The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

JustHalf

To be fair, robindch, Galileo got in trouble primarily because his book ridiculed the Pope. It actually slagged the crap out him.

That's not the way things rolled in those days, homie.

JustHalf

JustHalf wrote:

To be fair, robindch, Galileo got in trouble primarily because his book ridiculed the Pope. It actually slagged the crap out him.

That's not the way things rolled in those days, homie.

Yeah he was allowed to present his side but only as a hypothetical debate and with an argument from the church's perspective too. His name for the church's advocate was "Simplicius". No wonder he got into trouble!

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

What is your purpose in posting questions here?
What are your criteria for an answer to be accepted to one of your questions?

If you will pardon my rudeness robindch, I would like to extend the same opportunity to JC, and hear his reply to the above.
I like salt and vinegar on my chips.

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

Scientists spent years trying to create gold. It is now known that it can't be done.

I believe that would be alchemists, not scientists.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Science has told us the following that we now laugh at:

Because at the time, that was what they could come up with, given their knowledge. As knowledge has improved and those things been proved false, science has accepted that and moved on.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The bible has been consistent in its teachings for close to 4,000 years.

No it hasn't. To start with, the NT is at most 2000 years old.

I've brought up some of the most interesting levitical laws in the past, and been told that those are rendered invalid by some of the NT stuff.

Then we have the issue of the books and teachings that have been selected for inclusion or exclusion from the bible by various authorities over the centuries.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why should I believe science now?

Because science can acknowledge when it makes mistakes, learn from them and move on. Can religion?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Another question I have is: prove to me that there is no God?

Can you prove there is one? Or many? Or none?

Proof would, to me, imply something that can be repeatedly tested and validated, without the need for a belief that it will (or won't) occur.

robindch

> To be fair, robindch, Galileo got in trouble primarily because
> his book ridiculed the Pope. It actually slagged the crap out him.

Yeah, I know. But that's got nothing to do with the point I was making: that it was the *church's* position that the earth was the center of the universe, not some "scientist" as BrianCalgary seems to think.

Apart from anything else, scientists didn't exist in the modern sense until the late 19th/early 20th century. So complaining that you're not going to "believe" something a "scientist" says now, coz you don't trust him, coz one of his ancestors said something daft five hundred years ago is as useful as saying you're not going to trust your doctor's diagnosis this morning coz five hundred years ago doctors believed the doctrine of sanguinary humors. Pffff!!

Morbert

I'm sorry J C.... Because although you do have a higher standard of argument then the usual YEC, you still don't have a proper understanding of science, evolution, or creationism for that matter. And as a result, all your claims fall into the same pits. But I shall try and show you the error of your ways.

J C wrote:

It is therefore important to strictly differentiate between what we BELIEVE through FAITH and what we SCIENTIFICALLY UNDERSTAND from studying OBSERVABLE phenomena.

The written Word of God in the Bible can only be believed in through Faith – but the spoken Word of God in all of Creation can be repeatably observed and so it IS within the realm of Science. The Bible can provide useful ideas to be scientifically tested against tangible evidence – but it obviously is itself not part of the Scientific Method – and Creationists do not claim that it is.

Well then please provide links to the scientific theory of creation, and state how it can be tested using the scientific method.

You yourself have admitted that the deus ex machina is outside the realm of science, yet you then go on to claim we can scientifically infer such a mechanism from natural evidence. So far you're simply relied on incredulity to support creationism, yet such an approach is nowhere near adequate enough to lift creationism to the status of a science. Even if evolution were found to be completely absurd (which it isn't). This would not mean anything regarding the acceptance of creationism as a science.

So again I'll reiterate. Please Explicitly state the scientific theory of creationism. I do not want incredulous claims and apparent problems with evolution. We'll get to them later.

J C wrote:

There are of course some impure limestones that arose through contamination with other materials.

However, the fact remains that all economically important Limestone Quarries contain PURE Limestone. These rocks could NOT have been produced by gradual deposition or from the breakdown of animal bone, which would have produced significant contamination with organic matter and other materials.

