The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

robindch said:

This is brilliant, just pure brilliant!

Ah, Shucks.:)

Perhaps, as a religious person, you could tell us nasty evil scientists how to "propagandise the masses", so that we could get evolution up into the 75%-95% bracket where belief in creationism lives?

Well, you are much better at the gagging and intimidation of fellow-scientists bit, than with the masses. But you have persuaded a significant proportion of the latter and have a very professional and slick operation.

Actually, scratch that. I've just remember that we scientists don't have masses. That's you guys.

Not us Reformed folk.

Anyway, do let us know how to propagandise more effectively. Darn, just remembered that the word "propaganda" comes from the name of Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide aka Propaganda College. And that's another religious word related to indoctrination. Yikes! That's another one: "in-doctrine-ation" itself. Religion really was first with all the vocab for how to screw with peoples' brains!

Exactly. That's why the virulent campaign in support of evolution is a religious one: Scientism. They use the same tools as their colleagues in Religion/Ideology.

Any way, must close for a while. I leave you in the safe hands of JC.

All the Best for the holidays.

Fallen Seraph

J C wrote:

…and I would cite it as evidence of Evolutionists trying to redefine ID !!!!

No scientist tried to define anything. The creationist was attempting to redefine the definition of a scientific theory. The creationist was doing the redefining. In fact, in attempting to do so in order to have ID included he implicitly acknowledged that ID is not a scientific theory. No evolutionist tried to change any meaning.. your retort baffles me.

Diogenes

wolfsbane wrote:

Well, you are much better at the gagging and intimidation of fellow-scientists bit, than with the masses.

Facts links evidence? For example a respected scientific journal rejecting a peer reviewed article by a (scientist with recognised PhD, in the field that he is discussing from a reputible institution)

See the suggestion that there is gagging is insulting as is the suggestion of intimidation. What occurs is repressed by the microcosm of this thread. Creationists make claims they cannot back up, and are rightly attacked by scientists and when creationists claim they are being oppressed theres no really evidence.

Christ wolfbane one need only look at your fellow creationists willingness to make glib comments and reliance on smilies to wonder who is making the scientific argument.

I made an off the cuff comment a few months re the flood, carion and meat left at the ocean floor, I throw down the gaunlet again.


JC and wolfebane's if I left a portion of meat on the ocean floor for the duration of how long you think the flood went on for, if you are capable of eating, whatever remains, I'll eat the origin of the species...

But you have persuaded a significant proportion of the latter and have a very professional and slick operation.

For professional and slick, read rigorous and scientific.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

But you have persuaded a significant proportion of the latter and have a very professional and slick operation.

Crikey. So not only is science a conspiracy, but we actually have a "very professional and slick operation" dedicated to a "virulent campaign" of "scientism".

If it wasn't so sad, and also malicious, that would be funny. I presume wolfsbane has never been to any event where scientists try to 'reach out' to the public?

In fact, the very success of Creationism is a reflection of science's almost complete inability to "win hearts and minds", but wolfsbane will never believe that. I will take the implication that I am either utterly naive, deluded by Satan, or a malicious lying toerag of a conspirator as read, shall I?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
A. Scientific Observation: that the human genome differs between individuals by up to 12% by virtue of random duplication, shuffling, and deletion of multiple copies of genes.

B. Creationist Claim: that the human genome is 'tightly specified' - so tightly specified that if just one part is missing or in the wrong place the genome will be useless

Of course there is genetic variation between individual Human Beings – but this variation IS always within tight constraints – a Human Being is always a Human Being and an Oak Tree is always an Oak Tree.

The apparent paradox is illustrated by the following analogy.
There are considerable SUPERFICIAL colour and shape differences between different car models – but the ‘basics’ of each car, such as wheels, brakes, gears, steering, etc are tightly specified – so tightly specified that if just one part is missing or in the wrong place the car will be functionally useless!!!

There are about 3 billion base pairs in the Human Genome and their critical sequences ARE indeed observed to be tightly specified.
For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.

This is simply to make "tightly specified" mean nothing at all. If 12% differences in genome is 'tightly specified', and multiple mutations, as well as umpteen different alleles of genes, is also still 'tightly specified', then 'tightly specified' is clearly nothing but a bit of mumbo-jumbo Creationists like to say over the genome.

