The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

But they have to be used as an example of the most recent age and attitudes. These particular ideas began to give rise in the 18th century as man began to look at a society without God, a society that ran on reason and scientific discovery.

No it doesn't because:
(a) It doesn't effect the evidence for evolution or the Big Bang.
(b) They are largely the result of specific upheaval in Europe stemming back to the 19th Century. Particularly the Colonial dictators. Claiming they are the result of religious changes grossly simplifies history.

The age of reason believed that man can and will solve all problems throughreason and scientific discovery. After a century and a half or so of that particlular idea, the evolution of the idea culminated in communism and fascism a la Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Castro, et, al.

What? Hitler et al are not the culmination of the age of reason. I suggest you read history books on what were the causes of these things. Of all the texts I've read none have come the conclusion that these societies were the result of the age of reason.

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime taught their children that God and Christianity where evil and against the state, which was where the ultimate loyalty was to be placed. The state came even before the family. The state encouraged children to turn in their parents if they went against the state.

Again Atheism is not the motivating factor here. Power and several other issues placed in the correct historical perspective caused this.

Saying these socieites were caused by Atheism or by belief that man could discover everything through science is ludicrous.
For instance, the Nazis systematically crushed the Göttingen academic circle, setting back German physics for several years and destroying the greatest centre of mathematics that has ever existed. The Nazis didn't trust scientists.
Communist russia broke Zel'dovich and "Landau and Lifshítz" research teams, again because they didn't trust scientists.

J C

Robin
religious marketing outfits in the USA have gained exemptions, special arrangements and protection in hundreds of of areas of civil legislation, including healthcare, employee rights, pensions, medical insurance, travel, planning, immigration, discrimination, tax (none!), financial regulation, etc, etc, etc, etc. See this article in the NY Times for further details on just a few of these. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=354628e21c97b341&hp=&ex=1160366400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

I am not familiar with US Law in this area, but reading the NY Times article, it seem that these exemptions are the ‘flip side’ of the constitutional ‘separation of church and state’.

It seems from the article, that because religions are not allowed to be favoured or supported by the American State, the quid pro quo is that the State is not allowed to interfere with or regulate religions.

The legal position in Ireland seems to be considerably different, but as I am not a lawyer I cannot comment on the details.

However, I understand (but remain open to correction) that any exemptions from the Equality Acts for religious organisations in Ireland, are limited to ‘ethos critical’ personnel like pastors/theologians/elders/spokespersons, and there are no exemptions, that I am aware of, for academic institutions or commercial organisations.


Scofflaw
10. Let's give them a month.

11. There have been 450,000,000 mutational events in the stretches of DNA of interest, in one kilo of soil, in a month.

12. However, with bacteria combining & swapping DNA, there are actually a rather large number of possible combinations of mutations - roughly 1.9e+215.

Just seen your edited post above.

Your point 11 is correctly calculated and valid (based upon your initial premises with which I also agree).

However, your point 12 has a problem!!!

The most that the swapping will achieve is to increase the ‘mutation rate’ from 0.00015 to 1.00.
EACH bacterium then becomes an individual genetic recombination. Even if we assume one thousand swaps of DNA from/to each bacterium (an awful lot in an 8 hour 'lifetime') as well as furious mutation the sum becomes 100 billion x 1,000 x 30 = 3E+15 over 30 days.


We therefore have 3E+15 possible 100-codon chains to search for a specified stretch the odds against which are 1E+180 to 1 against.

If we factor in a generation time of 8 hours or three generations per day for a billion years as well as the entire Universe of 10+82 electrons (assuming each electron was a bacterium) this would still only GENERATE 1.10E+98 (10E+82 x 1.10E+12 x 1,000) bacterial DNA swaps - which is STILL is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

Scofflaw
Embarrassingly, I had elided the two final steps, which were the whole point of the calculation! I have edited my post.

DON’T be embarrassed, Scofflaw.
Your original calculation of the POTENTIAL number of bacterial mutations produced in 30 generations starting off with 15 million mutations from 100 billion bacteria is CORRECT at 1.9 E+215 - if we assume no resource limitations.
However, such a population explosion (and consequent explosion of mutations) is IMPOSSIBLE – there are only 10 E+82 electrons in the entire Big Bang Universe and only about 10E+31 electrons in 1 kilo of soil - so a kilo of soil CANNOT produce over 1.9 E+215 bacteria or bacterial mutations due to resource limitations.