Commercial Limestone rock was formed by the instantaneous release and deposition of massive quantities of water saturated with pure Calcium Carbonate. This is a process similar to that described as the welling up of the “fountains of the deep” during Noah’s Flood. It certainly WASN’T produced by gradualist processes or by animal bone breakdown – the fossils that are found in Limestone are generally very well preserved – and because these fossils weren’t chemically broken down, there is no reason to believe that the rest of the crystalline Calcium Carbonate found in these rocks came from chemically eroded bone or shells either.

Eh... You do realise that such mechanisms release a huge amount of heat. Even if the flood was responsible for a fraction of today's limestone, enough heat would be generated to boil the flood waters. Geological processes need huge amounts of time which allows the heat to be radiated gradually. Creationism, of course, does not address any of this.

So no... Limestone could not have formed from massive precipitation. And could you provide references and reasoning to your claim that gradual deposits could not have accounted for the limestone found in limestone quarries. The standard geological model has no problem with limestone formation.

J C wrote:

The fossils you describe are obviously real – it is the source of the massive quantities of PURE crystalline Calcium Carbonate surrounding them, which is at issue.

Again, conventional geology explains the formation of limestone.

J C wrote:

The Grand Canyon is evidence of the catastrophic effects of large amounts of water acting over a relatively short period of time to gouge out the Canyon before the sandstone sediment in the rock had petrified.

Similar ‘canyon formation’ processes were observed to occur in a matter of hours during a SEDIMENTATION event triggered by the overflow of ash saturated waters from Spirit Lake during the Mount St Helens eruption in 1980. The canyon was cut by the outpouring of water from Spirit Lake through a 30 metre deep layer of SEDIMENT, which had been formed earlier by volcanic ash and water movements within the lake during the volcanic explosion.

Again... You are completely incorrect. The inner canyon is carved into strongly metamorphosed sediments, so the above mechanism could not have accounted for the grand canyon. Comparing the grand canyon to Ash deposits shows a severe lack of understanding of the grand canyon itself. Don't try to explain its formation before learning what it is.

Also, if such a process was responsible, then there is no geological reason why the flood shouldn't have produced many many other "grand canyons".

Basically, the Grand canyon does not exhibit features associated with a massive flood. We'd expect to see, such as boulders/gravel, wide shallow beds, "braided" river systems, slumping at the sides of the canyon etc. Instead we see meanders and tributaries and layered rock (Which was apparently simultaneously deposited and eroded by the great flood) etc.

J C wrote:

THE FACT IS that the common female ancestor of all of Mankind – is by definition the first woman.
The important issue here, is that science has established that we are all descended from ONE woman who lived in very recent historic time (measured in thousands and NOT millions of years).

No... This is not the fact. By your definition, there are many many "first women". If we follow generation history along the mother's path, we come to a very different woman than if we travel along the father's path, or if we mix the two. The truth is the woman could only be considered common ancestors along specific genetic descent. But the fact that our history lies in 2 parents, and therefore 4 grandparents etc. means we can't call them "Eves".

Morbert

J C wrote:

The following quote from the said Stephen Jay Gould Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology at Harvard University and a leading Evolutionist, may help explain WHY the young Northern Ireland Christians that you refer to above ARE listening very carefully to Creation Scientists (and indeed Professor Gould’s OWN reservations about Evolution).

“Palaeontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study”.‘Evolution’s erratic pace’, by Prof. Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p14.

Could you please provide the surrounding text to this quote?

J C wrote:

Evolution must be established by objective repeatable means if it is to be a regarded as a valid scientific explanation for the presence of life on Earth – and your posting confirms that this has NOT been done.

You are correct that Evolution could remain a POSSIBILITY until every avenue of enquiry is exhausted, which as you have pointed out, would effectively take forever.

However, Evolution would effectively cease even being a POSSIBILITY if Creation by an ‘External Intelligent Agent’ were to be scientifically confirmed.

The Direct Creation of life can be scientifically validated by various means already outlined on my previous postings. This is the ‘terrible vista’ that has opened up for Evolution – and that is why evolutionists are so 'exercised' by what is being achieved by Intelligent Design and Creation Science research at present.

