Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1159160162164165822

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Firstly (as an aside) we now have GodTube (beta)

    And here's my candidate for the best definition of 'Evolution' ever.

    "Given enough time all things will happen, that a rock ultimately will turn into a man ... that's like saying that this mousetrap could ultimately turn into a mouse."
    http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    pH wrote:
    "Given enough time all things will happen, that a rock ultimately will turn into a man ... that's like saying that this mousetrap could ultimately turn into a mouse."
    http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b
    I love the way the he has an oscilloscope hooked to a radio.
    "Oh my god guys, if my oscilloscope is correct this thing isn't broadcasting signals, it's receiving them!"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    Actually secondly, the video demonstrates what is wrong with a lot of Creationist arguments. Rather than attempting a technical argument, they sort of sermonise on evolution's impossibility using stories and analogies.

    As far as I'm aware, there has never been a technical argument.

    I think we're still awaiting JC to show us some technical papers.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > [pH] Firstly (as an aside) we now have GodTube (beta)

    Ye gods! That's even better than the goons at conservapedia!

    > [scofflaw] chimpanzees [...] use of tools and spears, [...]
    > From the Creationist point of view - how come?


    AiG looked into this yesterday and the conclusion they came to after reading the BBC article is that "God did it" -- see Ken's full "explanation" here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    robindch wrote:
    > [pH] Firstly (as an aside) we now have GodTube (beta)

    Ye gods! That's even better than the goons at conservapedia!

    > [scofflaw] chimpanzees [...] use of tools and spears, [...]
    > From the Creationist point of view - how come?


    AiG looked into this yesterday and the conclusion they came to after reading the BBC article is that "God did it" -- see Ken's full "explanation" here.

    That's what I was expecting, but it just puts the question one step further back (hmm - that's familiar sounding) - why create animals intelligent enough to use spears? How much more (or less) intelligent would they need to be to worship? If they're intelligent enough to use spears, surely they're intelligent enough to suffer? If they're able to suffer, why do they suffer? Did they fall with Adam?

    Last but not least - why does this fit so neatly with the evolutionary picture? For all AiG's disclaimer (I just have to quote it - their emphasis):
    AiG wrote:
    This discovery merely confirms that chimps are intelligent creatures, created with enough intelligence to make and use simple tools and learn from one another, as do many other intelligent animals; this is a far cry from being made in the image of God, as Genesis describes humans, and in no way validates evolutionary ideas.

    we don't actually have any creatures that use spears, and rocks, and sticks, and learn from each other the way our nearest living relatives do.


    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    You guys provide a wealth of good questions, and I regret not being able to do justice to all of them because of time constraints. Before I pick up on the latest, here's one of the back-log (p.234):
    Scofflaw said:
    Hmm. Yes and no. Wicknight is eliding the argument a bit, but there's an essence of truth there. The short answer is 'no', that's not why Creationism is rejected by science - it is rejected because it cannot be proved or disproved by science, and therefore falls outside its scope, because it involves potential miracles and divine intervention. That is to say, it is not rejected by scientific process, but because it cannot be subjected to scientific process. In legal terms, there is 'no case to answer', because the matter is 'outside the law'.
    So Creation Science is non-scientific because it posits an ex-nihilo creation by God. That would mean Evolution Science is non-scientific because it posits abiogenesis. Neither the Genesis creation nor the materialistic one have been observed by scientists. Why the discrimination? Seems to me the real issue is not their presuppositions on origins, which cannot be proved, but their predictions of what one would expect to find in the results of those origins. The complexity of the natural world, the geological and archaeological record, etc. On this basis, both Creationism and Evolutionism are scientific.
    However, if you hold the Bible to be the real truth - the truth above all other truths, if you like - there is a conflict between that belief and scientific investigation.

    Imagine, for a moment, that I am a police officer. I know that X is guilty of a murder - and I am in fact right. Will I stick to the rules of investigation as per the police manual, if they are not producing the evidence necessary to convict X? Or will I be tempted to take shortcuts to get to the truth?

    Now, I accept that you would say that there is not conflict between what science reveals, and what the Bible says is true - but I'd like you to think for a minute about human fallibility, and the limitations of current technology. Only if you believe that current technology is perfectly sufficient to reveal the full truth about God's Creation can you claim there will never be a conflict between science and the Bible. And only if you believe humans are infallible can you then claim that when faced with a conflict between what science shows and what the Bible teaches, the Bible-believer is not at risk of distorting the science, even unknowingly.
    There will certainly be occasions when science will appear to contradict the Bible account. Just as in a criminal investigation, where some evidence may strongly suggest a suspect is guilty, when later and fuller data prove that he is innocent.

    And I agree about the weakness of human nature in its readiness to see what is convenient. Every true student must be vigilant against this.
    I would say that because you will not accept that the God of the Bible is unreal, you have to take the Bible as being the Word of God, and in turn, you literally cannot see science disproving Genesis - just as Paul could not see Jesus as the Son of God.
    No, I could see me having to say that the scientific evidence does not seem to fit the Biblical account. I would of course believe that later research will overturn this, but I would not now be claiming that science does support my case. And Paul did come to see Jesus as the Son of God.
    Except that Creationism is discussed in scientific circles. Indeed, it akes regular appearances in virtually any discussion in scientific and academic circles. It's just not considered to be science, and so doesn't get to appear in most peer-reviewed journals.
    That was my point - it is not discussed as science. I may discuss Mormonism or Islam, but not as a Christian theology.
    Is this 'gagging dissent'? As I've said before, it can be - and some enthusiastic people have certainly stepped outside the limits. However, rather than being cheered to the echo, they have been fired.