When I was an Evolutionist, I spent a long time trying to prove that I was wrong about this phenomenon and that Evolution was therefore correct. So, I can confess to equal embarrassment!!!

I eventually gave up and accepted that undirected Macro-Evolution couldn’t happen because it is a mathematical impossibility.
Many alternatives explanations were available to replace Materialistic Evolution, including Aliens, Theistic Evolution and ID.
I examined them ALL - and I found that the most satisfactory SCIENTIFIC explanation was Direct Creation with a strong input of ID.
.:)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I suspect a lot of C.Os and pacifists were merely anti-democracy: their agitation against the use of force did not apply to Communism, it seemingly being justified in defending the rights of man. But coming to the genuine ones, their courage has to be commended, regardless of their views about God.

You have an extraordinarily American viewpoint! Unquestionably a lot of people on the left were/are deluded by the nature of Communism, and Communist regimes (which are fundamentally dictatorships or oligarchies), but I fail to see either the relevance or the truth of your remark, which appears to conflate CO with being a Communist cheerleader.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is the logic of their positions that needs examined. The Christian C.O.s have substantial ground for their case, based on their understanding of this age of God's grace and the Christian understanding of the value of human life. The atheist C.O. however has to import a value to man, to invent a reason for such high regard. His non-C.O. atheist colleagues have excelled in history in the extermination of the individual in pursuit of ideologies. It is the latter who logically follow their beliefs about origins.

That's right, and most atheists do assign a value to life. The Christian also assigns a value to life, and from the atheist point of view, his reasons for doing so are far less profound, and far less logical - he does it because he is told that this is what God wants.

We have already discussed, and dismissed, your conflation of atheism with communist regimes. Aside from all the other arguments, you refuse to accept as a moral responsibility any actions committed by Christian regimes - why you think it works in reverse, apart from blind prejudice, I am not sure. Honestly, at times like this I almost think Dawkins is right.

Unfortunately, the Christian, because his morality rests only on the unsupported statement that "this is what God wants", is prey to being told, or deluding himself, that any given war is also "what God wants".

wolfsbane wrote:

The Christians who support the war in Iraq do not view it as a pointless war, so that cannot be used to show their view of the worth of man. They may well be mistaken about the value of the war, but they are not mistaken about the value of man.

The pointlessness of the war in Iraq is not relevant. What is relavent is that Christianity teaches that all war, and all killing, is wrong. In the early Church, it was not possible to be a baptised Christian and a soldier.

All Christian "moral teaching" that purports to allow war is the result of an accommodation - first, to the realities of being an imperial religion, and second, to the necessity of converting the warlike barbarian aristocracies that replaced the Empire.

Christ rebuked Peter for attacking a soldier who came to arrest him. What, then, can justify the armed defence of Christianity, or Christians?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

The most that the swapping will achieve is to increase the ‘mutation rate’ from 0.00015 to 1.00.
EACH bacterium then becomes an individual genetic recombination. Even if we assume one thousand swaps of DNA from/to each bacterium (an awful lot in an 8 hour 'lifetime') as well as furious mutation the sum becomes 100 billion x 1,000 x 30 = 3E+15 over 30 days.


We therefore have 3E+15 possible 100-codon chains to search for a specified stretch the odds against which are 1E+180 to 1 against.

If we factor in a generation time of 8 hours or three generations per day for a billion years as well as the entire Universe of 10+82 electrons (assuming each electron was a bacterium) this would still only GENERATE 1.10E+98 (10E+82 x 1.10E+12 x 1,000) bacterial DNA swaps - which is STILL is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

Hmm. Every time I see you do this calculation it becomes clearer that you do not understand probability.

If we have 2 bacteria, and they can have two mutations, and they are allowed to swap genetic material before or after mutations, how many possible outcomes are there?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I accept some of them do not.

Good news. Now, you can stop insulting atheists by claiming that our ethical code is bankrupt

> But my point was made clear by me saying the logical conclusion of
> evolutionism made man less meaningful than did that of creationism

Two things:

1. Evolution suggests that we are the latest results of a four and a half billion year unbroken chain of life in a universe 15 billion years old and extending unimaginably in all directions. Creationism says that we were created a few thousand years ago by a vengeful deity for the purpose of worshipping him. Which picture is painted upon the greater canvas?

2. If I tell you a story in which humans become gods and that humans provide every piece of "meaning" for the entire universe, then that makes us humans even more amazingly "meaningful" than we are supposed to be from the book of genesis. Is a story true because it paints its leading characters in the best light possible, or could it be that the story is just pandering to their over-inflated sense of themselves?