Please provide scientific validation, or at the very least a link to where you have previously done so and I will be able to point out why your arguments are in fact not scientifically valid.

And evolution is indeed established as both objective, repeatable, reputable mechanism supported by evidence (which is of course available on demand if you're interested)

You are correct that the Scientific Method does not allow a ‘leap of faith’ in reaching a scientifically valid conclusion. ‘Muck to man Evolution’ IS a ‘leap of faith’ because it has never been repeatably observed nor indeed has any of it’s putative constituent steps ever been demonstrated.

There is NO ‘leap of faith’ involved in reaching a scientifically valid conclusion on the levels of information and the degree of purposeful design observed in living organisms.
Information and design levels are capable of objective assessment and measurement.
All life shows massive levels of information in it’s genome and amazing degrees of purposeful design in its phenome.

The level of information and the perfection of design observed in living systems approaches levels, indicative of the intense application of infinite intelligence.

“Observe” in science does not simply mean to witness... Instead it means to compare rigorously defined predictions of theories to experimental results or carefully studied natural phenomena.

We know very little about abiogenesis, but we do not know nothing about it, and the behaviour of organic chemicals suggests it is a worthwhile field of study.

And science does indeed require leaps of faith... So long as you're willing to turn around and start building a bridge from that leap using empiricism and experimentation, so that others may cross it with confidence and make leaps of their own. It's why science is so immensely powerful.

J C wrote:

Complexity of design and large amounts of information DOES indicate that something is NOT the result of undirected random or repeating processes – and IS the result of processes directed intelligence . That is why SETI scientists would scientifically conclude that a radio broadcast of the DNA sequence for an Amoeba from some distant point in our Galaxy would be scientifically valid proof for the presence of Extra Terrestrial INTELLIGENCE. The same logic applies to the Amoeba DNA itself.

I agree... Complexity DOES reveal that it is NOT the result of undirected random repeating processes. It’s the inclusion of the word intelligence or (INTELLIGENCE as you put it) that causes all the problems.

Complexity is the result of both natural selection and mutation. It’s not a random unguided process.

J C wrote:

Please note that SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) doesn’t demand a radio broadcast of a ‘signature’ saying ‘ET is phoning you from home’ in pristine English. Such a demand would obviously be both irrational and unreasonable.

Your demand that God should sign His name according to YOUR self-specified arbitrary requirements is equally unreasonable and scientifically invalid.

Could I suggest that DNA IS itself a ‘signature’ that unmistakably states that ‘God did this’ or in scientific terminology ‘An External Intelligent Agent of enormous power and intelligence did this’!!!!

Why don't SETI consider pulsars to be evidence of extra terrestrials?

If you wish to claim intelligence as an agent of our design, then you will need to rigorously support such a claim with reference to information theory.

JC wrote:

This statement is similar to arguing that because the plastic polymer in a blank DVD is the same as the plastic polymer in an Encyclopaedia Britannica DVD, that the INFORMATION on the Encyclopedia DVD is not of a higher quality than the blank DVD.

The genetic INFORMATION required to produce a Human Being when compared with that required to produce a one-celled Amoeba is objectively enormously greater in terms of both quantity and quality.

DNA and its constituent Nucleic Acids are primarily an information storage system and their chemistry is incidental to their main function. The absolute number of base pairs is not the critical point – it is their PRECISE arrangement to store very complex INFORMATION that is the most important.

I agree. Perhaps I need context to better understand this contention, but this post is "loose threaded" enough as it is.

Morbert

J C wrote:

These dating methods are based on unproven assumptions about the radioactive content of the rock when it was formed, the belief that no radioactivity was added/subtracted externally throughout the period that that rock has existed and the assumption that the rate of change in the radioactivity has remained constant. These unproven assumptions prevent any reliable dating conclusions being drawn – and there are many examples of known recently formed rocks being dated at millions of years old.

Multiple radiometric dating methods yield the same results with an error margin of 1%, this supports the "assumption" that the rocks are closed systems regarding the addition of radioactivity.