Or perhaps you will offer a definition, rather than an analogy?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

Robin
The Irish Skeptics have organized a public talk next Wednesday evening on the topic of creationism.

So, the Skeptics idea of ‘a talk on Creationism’ – is to have an Evolutionist talk about Evolution!!!

Is that sceptical or what??!!!

Gosh. It's remarkably like Creationist talks on evolution, then, isn't it? Still, grasp whatever end of the stick you can get hold of...

Scofflaw

robindch

> Exactly. That's why the virulent campaign in support of evolution is a religious
> one: Scientism. They use the same tools as their colleagues in Religion/Ideology.

That's why I posted the link to the talk. It will give you an opportunity to see some of this "virulent campaign" in action. A short walk in the valley of hell, so to speak. So that you could feel some of this "religious" "scientism" yourself, so that you would have some first hand experience of what goes on, rather than having to rely on what Ken Ham and his multi-million-dollar marketing departments say about this evil, this pernicious, this infinitely-corrupting, this vile conspiracy, this virtually non-existent "scientism".

Of course, if you're not going to go along, then at least you can't say that you didn't have an opportunity

If you'll be taking a break for a few weeks, then have a great Saturnalia and don't forget its real meaning!

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Evolution does indeed remove Man's special place in the Universe - and it therefore undermines the fundamental basis of the Judeo-Christian Religions.

And that is why you and wolfsbane come up with the most ridiculous theories to try and disprove it happens, becuase you strongly want to believe in the literal teachings of the Judeo-Christian religions.

But as your mother probably should have taught you, just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it will be true.

J C wrote:

The originators of Evolutionary ideas are heavily committed to an atheist worldview.

No, they were heavily committed to a truthful world view. The Judeo-Christian church had lied to the world for hundreds of years about the nature of reality, and a lot of people were sick of it, they wanted to know how things really worked. The lie of the church turned a lot of people away from the Church (if the Church is lying about something like creation then what is the point). Some of these people became atheists, others re-evaluated their belief in a Christian religious system and came out with a new, less fundamentalists, out look towards Jesus and the Bible.

Its not their fault the leaders of your religion lied to the people for so long JC (the Earth is old, the Earth is the center of the universe, the sun goes around the earth, pi is 3, life magically appeared etc), or that this lie lead people to abandon the classic teaching of the church.

J C wrote:

There isn’t a shred of evidence that macro-Evolution occurred!!!

Accept that it has been observed happening. As you yourself have already admited (apparently though you have shifted from it having never been observed and therefore it being impossible, to it being observed but only observed a few times and therefore unlikely :rolleyes:)

J C wrote:

The theory breaks down under scientific scrutiny, and it is in conflict with almost every known Law of Science and Logic!!!!

No, it conflicts with your religion. That is not a reason to believe it is wrong. It is far more likely that your religion is wrong.

Of course you cannot and probably never will accept this, because you have a vested interest in your religion being right (eternal after-life living on a cloud somewhere in heaven).

Its one of the major differences between science and Creationism. I don't need evolution to be correct. If evolution was replaced by a completely different theory tomorrow I wouldn't care. Science recongises that it can make mistakes, and the only time someone feels bad about a theory changing is when they are shown to have made a mistake. Since I'm not a biologist and have no input into the theory of evolution I have nothing to gain or lose by the theory of evolution changing tomorrow. In fact the theory of evolution has changed significantly in the last 100 years.

Creationists on the other hand have personally invested themselves in being right. It would be devistating to you if a literal Bible was proved completely wrong tomorrow, and I doubt you would accept this anyway. Your entire life is wrapped up in your religion and the belief that you have to be right. This makes you rather bias towards any objective viewing of evidence or theory.

J C wrote:

People hunger for the TRUTH.

Well said. Which is why people have been abandoning the lies of the Judeo-Christian church for the last 150 years.

J C wrote:

Firstly ‘Truth in Science’ ISN’T a Creationist Organisation – they are ID Proponents

Well if you had watched the Newsnight program you will have seen the TiS guy slipping up and stating that God is the most likely "intelligence" in Intelligent Design. It is Creationism by the back door. Or to put it another way, how many members of Truth in Science believe the intelligence isn't God. :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/

I scanned the site and found 5 mistakes (lies) in the first article about the lack of evidence for evolution.