> The atheist is only removing a few years from someone's schedule.
> What does it matter, especially if the victim will know nothing about it forever?

That's not what I asked. I want you to tell me whether the atheist murder beleives he is depiriving the vitcim of more than the christian believes he is depiriving the victim of. You have successfully argued with your response that the christian values life less. But I am interested to know if you can back up your claim, in any way, that atheists value life less.

> the murderer is violating a central commandment of God, one that brings His vengeance often in this life and always in the next.

This is not relevant if the person has "accepted christ as their saviour". That's the modern religionists' get-out-of-jail-free card. Actions count for nothing. All that's important is whether you believe what you are told to believe.

robindch

> Wow! Despite them having top qualifications and holding down various prestigious positions?

We've been over this ten, twenty, fifty times? I've lost count. So let me remind you all. Apart from qualifications purchased over the internet or from mailorder diploma millls, there are only a few hundred creationists with real doctorates of any kind whatsoever. There are even fewer, perhaps fifty, with relevant qualifications. Go figure.

> If one came before you for a job, you would bar them because of their religious beliefs? Imagine if a Christian scientist on a panel barred someone based on his evolutionary views on origins.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys can read and understand basic English sentences. So let me make this as simple as I can. Here are the facts, AS STATED BY CREATIONISTS:

• AnswersInGenesis requires employees to sign "Statement of Faith" documents which require employees to reject evolution.
• If you do not sign the documents, you do not get the job.
• No university or research institute requires you to prejudge conclusions. Anywhere in the world, outside of North Korea and religious "universities" in the USA and various Islamic "Universities".
• Creationists work in normal universities, hold jobs as teachers and work in research institutes.

Adding these facts together, creationists then reach the surprising conclusion:

> But it must be OK for the Creationist to be barred, to advance this
> brave new world.

So, the facts are that creationists won't employ evolutionists. Evolutionists will employ creationists. And yet, creationists whine about being "barred".

Can any of you guys notice the obvious disconnect in the above?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

You sure don’t ‘beat about the bush’, on your PREJUDICES, do you Wicknight?!!!:(

You might want to check current discrimination law in the US (or Ireland).

It is not discrimination to refuse to higher someone who is not qualified for the position ... I would have thought that would be obvious

If I think God made my computer software run (instead of software running on very complex silicon) I doubt I would get a job in software design either.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED Biologists who are Creationists are eminently
> qualified to work in the Biotech industry

No, they are not.

J C wrote:

Telling a sick person that, you believe that Natural Selection has “little concern for the well being of a single organism” wouldn’t be exactly guaranteed to brighten the patient's outlook on life!!!!

I doubt telling a person who fell off a building that the law of gravity has little concern for his well being would make his outlook any better either. Which is probably why I wouldn't do that.

J C wrote:

BTW I fully accept that Evolutionists DO CARE VERY MUCH for the welfare of sick people – but this is another example of Evolutionists NOT following the logic of their own BELIEFS

Which beliefs is that?

Using the example above, because the chemical reaction that creates fire has no regard for the safety of humans (I can't believe I actually wrote that sentence .. but anyway :rolleyes:), does that mean that a fire fighter who fully accepts the chemistry of science also doesn't give a sh!t out the safety of humans.

Groan, your analogy is so bizzarly stupid I kinda stumped as how it even makes sense in your head. And that is saying something.

J C wrote:

BTW creationists BELIEVE that Natural Selection actually DOES show concern for the well being of individual organisms through rewarding philanthropic and nurturing acts - thereby reflecting it's Divine Origins.

Well that is another example of Creationists being silly then isn't it. Only a few minutes ago you were asking why creationist aren't qualified to work in the biotech industry. Well there is our answer. If creationists believe that diease actually does show concern humans then they probably see little point in medicine.

Do they believe that the chemical reaction commonly known as fire shows compassion for human beings as well? :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

However, I don’t understand how an Evolutionist Doctor treats patients by using his/her 'understanding' of how Macro-Evolution supposedly evolved Humans from 'Slime Balls'.

Well that is because you don't know the first thing about evolution (or biology). There seems to be a lot you don't understand.

J C wrote:

Evolutionists also DON’T try to cure illness by increasing the mutagenic or ‘error rate’

Why would they?

J C wrote:

100,000 proteins in a cell x 40 trillion cells equals 4E+24 proteins.
There are 3.15E+16 seconds in one billion years.