If the nuclear decay rates were altered, then we would not be here, as the necessary radiation would have obliterated all life on the planet.

J C wrote:

This argument ISN’T circular but is a logical deduction based on the facts – and it results in the conclusion that the quantity and/or quality of information present in DNA isn’t always directly correlated with the number of base pairs present in the cell.

Again, I probably need context, but how does information stored in DNA present a problem for evolution? Although perhaps it will be addressed further down.

J C wrote:

When these precision processes actually DO get messed up (by critical mutations, for example) severe deformities or embryonic death normally results.

Sexual reproduction does allow RECOMBINATION of genetic material – but such recombination is observed to be tightly constrained within very defined limits – you may get a black-haired cat or a white-haired cat – but it is always a cat.
These constraints also cause the so-called ‘genetic selection wall’ that animal and plant breeders rapidly come up against when intensively selecting for single traits.

I agree... But mutations can account for increase in diversity. Be they beneficial or simply neutral. Harmful mutations are indeed destroyed by natural selection.

And there are frame shifts that have dramatic phenome effects with little apparent change in the genome and indeed the same applies to small changes in critical amino acid sequences on the proteins they produce. Equally, the same genetic sequences are observed to produce completely different proteins in different organisms.

There are also apparent ‘auto-repair’ systems and the entire DNA replication process is physically assisted and chemically catalysed by a whole host of other ‘molecular machines’.

All of these information-packed systems indicate the appliance of enormous levels external intelligence.

Why?

J C wrote:

Just when Evolution ran out of ‘vestigial organs’ because Medical Science has discovered their actual functions – along comes a whole new range of ‘vestigial DNA’!!!!

I can assure you that 97% of the Human Genome is NOT ‘junk’ – but has important purposes yet to be discovered by science. Even the Theory of Natural Selection would rule out such a putative waste.

I don't think you understand what vestigial means. Evolution works on modification, so vestigial organs often do have a function, but they are functions which do not follow conventional design principles. Of course a designer would be free to design life anyway he wants, but the point is vestigial organs are rigorously explained with Evolution. They aren't with creationism.

And why would natural selection always weed out useless DNA?

Anyway, a good deal of DNA can be considered functionless despite what you say. Areas of code have been replaced with random "noise" and the organism has not suffered regarding its chances of survival.

Nevertheless, it has indeed been known for a long time that non-coding DNA often has important functions, but you can't turn around and say that means all DNA has a function when it has been clearly demonstrated in the past that it doesn't.

J C wrote:

I have already said that it is not solely ‘a numbers game’ but it is also objectively a quality of information phenomenon as well.

If I were to give you a disc the size of a Euro coin with all of the books ever written stored on it, I’m sure that you wouldn’t accept that such a technological marvel was invented by a Horse and you would be even more incredulous of any claim by me that it was just a ‘fluke of nature’.
The 3D information storage capacity of DNA leaves such a device ‘ at the starting blocks’ so to speak.

I'll ask you again to rigorously define quality. I'm not being pedantic or anal. It's a pivotal point regarding the behaviour and evolution of DNA and resultant phenotypes.

J C wrote:

You could have a point that the quality and quantity of genetic information required to produce a single celled creature, may actually be surprisingly high (when compared with multi-cellular organisms). This could be because an independent-living, single-celled organism, such as an Amoeba, has to carry out all of its vital functions itself and the organelles that perform these functions are incredibly miniaturised.

Either way, the quality of information observed in all of life from the so-called ‘simple cell’ (that isn’t simple at all) to the Human Being is such as to be only derivable from an infinitely intelligent source.

Please explicitly outline your derivation.

J C wrote:

South America and Africa DON’T actually fit NEATLY together, and certainly North and Central America have no resemblance to any part of Northern Africa or Western Europe.

Could I also ask you what testable predictions (that cannot be explained by equally valid alternatives) flow from the idea that the outline of the Atlantic Ocean along the coast of Brazil has a vague resemblance to the outline of the Atlantic Ocean along Central Africa?