Hardly "truth" in science now is it :rolleyes:

Evolution does indeed remove Man's special place in the Universe

So the whole thing boils down to the creationists feeling insecure
they can't possibly find any meaning in their own lives so they have to have their god give it to them simply by virtue of creation

between this "my life has no meaning" and the other thread's "we're all horrible people" a fair amount of christians don't seem like happy bunnies at all...

bonkey

J C wrote:

Evolution does indeed remove Man's special place in the Universe - and it therefore undermines the fundamental basis of the Judeo-Christian Religions.

Some. You mean some Judeo-Christian religions.

The Roman Catholic Church is, last I checked, a Judeo-Christian religion, and is of the opinion that evolution is okey-dokey and doesn't at all suggest that Man no longer has a special place in the universe. Oh yeah - it also doesn't embrace the young-earth idea, the literality of the flood, or anything else that some small minority of Christians worldwide subscribe to.

I still think the solution is - as someone suggested recently - to let the Christian "Young Earthers" duke it out with the Hindu "Old Earthers", and only let the winners come near the scientists or the public at large.

Of course, thats based on the (possibly flawed) assumption that religious tolerance is believed in by CYEs and HOEs alike, rather than them deciding that the other can't be right because they believe in a fictitious deity in the first place.

J C

Diogenes
I made an off the cuff comment a few months re the flood, carion and meat left at the ocean floor, I throw down the gaunlet again.

Not only could animal tissue be preserved for the five months that that the main Flood Event lasted – but it ALSO has been preserved for the 4,500 +/- 250 years since the Flood occurred!!

See here for the latest details
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

Here is a Chinese academy of science report confirming that Dinosaurs were both warm-blooded and lived very recently – as demonstrated by the presence of dried blood corpuscles.
http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.cn/academic/xb/2002/_02e213.html

Here is a New Scientist article confirming that the biggest Dinosaurs were all warm-blooded and therefore MAMMALS!!!!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9523-the-bigger-the-dinosaur-the-hotter-its-blood.html


Diogenes
JC and wolfebane's if I left a portion of meat on the ocean floor for the duration of how long you think the flood went on for, if you are capable of eating, whatever remains, I'll eat the origin of the species...

Already 'done and dusted' by University of Michigan Paleontologist Daniel Fisher who had a theory that 'early Americans' used lakes as refrigerators to store mastodon and mammoth meat.

Fisher's experiments to test the viability of underwater meat preservation began in 1989. From autumn to mid-winter, Fisher anchored legs of lamb and venison on the bottom of a shallow, open-water pond and buried other meat sections in a nearby peat bog. Caches of meat were left in place for up to two years and checked periodically for decomposition.
"The meat remained essentially fresh for most of the first winter," Fisher said. "By spring, progressive discoloration had developed on the outside, but interior tissue looked and smelled reasonably fresh."
The combination of cold water temperature and increased acidity in the meat produced by pond bacteria called lactobacilli, which can survive without oxygen, made the meat unpalatable to other bacteria that normally decompose dead tissue, according to Fisher. Laboratory analyses of meat retrieved from the pond and bog in April 1992 showed no significant pathogens and bacterial counts were comparable to levels found in control samples Fisher stored in his home freezer.

Published in the Scientific American April 2000.

And you can read all about it here!!!

http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9495/May08_95/storage.htm

So will sir be dining on the paperback or the hardback version of ‘Origin of Species’ tonight?!!!!:D :eek:


Wicknight
I don't need evolution to be correct. If evolution was replaced by a completely different theory tomorrow I wouldn't care.

Oh Yea???

Evolution HAS been replaced with a completely different theory called ID – so if you REALLY are as disinterested as you claim to be, why have you been ‘leading the charge’ to defend Evolution on this thread??? :eek:


Wicknight
It would be devistating to you if a literal Bible was proved completely wrong tomorrow, and I doubt you would accept this anyway.

If such an impossibility were to occur and Creation was ACTUALLY proven to be incorrect, I probably would ‘go into denial’ and become a Theistic Evolutionist!!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
People hunger for the TRUTH.
Wicknight
Well said. Which is why people have been abandoning the lies of the Judeo-Christian church for the last 150 years.