Even if every protein were to replicate every second for a billion years the total number of replications would only be 1.26E+41 (i.e. 4E+24 x 3.15E+16) – which is a long way SHORT of the 10E+130 permutations required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein

I see your understanding of statistics is as bad as your understanding of biology.

It is not 4E+24 x 3.15E+16, it is 4E+24 to the power of 3.15E+16

Think of it this way. If I had a dice and I roll it twice the possible combinations are 6^2 = 32, not 6*2 = 12 (the ^ symbol is to power of)

1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6
2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6
3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6
4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6
5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6
6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6

If I rolled it three time the possible combinations are 6^3 = 216

1-1-1 1-1-2 1-1-3 1-1-4 1-1-5 1-1-6
1-2-1 1-2-2 1-2-3 1-2-4 1-2-5 1-2-6
1-3-1 1-3-2 1-3-3 1-3-4 1-3-5 1-3-6
1-4-1 1-4-2 1-4-3 1-4-4 1-4-5 1-4-6
1-5-1 1-5-2 1-5-3 1-5-4 1-5-5 1-5-6
1-6-1 1-6-2 1-6-3 1-6-4 1-6-5 1-6-6
2-1-1 2-1-2 2-1-3 2-1-4 2-1-5 2-1-6
2-2-1 2-2-2 2-2-3 2-2-4 2-2-5 2-2-6
2-3-1 2-3-2 2-3-3 2-3-4 2-3-5 2-3-6
2-4-1 2-4-2 2-4-3 2-4-4 2-4-5 2-4-6
2-5-1 2-5-2 2-5-3 2-5-4 2-5-5 2-5-6
2-6-1 2-6-2 2-6-3 2-6-4 2-6-5 2-6-6
3-1-1 3-1-2 3-1-3 3-1-4 3-1-5 3-1-6
3-2-1 3-2-2 3-2-3 3-2-4 3-2-5 3-2-6
3-3-1 3-3-2 3-3-3 3-3-4 3-3-5 3-3-6
3-4-1 3-4-2 3-4-3 3-4-4 3-4-5 3-4-6
3-5-1 3-5-2 3-5-3 3-5-4 3-5-5 3-5-6
3-6-1 3-6-2 3-6-3 3-6-4 3-6-5 3-6-6
4-1-1 4-1-2 4-1-3 4-1-4 4-1-5 4-1-6
4-2-1 4-2-2 4-2-3 4-2-4 4-2-5 4-2-6
4-3-1 4-3-2 4-3-3 4-3-4 4-3-5 4-3-6
4-4-1 4-4-2 4-4-3 4-4-4 4-4-5 4-4-6
4-5-1 4-5-2 4-5-3 4-5-4 4-5-5 4-5-6
4-6-1 4-6-2 4-6-3 4-6-4 4-6-5 4-6-6
5-1-1 5-1-2 5-1-3 5-1-4 5-1-5 5-1-6
5-2-1 5-2-2 5-2-3 5-2-4 5-2-5 5-2-6
5-3-1 5-3-2 5-3-3 5-3-4 5-3-5 5-3-6
5-4-1 5-4-2 5-4-3 5-4-4 5-4-5 5-4-6
5-5-1 5-5-2 5-5-3 5-5-4 5-5-5 5-5-6
5-6-1 5-6-2 5-6-3 5-6-4 5-6-5 5-6-6
6-1-1 6-1-2 6-1-3 6-1-4 6-1-5 6-1-6

And so on ....

And as I explained 4E+24 ^ 3.15E+16 breaks my calculator, but it is a hell of a lot bigger that 10E+130

J C wrote:

What’s this all about?
Is this a ‘convert’ to ID I see before me?

Would you care? You have already rejected Intelligent Design because it is illogical to include God in that theory.

J C wrote:

Oh, I see ID is practically Materialitic Evolution now – is it ?????

No Intelligent Design is the theory that life is too complex to have developed naturally. But if one accepts that clause the next extention of that is that life is not perfectly designed suggesting that the intelligence was not perfect either.

It was at this point you dropped the theory of Intelligent Design faster than Bertie drops his integrety.

J C wrote:

ID is silent on who the intelligence was that Created life

No, quite the opposite actually.

If one accepts that the answers lie in how life was designed (the design of life is too complex to have occured naturally) then the answers to the God question also lie in the design (life is not perfect enough to have been designed by a perfect intelligence)

Intelligent Design rules out a God creator, where as evolution doesn't.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, and that is informed by what you believe of his origins and nature.