Erm.. Well... You've described a fact as opposed to a theory, but anyway.... I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but South America and Africa fit nicely together.[/I] (Bishop, A. C., 1981. The development of the concept of continental drift. In The Evolving Earth, ed. L. R. M. Cocks, London: British Museum, 155-164.)[/I] Not only that, but the mid Atlantic ridge also has the same shape.

No offence but your facts are downright wrong.

Morbert

Argh! This message is terribly convoluted, as I've only just jumped into the debate. But from what I've observed so far, you've provided very little evidence against evolution, and none for creationism. Most of your responses reveal only a vague outline of your reasoning, and can therefore be refuted with the most basic of scientific knowledge. Though perhaps this isn't your fault. Forum discussion can often get like this when no enforced structure is put in place.

Basically, to tie all my tit-for-tat responses together, creationist attacks on the theory of evolution are often ambiguous and vague, contain poor definitions and do not hold any rigorous structure without any consideration for well-established fields of science ranging from molecular biology to geology to physics to cosmology. Which is why it's so frustrating for Scientists.

So JC… I’ll say the same thing to you as I say to all creationists. Do not try to attack evolution until you understand both evolution and the necessary areas of science it is built upon.

Note... if you want to havea debate I suggest we tackle one area at a time, so that I don't have to split my post in 4.

BrianCalgary

OK Robin, Here is what your website has to say about non living matter begetting non-living matter:

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.


Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.

It doesn't answer the question. It tells me that it is irrelevant. But, it is relevant. If there is no God, how does life happen? By the qoute above that you always point to, the question is not answered.

BrianCalgary

OK Robin

Go to this link. After reading I will concede the 2nd law argument. For now anyway.:

http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html

BrianCalgary

Probability answer:

Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.


Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).


This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:


Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
Something that no one has thought of yet.

The author here is assuming evolution and even states that "Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem." He states that Biochemistry is not chance that it will inevatibly produce complex products. Biochemistry happens because God programmed it that way.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

OK Robin, Here is what your website has to say about non living matter begetting non-living matter:

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.


Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.

It doesn't answer the question. It tells me that it is irrelevant. But, it is irrelevant. If there is no God, how does life happen? By the qoute above that you always point to, the question is not answered.

Generally speaking, in a womb. No god there.

Biochemistry is not chance that it will inevatibly produce complex products. Biochemistry happens because God programmed it that way.

Even if that is true, which I'm not agreeing to, would it not be an even greater appreciation of god's work to figure it all out as best we can?
It just seems like you're saying "I don't care - god did it, that's enough". It tends to be rather a lazy approach, non?
I know of a creationist doing a degree in biology/biochemistry, I'm sure that would be quite interesting to discuss...

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

Even if that is true, which I'm not agreeing to, would it not be an even greater appreciation of god's work to figure it all out as best we can?
It just seems like you're saying "I don't care - god did it, that's enough". It tends to be rather a lazy approach, non?
I know of a creationist doing a degree in biology/biochemistry, I'm sure that would be quite interesting to discuss...

Absolutely it would be great to figure it out as best we can. My statement about God did it comes from the feeling that when non-creation scientists get to it they dismiss God as a possibility. I would love to read your contacts paper. The above link on thermodynamics was excellent. The author says that
"Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products", if it isn't a chance how did it get there? By God, it's an admission not laziness. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

Absolutely it would be great to figure it out as best we can. My statement about God did it comes from the feeling that when non-creation scientists get to it they dismiss God as a possibility. I would love to read your contacts paper. The above link on thermodynamics was excellent. The author says that
"Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products", if it isn't a chance how did it get there? By God, it's an admission not laziness. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.

I only know of her through a christian friend who mentioned her in passing.

I think the issue with dismissing god is that god is not testable. Science does not try to prove/disprove god (any who are a little too zealous about atheism might, but they're as bad as those on the christian side doing the opposite) because there is no direct evidence for a god that one can test, measure in a lab, etc. This doesn't mean god doesn't exist, only that science can't and won't deal with the issue. As I said, I think there are those who take it too far and insist it's proof of the non existence for god, which it most certainly is not. It just doesn't have anything to do with it.
Scientists just want to figure out the world around us through what means we have, which is through scientific method. That's the only agenda they have, or should have.