…….there are many complex reasons for the decline!!!!

…………on the other hand Young Earth Creationism is going from strength to strength!!!!:cool:


Wicknight
I scanned the site and found 5 mistakes (lies) in the first article about the lack of evidence for evolution.

Don’t keep us in suspense, do tell us what the mistakes were!!!


Bonkey
The Roman Catholic Church is, last I checked, a Judeo-Christian religion, and is of the opinion that evolution is okey-dokey and doesn't at all suggest that Man no longer has a special place in the universe. Oh yeah - it also doesn't embrace the young-earth idea, the literality of the flood, or anything else that some small minority of Christians worldwide subscribe to.

Why do Roman Catholics loudly proclaim their belief in God as MAKER and CREATOR of all things in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds every Sunday then ??

I think that the answer is obvious – that the Roman Catholic Church does, in fact, hold these beliefs to be TRUE!!!:cool:

Please also bear in mind that there are many leading Creation Scientists who are Roman Catholic – and according to sceptic, Michael Shermer writing in the Scientific American, 31% of all American Roman Catholics believe that living beings have always existed in their present form – which is actually a more conservative position on the ‘origins question’ than ‘literal Genesis’ Creationists hold!!!! :eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Oh Yea???

Evolution HAS been replaced with a completely different theory called ID – so if you REALLY are as disinterested as you claim to be, why have you been ‘leading the charge’ to defend Evolution on this thread??? :eek:

Because Intelligent Design is a nonsense theory from a scientific position, and its only supporters are Creationists trying to get their religious nonsense into schools and colleges through the back door.

I said if evolution is shown to be wrong tomorrow I would have no problem rejecting it. Intelligent Design was shown to be wrong years ago, and as such I equally have no trouble rejecting it as well. What ever you claim about evolution, ID does not work as a scientific theory. At all. In fact it breaks most of the rules of science.

I would also love to know how, if there is a God, why it is necessary that life is some how more intelligentently designed than say a rock, or a grain of salt.

ID not only assumes that life is intelligently designed (which is actually totally compatable with evolution, or infact all of science), but also assumes that God would not have used a natural process to actually do the work, and would instead us magic. Which is a bit funny because if God exists then the entire universe is intelligently designed and God uses natural processes as part of his design all the time.

For example, the Tolka river near where I work is intelligently designed if God exists and created the universe. Yet it was formed by a natural process based on natural laws, which are also intelligently designed if God exists. Evolution is also an intelligent design if God exists, just as everything in nature is.

The theory of ID is therefore completely redundent, and also rather stupid, because it claims that life has to be some how more intelligently designed that a rock or a river, and has to involve some kinda of magic to make this happen. Which implies God can design and make one thing one way (a river) using a natural process based on the natural laws of physics and chemistry, but He is too stupid to figure out a way to make life using a similar natural process and has to use direct magic instead. Why would He need to do this JC? Are you calling God stupid JC?

For someone who gets so worked up with scientific theories passing all your little tests, it is amazing that you would follow a theory like Intelligent Design, when it a) fails all known scientific standards (standards which you then turn around and attack evolution with, ironically, b) requires that God was either quite stupid or actually wasn't the intelligence in the first place.

Also no one has ever actually said what this "intelligence" (ie God) actually did. There is a challenge to you JC. What did God actually do? You claim he created life. Big whoop. Tell me, using your brilliant Creationist knowledge, how he actually did this. You claim He did not use a natural process, which is a bit bizare since He uses a natural process for everything else So what is the logic that states that God can intelligently design everything from the laws of physics to the Tolka river to work seemlessly as part of the clock work of nature, but He is to dumb to actually figure out a way to do this with life, and therefore has to use direct intervention (ie magic) to actually make us. Are you calling God dumb? Isn't there a law against that in your religion JC?

So, what did he actually do, in detail please. What magic did the "intelligence" in ID actually do?

J C wrote:

If such an impossibility were to occur

You hit the nail on the head there as to why "Creation Science" is not science.

It cannot be science unless one accepts that error exists, and that theories can be wrong. It is called falsifiability.