Well its nature. Its origins have little to do with it (do I care if someone was born in France or China?)

wolfsbane wrote:

If he is the end result of merely natural forces, how can his existence as a functioning human being be thought to be of more worth than if he be reduced to decomposing flesh?

Last time I checked decomposing flesh didn't think or feel ...

wolfsbane wrote:

His value must be relative only to how he suits you either way.

Ok, now you are scarying me a little bit wolfsbane.

wolfsbane wrote:

Remember, natural forces are all you have.

Natural forces are all I need

wolfsbane wrote:

We hold both reasons for the worth of a human life; both its intrinsic value and the commandment of God.

So why do you have such a hard time understanding the "intrinsic value" argument on its own without the God argument attached to it?

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, the command is not to murder. That permits the lawful and just use of lethal force. I'm sure most atheists have no problem with that.

It depends how you define "lawful". I don't consider pushing a "witch" into a river to see if she will sink or float "lawful".

robindch

> Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime taught their children that God and Christianity
> where evil and against the state, which was where the ultimate loyalty was
> to be placed.

Hardly surprising. Christianity says that Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime were evil and against god, which was where the ultimate loyalty was to be placed.

They are not hugely different from each other, you'll agree.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The age of reason believed that man can and will solve all problems throughreason and scientific discovery. After a century and a half or so of that particlular idea, the evolution of the idea culminated in communism and fascism a la Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Castro, et, al.

I'm not sure Hitler or Pol Pot believed that "problems can be solved through reason and scientific discovery" nor where they big subscribers to the ideas of the age of enlightenment.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

God having no origin but being eternally existent and the Creator of everything else, His worth is infinite.

But if worth is attached to something at creation based on how it was made..

Humans are of worthy because they are made in the image of God

.. then what worth does God have since nothing made Him?

He simply has worth for being God, right? His origins (or lack of) are irrelivent. It doesn't matter. His worth is attributed to the fact that He merely exists.

If you understand that you will understand how an atheists can attribute worth to something for simply existing.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But if worth is attached to something at creation based on how it was made..

Humans are of worthy because they are made in the image of God

.. then what worth does God have since nothing made Him?

He simply has worth for being God, right? His origins (or lack of) are irrelivent. It doesn't matter. His worth is attributed to the fact that He merely exists.

If you understand that you will understand how an atheists can attribute worth to something for simply existing.

On the same score, it is difficult to see how a Christian can value the life of a non-human, since they are not "made in the image of God". An atheist, on the other hand, has no such problem.

Perhaps wolfsbane kills cows recreationally? Certainly there's nothing to prevent him from torturing small animals, say, or drowning puppies - if we take his logic to its conclusion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime taught their children that God and Christianity
> where evil and against the state, which was where the ultimate loyalty was
> to be placed.

Hardly surprising. Christianity says that Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime were evil and against god, which was where the ultimate loyalty was to be placed.

They are not hugely different from each other, you'll agree.

Hugely different. Christians aren't going to kill you for placing your loyalty elsewhere.

Christianity also teaches respect for the law of the land and to respectful of your parents.

Tar.Aldarion

Well, that was yet another reason I go out of christianity at a young age, and although there are a lot of vegetarian christians, it doesn't go hand in hand.
As Scofflaw says, Wolfsbane, you have no problem killing a non-human animal for a laugh because they are here for your convenience?


Also, I fail to see why one would think an atheist would not value a life? Because we are not told to?
You value a life becuase god says that life is valuable is it?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure Hitler or Pol Pot believed that "problems can be solved through reason and scientific discovery" nor where they big subscribers to the ideas of the age of enlightenment.

My daughter is reading 'Mein Kampf' for an essay, I also had a quick chat with my other daughters history teacher who also has read "Mein Kampf".

I think I just might have to read it as well. Hitler apparently espouses the superiority of the master race and th einferiority of blacks and Jews. Definitely the result of evolutionary teaching of th etime which had whites being at the top of the evolutionary scale and blacks being lower.

You can also see this attitude played out in Edgar Rice Burroughs writings and unfortunately in the eugenics movements of the 20's and 30's.

The elimination of inferior humans is the result of a century of attitudes that taught evolution and reason. The elimination of inferior people was the culmination of such thought.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

The elimination of inferior humans is the result of a century of attitudes that taught evolution and reason.

No, its not.

At best, its the result of a century of attitudes that taught an incorrect interpretation of evolution and illogical reason.