I personally don't care about our origins, to be frank, and I hate studying biology. I'm happy to stick to physics. But I do get involved here when either side starts being unreasonable or making statements I've learned are not true. Especially when people start confusing evolution and the big bang.

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

I personally don't care about our origins, to be frank, and I hate studying biology. I'm happy to stick to physics. But I do get involved here when either side starts being unreasonable or making statements I've learned are not true. Especially when people start confusing evolution and the big bang.

I understand that evolution is about species. But as a Christian I say that 'God created everything', the evolutionist says that 'there is no God and life evolved' (aside from people who are Christians who are trying to fit the fossil record into the six days). The non-believer at some point has to answer the question about the origins of the universe. They are two different issues: origins of life and origin of universe, would you agree on this?

pH

BrianCalgary wrote:

I understand that evolution is about species. But as a Christian I say that 'God created everything', the evolutionist says that 'there is no God and life evolved'

To be fair the 'evolutionist' just says that life evolved.

The non-believer at some point has to answer the question about the origins of the universe.

In the same way as the believer at some point has to answer the question about the orgins of God

They are two different issues: origins of life and origin of universe, would you agree on this?

On this we agree!

BrianCalgary

pH wrote:

To be fair the 'evolutionist' just says that life evolved.!

Then why does it seem as though evolutionists also say that there is no God? Where I am coming from is that Christians worldview is based on God being a transcendant being who created everything (which answers the Origins of God question: He is eternal). The aftermath of that understanding permeates the Christians moral outlook, and way of life.

In the same way, one who understands that evolution is the method by which the world has its diversity of life, will then tend to base their worldview on that understanding. Which for a Christian causes a curiousity as to how the evolutionist views: the origins of the universe, moral outlook and way of life?

pH wrote:

On this we agree!

Who'd've thunk it?

Morbert

BrianCalgary wrote:

Then why does it seem as though evolutionists also say that there is no God? Where I am coming from is that Christians worldview is based on God being a transcendant being who created everything (which answers the Origins of God question: He is eternal). The aftermath of that understanding permeates the Christians moral outlook, and way of life.

In the same way, one who understands that evolution is the method by which the world has its diversity of life, will then tend to base their worldview on that understanding. Which for a Christian causes a curiousity as to how the evolutionist views: the origins of the universe, moral outlook and way of life?


Who'd've thunk it?

Your claim regarding the religious belief of Evolutionists is incorrect, as is demonstrated by the majority of Christians who accept evolution. The term 'evolutionist' is also incorrect, as such a suffix applied to such a well substantiated theory is misleading.

Therefore your ambiguous handwaving regarding the correlation between the scientific theory of evolution and the moral structure of an individual who accepts evolution is also wrong.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Which is why it's so frustrating for Scientists.

You imply that creationists are not scientists. I'm not a scientist but I am a creationist. Most evolutionists are not scientists. But I do not claim that evolutionists are not scientists. Many evolutionists and creationists are scientists.

So we can say that evolution and creation both have the support of scientists. Most are evolutionists; some are creationists. What do you say about those scientists who claim their research in their field of expertise is in line with creationism? Are they liars?

I watched a progrom on Sky the other night concerning the 'Hobbit' woman found in Indonesia. I assume all the researchers would be evolutionists. However, they bitterly opposed each other's conclusions as to whether this find was an ancestor of man, a diseased pigmy or something else. The arguments shifted as further facts came in, but it just seemed to get confused in another direction. Same facts; different interpretations; some very adamant believers; some vested interests. Struck me as similar to the creation/evolution debate, only on a small scale.

Son Goku

I watched a progrom on Sky the other night concerning the 'Hobbit' woman found in Indonesia. I assume all the researchers would be evolutionists. However, they bitterly opposed each other's conclusions as to whether this find was an ancestor of man, a diseased pigmy or something else. The arguments shifted as further facts came in, but it just seemed to get confused in another direction. Same facts; different interpretations; some very adamant believers; some vested interests. Struck me as similar to the creation/evolution debate, only on a small scale.