You ask why creationism is not taken seriously by the scientific community. You have your answer. You refuse to accept your basic premiss that the Bible is the literal word of God and cannot ever be wrong. Aside from being nonsense that is also very very very unscientific of you (funny, for someone who claims to be a trained working scientists)

This applies to BC, Wolfsbane, anyone else who goes on about science rejecting Creationism. This is why

(one of the reasons at least).

J C wrote:

…….and the decline in mainstream Christian Churches over this period parallels their abandonment of Creationism for Theistic Evolutionism!!!

Yes, it does. Well spotted. Have you considered why? (actually scratch that, you would probably blame it on Satan :rolleyes:)

J C wrote:

Don’t keep us in suspense, do tell us what the mistakes were!!!

We have been over them already. For a start the conclusions about the fossil record are completely wrong, and have been discussed here a number of time.

He also makes the exact same mistake you did about the difference between odds something will happen and possibility that it can happen. A few times actually

But the whole website is nonsense (you would LOVE it JC). I particularly like this quote

First, the similarities can be explained just as well by intelligent design, pointing to a single designer. Second, if similarity is evidence for evolution, then dissimilarity should be an argument against, and there are many dissimilarities between organisms

Surely if similarity, while being evidence of evolution, can also be seen as evidence of ID, why is dissimilarity seen only as evidence against evolution? Funny that. If life was intelligently designed why is life so different. Why do we have 40 different versions of an eye ball? This "intelligence" that designed us could not have been that intelligent.

Like I said, the website is nonsense, and therefore you and wolfsbane will probably be quoting from it for the next couple of months :rolleyes:

Fallen Seraph

J C wrote:

Here is a New Scientist article confirming that the biggest Dinosaurs were all warm-blooded and therefore MAMMALS!!!!

... okay? so you, who claims to have some form of degree in biology, are saying that the body temperature of a the larger members of a class of creatures determines whether theyhave mammary glands? You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The definition of a mammal is that it has mammary glands. Dinosaurs didn't have mammary glands. No body temperature will change this.

J C wrote:

Why do Roman Catholics loudly proclaim their belief in God as MAKER and CREATOR of all things in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds every Sunday then ??

Surely you know that the Roman Catholic church's position is that evolution happens? I mean take this for a quote :

Fr. George Coyne, Vatican's chief astronomer wrote:

Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

The combination of cold water temperature and increased acidity in the meat produced by pond bacteria called lactobacilli, which can survive without oxygen, made the meat unpalatable to other bacteria that normally decompose dead tissue, according to Fisher.

Did you miss the vital point about pond bacteria, JC, or did its implications not sink in, perhaps? The bit about "survive without oxygen" is important, you see, given the other claims for good aeration made for the Flood (survival of various other things).

This is the problem, you see - a little answer here, a little answer there, but no attempt made to reconcile the fact that answer A conflicts with answer B, and therefore both cannot be true. You do not have real answers, JC, because all your answers are point by point, and conflict with each other...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Since you keep repeating this:

JC wrote:

Why do Roman Catholics loudly proclaim their belief in God as MAKER and CREATOR of all things in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds every Sunday then ??

I think that the answer is obvious – that the Roman Catholic Church does, in fact, hold these beliefs to be TRUE!!!

Please also bear in mind that there are many leading Creation Scientists who are Roman Catholic – and according to sceptic, Michael Shermer writing in the Scientific American, 31% of all American Roman Catholics believe that living beings have always existed in their present form – which is actually a more conservative position on the ‘origins question’ than ‘literal Genesis’ Creationists hold!!!!

Why not have a look at what Catholic belief actually is?

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:

"Considered in connection with the entire account of creation", says a recent eminent Jesuit exegete, "the words of Genesis cited above proximately maintain nothing else than that the earth with all that it contains and bears, together with the plant and animal kingdoms, has not produced itself nor is the work of chance; but owes its existence to the power of God. However, in what particular manner the plant and animal kingdoms received their existence: whether all species were created simultaneously or only a few which were destined to give life to others: whether only one fruitful seed was placed on mother earth, which under the influence of natural causes developed into the first plants, and another infused into the waters gave birth to the first animals — all this the Book of Genesis leaves to our own investigation and to the revelations of science, if indeed science is able at all to give a final and unquestionable decision. In other words, the article of faith contained in Genesis remains firm and intact even if one explains the manner in which the different species originated according to the principle of the theory of evolution"

and

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:

The scientific theory of evolution, therefore, does not concern itself with the origin of life. It merely inquires into the genetic relations of systematic species, genera, and families, and endeavours to arrange them according to natural series of descent (genetic trees).