I mean...the Catholic church used to go around persecuting scientists for daring to suggest the earth went around the run. Does this make Catholicism today (and any religion which has spring from it in the meantime) automatically wrong when it comes to making any comment on science?

Say it does, and you undermine the religious argument for creationism.
Say it doesn't, and you undermine your own attack on evolution quoted above.

Decisions decisions.....

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

My daughter is reading 'Mein Kampf' for an essay, I also had a quick chat with my other daughters history teacher who also has read "Mein Kampf".

I think I just might have to read it as well. Hitler apparently espouses the superiority of the master race and th einferiority of blacks and Jews. Definitely the result of evolutionary teaching of th etime which had whites being at the top of the evolutionary scale and blacks being lower.

You can also see this attitude played out in Edgar Rice Burroughs writings and unfortunately in the eugenics movements of the 20's and 30's.

The elimination of inferior humans is the result of a century of attitudes that taught evolution and reason. The elimination of inferior people was the culmination of such thought.

We've been over this repeatedly, Brian and it's utter, ignorant, rubbish. Social Darwinism, evolutionary racism, all that claptrap and cant, have nothing to do with atheism or evolution. They were grasped as justifications by those who wanted their racism and hatred to have an up to date label on it.

Before we had evolutionary justifications of racism, and after, we had Christian justification for them - Muslims weren't really people, savages didn't have souls, heretics and the heterodox were damned anyway.

Before you try to claim there's a splinter in our eye, take out the beam in your own.

Kill them all, Brian, and let God sort them out. Put your own house in order.

Scofflaw

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

Hugely different. Christians aren't going to kill you for placing your loyalty elsewhere.

Not anymore perhaps, but they don't seem to have had much problem with it up until a few centuries ago.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianity also teaches respect for the law of the land

I've seen enough reports coming out of the US to make me doubt that one as well. There seem to be plenty who will respect the law of the land if it suits them, but when it doesn't, they trot out a line about gods law being more important than mans.

pH

BrianCalgary wrote:

I think I just might have to read it as well. Hitler apparently espouses the superiority of the master race and th einferiority of blacks and Jews. Definitely the result of evolutionary teaching of th etime which had whites being at the top of the evolutionary scale and blacks being lower.

Yes I think you really should read it before claiming who know where Hitler got his inspiration from.

"Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

"The bourgeois mind does not realize that it is a sin against the will of the eternal Creator to allow hundreds of thousands of highly gifted people to remain floundering in the swamp of proletarian misery while Hottentots and Zulus are drilled to fill positions in the intellectual professions.

Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

PS - there are lots more - do you like this one? here Hilter clearly seems to state that the reason he's going to persecute the Jews is evolution. Yes, you've got to read between the lines a little I guess.

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf

robindch

> The elimination of inferior humans is the result of a century of attitudes that
> taught evolution and reason. The elimination of inferior people was the
> culmination of such thought.

You've had four fairly strong postings suggesting that your understanding of this aspect of human behaviour is wrong. I won't bother adding a fifth one of my own because it wouldn't say anything that's not already been said.

Are you prepared to consider the possibility that you may indeed be wrong?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Hitler apparently espouses the superiority of the master race and th einferiority of blacks and Jews.

He did, based on religious reasoning, often using the Bible as justification for this -

Adolf Hitler - Public speech (1922)
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Definitely the result of evolutionary teaching of th etime which had whites being at the top of the evolutionary scale and blacks being lower.

There is no theory of darwinian evolution now, or in 1922, that placed whites at a top of an evolutionary scale. For that matter there wasn't a "evolutionary scale" to start with. To believe in such a scale is simply to show one is ignorant of darwinian evolution. This has been explained to you before Brain, I'm not quite sure why you are repeating this?

Besides Hitler either was not aware of Darwinian evolution, or did not subscribe to it, as neither "darwin" nor "evolution" are ever mentioned in Mein Kampf afaik. He does on the other hand mention Christianity quite a bit, and often used the Bible as justification for his theorys about the Jews.

Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.
...
Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.

Not that this really matters either way. It wouldn't matter if Hitler was a big believer in evolution or if he totally rejected it.

The great things about science is that the theories are simply models of the universe, it makes little matter who believes them or not from a moral stand point. A scientific theory is neither moral or immoral.

As I said to JC, both the fire figher and the arsonist believe and understand the chemical process that creates fire.

robindch

> A scientific theory is neither moral or immoral.