Except the difference is that all the seperate hypothesis are still unconfirmed, so there is room for debate, there isn't enough evidence yet to choose one over the others.
This isn't the same as the creation versus evolution debate. You're making a very surface level comparison.

So we can say that evolution and creation both have the support of scientists. Most are evolutionists; some are creationists. What do you say about those scientists who claim their research in their field of expertise is in line with creationism? Are they liars?

You're first line is misleading, practically none of the scientific community are creationists. Creationists also don't extend outside a Christian background.
Your final question is proposefully unanswerable. If we say "Yes" we are arrogant, if we say "no" then we are accepting creationist interpretation of the facts.

Son Goku

One question.
If the galaxy is 100,000 light years wide and the universe is only 6,000 years old. How are we receiving light from the other edge?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

there isn't enough evidence yet to choose one over the others. This isn't the same as the creation versus evolution debate.

OK, but both sides of the creation/evolution debate say the evidence fits their theory.

practically none of the scientific community are creationists. Creationists also don't extend outside a Christian background.

Some are. You need to account for them - and they are not just second or third grade scientists.

As to all being Christians, I'm not sure about that. I gather some Islamic scientists are also creationist. And of course some of the ID folk are creationists.

Scofflaw

What exactly is an 'evolutionist'? I did read a couple of blurry definitions up there, but, you know, if I'm going to be called something, I like to know what it is.

From the statement that 'most evolutionists are not scientists' do you mean to indicate that the average man/woman in the street who accepts evolution is thereby an 'evolutionist'?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Some are. You need to account for them - and they are not just second or third grade scientists.

As to all being Christians, I'm not sure about that. I gather some Islamic scientists are also creationist. And of course some of the ID folk are creationists.

I think you'll find that the few who are Creationists (and it really is very few) are either working for Creationist foundations, or are in fields of science that do not deal professionally with evolution.


cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

What exactly is an 'evolutionist'?

I'd have thought it's obvious, people who *believe* in evolution are evolutionists in the same way that those who believe in creation are creationists.

They're both just beliefs aren't they, why should evolutionists beliefs get taught in Science class, and not creationists beliefs ?

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

You're first line is misleading, practically none of the scientific community are creationists. Creationists also don't extend outside a Christian background.
Your final question is proposefully unanswerable. If we say "Yes" we are arrogant, if we say "no" then we are accepting creationist interpretation of the facts.

There are many scientists who would classify themselves as creationists. As they get to the point in marvelling at the complexity of the universe they realize that a greater intelligence had to have created it all.

Here is info on some of those scientists.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I'd have thought it's obvious, people who *believe* in evolution are evolutionists in the same way that those who believe in creation are creationists.

They're both just beliefs aren't they, why should evolutionists beliefs get taught in Science class, and not creationists beliefs ?

This is the whole point of the debate! Evolution is a scientific theory, Creationism is a religious theory. The former is not amenable to faith, the latter is not amenable to science. Creationism no more belongs in the lab than evolution belongs on the pulpit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

There are many scientists who would classify themselves as creationists. As they get to the point in marvelling at the complexity of the universe they realize that a greater intelligence had to have created it all.

Here is info on some of those scientists.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

Crikey! Not only is this argument by anecdote (look, here's one scientist that believes in Creation, there must be literally thousands), but the list contains an awful lot of people from the 19th century (Charles Babbage (1791-1871)) and most are in fields unrelated to evolution.

Just to give you some idea, in case you're impressed by the 600+ Members of the Creation Institute, all Scientists (or rather, postgraduates)! The Chamber of Geophysical Engineers of Turkey alone numbers 1600 working scientists, and that is a minor field, but one that deals with the age of the earth and requires an understanding of conventional geology.

appalled,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

From the statement that 'most evolutionists are not scientists' do you mean to indicate that the average man/woman in the street who accepts evolution is thereby an 'evolutionist'?

Yes, that is my defination of the term - anyone who believes in evolution. Same as with 'creationist'.