How far is the theory of evolution based on observed facts? It is understood to be still only an hypothesis. The formation of new species is directly observed in but a few cases, and only with reference to such forms as are closely related to each other; for instance, the systematic species of the plant-genus Œnothera, and of the beetle-genus Dimarda. It is, however, not difficult to furnish an indirect proof of great probability for the genetic relation of many systematic species to each other and to fossil forms, as in the genetic development of the horse (Equidæ), of ammonites, and of many insects, especially of those that dwell as "guests" with ants and termites, and have adapted themselves in many ways to their hosts. Upon comparing the scientific proofs for the probability of the theory of evolution, we find that they grow the more numerous and weighty, the smaller the circle of forms under consideration, but become weaker and weaker, if we include a greater number of forms, such as are comprised in a class or in a sub-kingdom. There is, in fact, no evidence whatever for the common genetic descent of all plants and animals from a single primitive organism. Hence the greater number of botanists and zoologists regard a polygenetic (polyphyletic) evolution as much more acceptable than a monogenetic (monophyletic). At present, however, it is impossible to decide how many independent genetic series must be assumed in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. This is the gist of the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis. It is in perfect agreement with the Christian conception of the universe; for Scripture does not tell us in what form the present species of plants and of animals were originally created by God. As early as 1877 Knabenbauer stated "that there is no objection, so far as faith is concerned, to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types" (Stimmen aus Maria Laach, XIII, p. 72).

As usual, your conceit of the truth is shown to be as accurate as a child's stick drawing compared to David. Please forebear from repeating this particular claim, and I will, in turn, forebear from requoting the above to demonstrate your ignorance.

Scofflaw

hairyheretic

On a lighter note:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution

TOPEKA, KS—In response to a Nov. 7 referendum, Kansas lawmakers passed emergency legislation outlawing evolution, the highly controversial process responsible for the development and diversity of species and the continued survival of all life.

"From now on, the streets, forests, plains, and rivers of Kansas will be safe from the godless practice of evolution, and species will be able to procreate without deviating from God's intended design," said Bob Bethell, a member of the state House of Representatives. "This is about protecting the integrity of all creation."

The sweeping new law prohibits all living beings within state borders from being born with random genetic mutations that could make them better suited to evade predators, secure a mate, or, adapt to a changing environment. In addition, it bars any sexual reproduction, battles for survival, or instances of pure happenstance that might lead, after several generations, to a more well-adapted species or subspecies.

Rest of the story at the link. And in case anyone isn't familiar with The Onion, its a satire site.

Zombrex

hairyheretic wrote:

And in case anyone isn't familiar with The Onion, its a satire site.

LOL .. i would not be surprised if this was real

Fav quote -

Although the full impact of the new law will likely not be felt for approximately 10 million years

bonkey

J C wrote:

Why do Roman Catholics loudly proclaim their belief in God as MAKER and CREATOR of all things in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds every Sunday then ??

Surely, you ask this rhetorically. I would be troubled if you didn't know the answer, for it would mean you were making comments from ignorance about what Roman Catholics believe.

If you do know the answer, however, then you know that what I said is accurate. The implication of this is that you're being deliberately obtuse if not wilfully misleading with this line of reasonign.

Please also bear in mind that there are many leading Creation Scientists who are Roman Catholic

That a Creation Scientist says they are Roman Catholic does not mean they hold the beliefs that their church says are the correct ones.

I clarified the position of the Roman Catholic Church. You are trying to make a case that some Roman Catholics aer of a differing opinion. I've no doubt they are, but I'd ask what relevance that has to my point that only some judeo-christian religions reject evolution.

We were talknig about the religions, not their followers.

There's many adulters who are Roman Catholic. Does this mean the roman Catholic Religion embraces adultery? I'm willnig to wager some members of your church are sinners. Does this mean your religion embraces and supports sinning? But yet, when it comes to evolution, you want us to accept what some members of the church think as being more representative of what the church's stance is than the church's own official position!