The correct term for this is "normative" (or "prescriptive") and it's (kind-of) the opposite of "descriptive". The distinction is useful and worth noting:

Descriptive: a description which simply says how something is (ie, the car is blue). Descriptive statements are falsifiable.
Normative: a description of how something should be (ie, the car should be blue). Normative statements are not falsifiable.

In my own experience, creationists are simply unable to distinguish between normative and descriptive theories, and assume that descriptive theories are normative too. It's not the case, as philosophers since Socrates have been pointing out. And constant repetition of this simple fact here just doesn't seem to get through.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> A scientific theory is neither moral or immoral.

The correct term for this is "normative" (or "prescriptive") and it's (kind-of) the opposite of "descriptive". The distinction is useful and worth noting:

Descriptive: a description which simply says how something is (ie, the car is blue). Descriptive statements are falsifiable.
Normative: a description of how something should be (ie, the car should be blue). Normative statements are not falsifiable.

In my own experience, creationists are simply unable to distinguish between normative and descriptive theories, and assume that descriptive theories are normative too. It's not the case, as philosophers since Socrates have been pointing out. And constant repetition of this simple fact here just doesn't seem to get through.

In this, of course, they are making exactly the mistake that Social Darwinists made (at least, those who came to it honestly, out of persuasion).

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> The elimination of inferior humans is the result of a century of attitudes that
> taught evolution and reason. The elimination of inferior people was the
> culmination of such thought.

You've had four fairly strong postings suggesting that your understanding of this aspect of human behaviour is wrong. I won't bother adding a fifth one of my own because it wouldn't say anything that's not already been said.

Are you prepared to consider the possibility that you may indeed be wrong?

I would consider it. You would have to prove it as such.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight:

Thanks for the quotes from Mein Kampf. No where does he use a bible verse to justify his actions. He takes events out of the bible and misinterprets them to his own taste.

He was not driving Jews out of the temple but driving out those who would make money on God's sacrificial requirements and thus to make money off the poor and desperate.

No where was anybody in the Bible called to fight against the jew. Actually Paul talks about Jew, Greek, slave or free; all are welcome.

I am quite aware that Darwinian evolution does not talk about white superiority. What I said was that the age of reason, which includes Darwinian evolution came about as man started to remove God and God's stead place science and discovery as the panacea for all man's problems. Society came to accept white supremacy as a result.

Just as Christianity never condones paedophaelia, yet thare are those who blame Christianity for the actions of the priests who committed such crimes.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

No where does he use a bible verse to justify his actions. He takes events out of the bible and misinterprets them to his own taste.

Thats kinda the point.

There is no aspect of the theory of neo-darwin biological evolution that suggests any species is inherently "better" than any other in any meaningful sense of the word, or that any human is better evolved than any other human.

Evolution is simply a process that adapts species to certain environments. And being adapted to one particular enviornment doesn't really mean anything in a moralistic sense.

If you see this idea of a superiour race you can be assured that the person is taking asspects of the theory of evolution and misinterpreting them to his or her own tastes.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Society came to accept white supremacy as a result.

I would point out that "white supremacy" existed long before the age of enlightnment and, just like Hitler's views, it has a large number of its roots in western european religious dogma and teaching. Jews in Europe had been surpressed since before the middle ages, and the mistreatment of the African and American "savages" had taken place since the 15th centry. Also a large number of white supremacy groups, particularly in America, were also (still are) fundamentalists Christian groups, such as the KKK, and based most of their teaching on passages from the Bible, not genetics or evolution.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just as Christianity never condones paedophaelia, yet thare are those who blame Christianity for the actions of the priests who committed such crimes.

As Robin pointed out it is rather pointless to blame science for anything, as it is descriptive, it simply states how something is. There is nothing in science that says something should be something or should not be something. That is up to humans to decide based on ethics and morality (or lack of)

If you have disagreement with something like white supremacy (as I would hope most people would) you need to find the philosophy that says that white people are "better" than others in the first place. You certainly won't find that in science, since such moral judgements are not found in the theory of evolution, or any other scientific theory for that matter.

It is humanity that decides morality. They may use science to form a moral viewpoint, but the view point does not belong to science.

As I said, both the fire fighter and the arsonists use the knowledge of the chemistry of fire. Both have polar opposite view points on the morality of how that knowledge is used, but neither morality is found in the theory of chemistry itself.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

If you see this idea of a superiour race you can be assured that the person is taking asspects of the theory of evolution and misinterpreting them to his or her own tastes.


