumulation of gradual changes. It should therefore be possible to see a continuum of intermediate (transitional) forms in the fossil record (and indeed among living creatures) if this idea is true. In fact we observe GAPS between all species both fossil and living – with no continuum being evident.


Quote Cthulhu
Well preserved fossils are not the norm. Most fossils are fragmentary, consisting of just one or two bones. And as I have already mentioned, instant burial does still occur even without a global flood (land slides, local floods, volcanic burials, etc).

In general, most fossils are remarkably WELL PRESERVED as any field trip will confirm. You are correct that instantaneous burial is the only possible mechanism to explain well preserved fossils. The scale of fossil distribution would indicate worldwide instantaneous burials which either occurred in multiple localised events or in one worldwide event. The fact that the geological column is held to be indicative of worldwide processes in action would indicate that the latter is true.

J C

Quote Cthulhu
You simply aren't up to date with the field if you think all of them have been debunked as frauds or errors. There are literally hundreds of hominid fossils of various intermediate stages between ape-like ancestor and modern human. Some of the more represented species:

Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster

Humans are simply animals with larger brains.

I am very much up to date with this area – and I predict that all of the above ‘examples’ will either turn out to be apes, monkeys of Homo Sapiens – as most of their predecessors have also done.

Humans are much more than “animals with large brains”. Their capacities for conceptualisation, language, mathematics, belief in God and non-circumstantial moral behaviour places them in a category that is distinctly apart from animals.
God also confirmed our special status when He told us that we are made in His image, are capable of eternal life and have been given power to rule over all other living things.


Quote Cthulhu
It cannot be proved using objective means. Evolution doesn't say there is no need for God to exist. All it can possibly do in this situation is mean that there is no need to invoke supernatural explainations for how life changes over time. It doesn't say God is not needed, that comes down to a persons personal view.

The God of the Bible can be objectively proven to exist and He has said that Evolution DIDN’T occur. Equally, the supernatural origins of life can be mathematically proven.

On the other hand, Conventional Evolution claims, as you have confirmed, that there is no need to invoke supernatural explanations for the origins of life.


Quote Excelsior
JC, what this passage means is that God can be known from His creation. This is very different to God can be proven.

The verse in Rom 1:19-20 is as follows ”Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been CLEARLY SEEN, being UNDERSTOOD from what has been made, so that men are without excuse (NIV).”

Could I point out that IF something is “plain to them”, “clearly seen”, and capable of being “understood” from the reality of the visible world and God tells us that the evidence for His existence is so manifestly obvious that if we wilfully reject it we will be “without excuse” – then that evidence SHOULD be capable of being PROVEN objectively.
I have shown that this is in fact the case.
Could I also suggest that if I wilfully refuse to accept such objective proof for the existence of God, then I will also be counted among those “without excuse” as God has said in Rom 1:19-20.


Quote Excelsior
Independent of the scientific flaws in your argument as laid out so comprehensively, when you claim that the Pharisees didn't have a systematic theology of God you invalidate any theological credibility you may have had since such an opinion could only be held by someone who was:
a) fundamentally ignorant of 2nd temple Judaism in which Christianity arose
-or-
b) blinded utterly by a pre-subscribed position

Could I quote Jesus Christ’s assessment of the Pharisee’s particular brand of “theology" in support of my claim that the Pharisees DIDN’T have “a systematic explanation and apology for God"?
I refer to Mt 15:14 where He said “Leave them, they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a bind man, both will fall into a pit” (NIV).
Whatever “theology” the Pharisees may have possessed it was neither “systematic” nor “an apology for God” – and Jesus Christ’s stark words confirms this fact.

All true Christians believe that EVERY word in the Bible is true. For example Prov 30:5-6 states that “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar”. To categorise Christian people who believe this verse of scripture as latter day Pharisees is quite ridiculous – when ALL Christians are SUPPOSED to believe this anyway.

Quote Excelsior
To those debating JC, I feel at this point like reiterating that Christians since the earliest church (like their Jewish brothers before them) understand Genesis' first chapters as allegory. There is no contradiction between subscribing to the modern theory and fact of evolution while believing in the Christian God and his revelation in the Bible.

A few questions come to mind:-
If the first two chapters of Genesis were an allegory why didn’t God say so?
If they were an allegory what were they an allegory for?
The God of the Bible doesn’t speak in riddles – He always says what He means and means what He says – why would He not do this in Genesis as well?

Can you not see that “the modern theory and fact of evolution” is neither a fact nor a valid scientific theory, and leading evolutionists are abandoning it in such numbers and with such haste that very soon the ONLY people believing in it will be Theistic Evolutionists?!!!!!


Quote Excelsior
What JC is doing is disrespecting the author of Scripture by refusing to read the text as He intended it. In a very ironic twist, his approach to Scripture is parallel to a Foucaultian post-modernist reading where the author is dead.

What Excelsior is proposing is 'disrespecting the author of Scripture' by refusing to read the text AS HE HAS WRITTEN IT.
The only ironic twist that I see is that Excelsior is defending Evolution in the name of Christianity, when Evolution was a core theory of the ‘God is Dead’ movement of the sixties and seventies.
It is doubly ironic in view of the fact that Evolution itself is now regarded as DEAD by rapidly increasing numbers of scientists.


Quote Excelsior
His interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is analagous to someone deciding to take CS Lewis' The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe as literal history (out of respect for the greatness of the author).

CS Lewis’ works are entirely fictional and are not claimed to anything else by the author.

The Word of God is most definitely not fictional and it’s author has warned us that EVERY word is true.

Unlike the writings of CS Lewis, the Word of God cuts like a two edged sword – whether you respect the greatness of the author or not.


Quote Excelsior
Creation Science is a recent warping of theology and science to bulwark against a modern (in the sociological sense, without any qualitative meaning) worldview that threatened their interpretation of existence

Theistic Evolution is actually a recent warping of the Word of God in the (mistaken) belief that Evolution itself is scientifically valid.

Creation Science IS an ultra-modern application of ‘cutting-edge’ science to the study of the resultant effects of Special Divine Creation - and it takes it’s lead from the biblical confirmation that God’s actions can be “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”. The fact that Creation Science uses modern scientific methods in the pursuit of biblical truth is a good reason for all Christians, and indeed other mono-theists, to support it’s endeavours – and many do so.

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote:

Quote Cthulhu
Evolution does not predict mutations are always Beneficial, and also it is not "mathematically impossible unless the majority of mutational changes were beneficial". I think you have pulled that claim out of a hat or something
The fact that ALL observed mutations result in a LOSS of genetic information doesn’t provide much of a basis for ‘upwards and onwards evolution’.

Observed eh ?
How long have we been able to decode DNA to observe mutations ?
And what of the other 4 billion years over which mutations occured ?

Oh yeah retroviruses, phage, antibiotic resistance and even crossing over can increase genetic information. There are others.

Were there viruses in Noah's time ?