Michael Shermer writing in the Scientific American, 31% of all American Roman Catholics believe that living beings have always existed in their present form – which is actually a more conservative position on the ‘origins question’ than ‘literal Genesis’ Creationists hold!!!! :eek:

And the other 69%? They believe something else, right? So it would seem that either 31% or 69% must be wrong. Its possible that 100% are wrong.

We must, therefore, accept that at least some Roman Catholics believe in stuff contrary to the teachings of their church!!!

And how do we know which those are? Why....by seeing what their church's official position is, rather than making it up to suit ourselves.

Which brings us back to where we started. Despite your attempt to equate what some members believe with the actual position of hte church, the Roman cathoic religion does not believe evolution undermines man's origins as you implied through your lack of qualification that I previously corrected.

One interesting implication from all this, however, is that you believe in supprting those who disagree with their church over those who show obedience and respect!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

What a strange position - a Christian supporting other Christians for refusing the teachings of their church!

robindch

> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807

Lovely

Scofflaw

Religion on the Way Out in Europe

Always something to bear in mind when one sees creeping Creationism - it may represent the polarisation of religious opinion, rather than an increase.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

J C wrote:

Here is a New Scientist article confirming that the biggest Dinosaurs were all warm-blooded and therefore MAMMALS!!!!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...its-blood.html

We've been here before J C, your inability to learn is astounding. Being hot-blooded does not a mammal make, for example birds are warm blooded, but are NOT mammals.

And continuing our 'lighter note' ...

I know we're not really into ID here, but I think this cartoon explains why ID is not science better than any article I've ever read.

Zombrex

pH wrote:

LOL .. brilliant

J C

pH wrote:

They look like two EVOLUTIONISTS allright

Could I gently remind you that Macro-Evolution requires a miracle at EVERY step in the process (including 'step two'). Creation only requires ONE miraculous FIRST step - when each living organism was made by God!!!!:D

Great cartoon BTW!!!:D

J C

Wicknight
I said if evolution is shown to be wrong tomorrow I would have no problem rejecting it. ………… What ever you claim about evolution, ID does work. (emphasis mine)

A ‘Freudian Slip’ no doubt – but very interesting nonetheless!!!!:D


Wicknight
For a start no one has ever actually said what this "intelligence" (ie God) actually did. There is a challenge to you JC. What did God actually do? You claim he created life. Big whoop. Tell me, using your brilliant Creationist knowledge, how he actually did this.

What did he do in detail please, when did he do it.

He simply said “Let there be …… and there was!!!!!:cool:

………and Creation by an omnipotent and omniscient God is far a better ‘fit’ to the evidence (of complex organisms exhibiting massive quantities of tightly specified information) than the alternative of muck ‘lifting itself up by its own bootstraps’ to become Man!!!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
If such an impossibility were to occur
Wicknight
You hit the nail on the head there as to why Creation "Science" is not science.

It cannot be science unless one accepts that humans can error, and that theories can be wrong. it is called falsifiability.

But it is falsifiable – I did say IF such an impossibility were to occur!!:cool:

Scientists routinely pronounce various phenomena to be impossible.

For example, Scientists accept ideas, such the restoration of life to brain dead bodies or perpetual motion machines that break the Laws of Thermodynamics, as impossibilities.
Such pronouncements aren’t “outside of science” – they are in fact based upon detailed scientific observations – and they are also falsifiable - if somebody can repeatably demonstrate a perpetual motion machine or the restoration of life to a brain dead corpse.
So far neither has been demonstrated and therefore it is scientifically valid to pronounce them as impossibilities.

Equally, the biological Law of Biogenesis as well as all scientific observations to date rules out the spontaneous generation of life. The probability of the undirected production of the information dense genomes that we observe in living organisms are so impossibly large as to rule out any mechanism other that Direct Creation as their ultimate source.
The scientific theory of Direct Creation is falsifiable - if somebody can repeatably demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously.
So far, this hasn’t happened nor is it likely to happen. It is therefore scientifically valid to pronounce the disproof of Creation as an impossibility.

I also said that if Creation was ACTUALLY proven to be incorrect, I would probably ‘go into denial’ and become an Evolutionist!!!!!

How much more open-minded do you want me to be???!!!:D

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I know we're not really into ID here, but I think this cartoon explains why ID is not science better than any article I've ever read.