I would point out that "white supremacy" existed long before the age of enlightnment and, just like Hitler's views, it has a large number of its roots in western european religious dogma and teaching. Jews in Europe had been surpressed since before the middle ages, and the mistreatment of the African and American "savages" had taken place since the 15th centry.



As Robin pointed out it is rather pointless to blame science for anything, as it is descriptive, it simply states how something is. There is nothing in science that says something should be something or should not be something. That is up to humans to decide based on ethics and morality (or lack of)

If you have disagreement with something like white supremacy (as I would hope most people would) you need to find the philosophy that says that white people are "better" than others in the first place. You certainly won't find that in science, since such moral judgements are not found in the theory of evolution, or any other scientific theory for that matter.

It is humanity that decides morality. They may use science to form a moral viewpoint, but the view point does not belong to science.

As I said, both the fire fighter and the arsonists use the knowledge of the chemistry of fire. Both have polar opposite view points on the morality of how that knowledge is used, but neither morality is found in the theory of chemistry itself.

Wicknight, you and I seem to agree on more than what we would ever let on.

I know and understand that science is amoral.

Everyone has a worldview, the question comes about: on what is your worldview based and how do you interpret the foundation for your worldview to arrive at your conclusions?

My worldview is based upon the Bible being the inerrant word of God. In that sense I can be corrected on my behaviour using scripture (and it has happened), I can also be corrected on my opinions and attitudes (and this has happened) based on scripture and the consistency of my outlook.

Others have their worldview formed with science and reason being their foundation, others on secular thought, etc, etc.

wolfsbane

Before I forget to ask, can some evolutionist among you affirm/deny what JC raises in the following quote:

DON’T be embarrassed, Scofflaw.
Your original calculation of the POTENTIAL number of bacterial mutations produced in 30 generations starting off with 15 million mutations from 100 billion bacteria is CORRECT at 1.9 E+215 - if we assume no resource limitations.
However, such a population explosion (and consequent explosion of mutations) is IMPOSSIBLE – there are only 10 E+82 electrons in the entire Big Bang Universe and only about 10E+31 electrons in 1 kilo of soil - so a kilo of soil CANNOT produce over 1.9 E+215 bacteria or bacterial mutations due to resource limitations.

Maths is not my ground, but the issue I would like clarified is this: Does probability necessary for (chances against) the formation of the simplest living cell exceed that of the total electrons in the known universe?

I see the argument has been presented that bacteria can produce sufficient numbers to allow for the probability, but the objection is offered that that is only in theoretical numbers, as such numbers cannot exist in the real universe as they exceed both the available space and time.

Regardless of how you believe the universe developed, what is the mathematical score, given our present knowledge?

babyvaio

wolfsbane wrote:

Before I forget to ask, can some evolutionist among you affirm/deny what JC raises in the following quote:


Maths is not my ground, but the issue I would like clarified is this: Does probability necessary for (chances against) the formation of the simplest living cell exceed that of the total electrons in the known universe?

I see the argument has been presented that bacteria can produce sufficient numbers to allow for the probability, but the objection is offered that that is only in theoretical numbers, as such numbers cannot exist in the real universe as they exceed both the available space and time.

Regardless of how you believe the universe developed, what is the mathematical score, given our present knowledge?

Evolution sucks, I can smell it even here. :cool:

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Before I forget to ask, can some evolutionist among you affirm/deny what JC raises in the following quote:


Maths is not my ground, but the issue I would like clarified is this: Does probability necessary for (chances against) the formation of the simplest living cell exceed that of the total electrons in the known universe?

I see the argument has been presented that bacteria can produce sufficient numbers to allow for the probability, but the objection is offered that that is only in theoretical numbers, as such numbers cannot exist in the real universe as they exceed both the available space and time.

Regardless of how you believe the universe developed, what is the mathematical score, given our present knowledge?

The number of bacteria that can actually occupy our kilo of soil at any one time is obviously limited by the constraints outlined by JC.

However, nowhere in my calculations is that necessary. Every generation need only produce one offspring, so that at any given time the total numbers will probably not exceed the original 100 billion by a factor of more than two or so.

What is at issue here is the number of possibilities, not the number of actual bacteria. JC compares probability (the odds against something) to individuals (the number of bacteria) - an approach that ignores the time axis.

For example - if you asked me to represent any piece of information using only a single 0 and a single 1, combined as I like, JC's approach makes it possible only to represent 0, 1, 01 and 10 - four options.

If I were to use them repeatedly, on the other hand, there is no limit to the amount of information I can eventually represent.

cordially,
Scofflaw