JC wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

For a start no one has ever actually said what this "intelligence" (ie God) actually did. There is a challenge to you JC. What did God actually do? You claim he created life. Big whoop. Tell me, using your brilliant Creationist knowledge, how he actually did this.

What did he do in detail please, when did he do it.

He simply said “Let there be …… and there was!!!!!

Nail, meet head.

laughing,
Scofflaw

insixdays

JC and wolfebane's if I left a portion of meat on the ocean floor for the duration of how long you think the flood went on for, if you are capable of eating, whatever remains, I'll eat the origin of the species...

:confused

insixdays

As early as 1877 Knabenbauer stated "that there is no objection, so far as faith is concerned, to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types" (Stimmen aus Maria Laach, XIII, p. 72).

The descent of all plants ad animals from a few type sounds suspiciously like the creation model for the explanation of origins

However, I would say that the Roman Catholic Church is sitting on the fence on this one, since they explain the theory of evolution and then go to say that the creation model could be equally valid.

Diogenes

insixdays wrote:

JC and wolfebane's if I left a portion of meat on the ocean floor for the duration of how long you think the flood went on for, if you are capable of eating, whatever remains, I'll eat the origin of the species...

:confused

JC has claimed that the canivorous animals, survived in the years after the flood on the remains of the animals killed during the flood.

I've pointed out to him that meat, would have been eaten by marine life, rotted and been digested by parasites and bacteria.

JC has come out with all sorts of suprious nonsense about piles of meat not rotting, the natural preserving properties of salt.

I put it to JC that if he was willing and capable to to eat a steak (ie that anything recognisible as edible meat) that I left sitting in a wire cage at the bottom of the ocean floor for five months. If he was able to do so, I offered to eat a copy of "the origin of the species."

After JC's current "pond" theory (JC do you really think an investigation into meat being kept in a shallow open water pond, has any relationship to meat preservation at the bottom of an ocean floor? (quick clue here JC the tip here is the fact that "shallow" and "pond" are adjectives rarely used to describe an ocean) I am reiterating this challenge to him. Seriously. If he genuinely believes that a lump of meat can be edible after 5 months at the bottom of the ocean I will eat the origin of the species. We can discuss the circumstances of how the meat will be kept, a referee. Hell we could run a website. Someone needs to put a stop to his nonsense. And if he can eat a steak kept at the bottom of the ocean for 5 months, I'll eat Darwin's words.

As early as 1877 Knabenbauer stated "that there is no objection, so far as faith is concerned, to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types" (Stimmen aus Maria Laach, XIII, p. 72).

Before I get all excited would you mind explaining to me, who exactly is Knabenbauer, and why exactly should I get excited about his biological theories?

Scofflaw

insixdays wrote:

As early as 1877 Knabenbauer stated "that there is no objection, so far as faith is concerned, to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types" (Stimmen aus Maria Laach, XIII, p. 72).

The descent of all plants ad animals from a few type sounds suspiciously like the creation model for the explanation of origins

However, I would say that the Roman Catholic Church is sitting on the fence on this one, since they explain the theory of evolution and then go to say that the creation model could be equally valid.

Actually, the position of the Catholic Church is that whatever works, works. If people prefer to believe in Creationism, that's up to them, but there are no objections to evolution, and that evolution is certainly what appears to be the case.

The Catholic Church gets to say this because they do not believe that the Bible must be read literally, so the interpretation of Genesis is very open, except insofar as it definitely identifies God as the Creator of Heaven and Earth.

To call it fence-sitting is a little unkind - it is a fully worked-out theological position with much to recommend it.

JC and wolfebane's if I left a portion of meat on the ocean floor for the duration of how long you think the flood went on for, if you are capable of eating, whatever remains, I'll eat the origin of the species...

This is in relation to a claim by JC that the food supplies available to carnivores after the Flood consisted of huge piles of drowned animals. Since these corpses would have been in seawater for however long the duration of the Flood was, they would be partially decomposed and extremely salty. The argument is really about how those animals that survived the Flood fed themselves after the Flood, presumably as they migrated back to wherever they came from (or had to get to, depending).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Diogenes

Oh and an oldy but a goody;

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory


Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.