    Frankly, I would take your claims of conspiracy and 'gagging dissent' more seriously if:
    a) we were not just talking about getting articles published in peer-reviewed journals;
    b) there were any evidence that Creationists are really trying to get published in peer-reviewed journals, and being rejected wholesale
    c) there wasn't clear evidence of distortion and fabrication by Creationists of scientific evidence - which there undoubtedly is
    Suppression need not be wholesale to be damaging. A token Black did not disprove racial discrimination. As to the clear evidence of distortion and fabrication, that is disputed. And of course it is found in the field of evolutionists, who have imposed frauds on one another or distorted their opponents’ arguments.

    The whole thing is based on the idea that one can do science while simultaneously accepting that God could have intervened at any point to do something by fiat. One can't.
    Creationist do not argue that normal scientific processes are subject to regular interventions by God. They do argue that God has on a few notable occasions intervened in the physical world to give us evidence that remains to the present. The Flood is one such. Evolution also believes in interventions - by asteroids, for example. Should we rule out all non-uniformitarian ologies?
    Nice quote - but so wide of the mark as to make it ridiculous. Those who see the world in religious terms assume scientific dissent works like religious dissent, because they cannot see it otherwise. Similarly, those who see the world only in terms of ideologies see scientific dissent as being the same as ideological dissent. Both are wrong, and you are following.
    A current example of the treatment of dissidents in science:
    WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf
    I'm not sure what that would be. You think being an atheist is easy? How would you know?
    Well, I began as a functional atheist. Living for the day. Atheism means this life is all there is and if it’s lousey, then an exit can be made without fear of consequences.
    Let me stop you there, and point out the narrowness of your definition of Christian. The majority of Christians do not take Genesis literally, and it seems to be no impediment to their faith.
    More accurately, the majority of those calling themselves Christian. A denial of the historicity of Genesis has not been the belief of the Church of the New Testament times, nor since - until relatively recently. Most of what calls itself Christianity today is in fact theological Liberalism of one sort or another - the equivalent of the Sadducees of Christ’s time, who denied the existence of the spirit world and resurrection.
    It's true that people do use science to rubbish the gospel, and that is improper, since science has nothing to say about faith and belief. However, your take is that evolution 'rubbishes' Genesis, which is only true if Genesis should be taken literally.

    Your claim is over-broad - it applies to your specific narrow doctrinal interpretation, not the main body of Christianity.
    Most of today’s Christians no longer hold to the historic doctrines of the faith, and are therefore not Christians. However, some true Christians are evolutionists, some others hold to an Old Earth/Young Biosphere. I don’t have a big problem with the latter, as it treats Genesis as the historical narrative it is, but the former produces a hermeneutic that undermines all the other historical events of the Bible, notably the resurrection of Christ. That is a real rubbishing of the gospel.
    Oh, come on. You claim that we will not shift our position, despite our 'deep knowledge' that it is false, yet claim that Creationists would abandon theirs 'if they suspected it was false'?
    OK, I accept it is a judgement call - but it seems to me a lot easier to abandon false notions of an after-life in favour of tangible benefits here, than to abandon the tangible benefits for the hope of heaven. Only the certainty of the latter is likely to produce endurance in the face of hardship, and such certainty comes only from the work of God the Holy Spirit in one’s heart.
    Why not just come straight out and say that we are fortified in our unbelief by Satan?
    I gladly say so. That is what the Bible reveals about the blindness of the lost:
    2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
    Again, rubbish. First, it ignores, again, the fact that most scientists are believers, not unbelievers. Second, all we have to do is 'believe on JC' and we're out of the woods. It's not necessary for us to be frightened - the path to salvation is clearly offered by you and your ilk.
    First, not believers in the Biblical sense. Second, becoming a Christian is the last thing a sinner wants to do. It means dying to one’s old nature, and only those who have a new heart from God will want to do that. Men would rather die in despair than serve Christ.
    All part of the glorious untestability of Creationism. Creationists don't actually offer an explanation of what happened, except what it says in Genesis, which is very little. After that, it seems each Creationist has their own pet theory of how the Flood happened - and not one is scientifically testable!
    I’m not sure what you mean by testable. Surely it means something like, ‘Here’s what we would expect to find if Creation happened 6000 years ago’, and then follows a list of evidences indicating a young earth. Are you thinking of something different?
    And you're 100% sure that science supports that view, and 100% sure that if it didnt, you wouldn't hold it. Wolfsbane, what can I say - you are like a shining light to us lesser mortals, who dither and worry in the mire of doubt! I salute you.
    Well, I’m 100% sure science will eventually be seen to support that view. Like all detective work, sometimes the evidence may lead one to make incorrect inferences. But eventually all the evidence fits.
    It wasn't accepted untl recently, and there are still people who claim different ages. Scientific consensus is just that - consensus. Do not try to misrepresent it as the absolutism of faith for your own purposes.
    This is just my point: science did not always hold to billions of years, but the current consensus is taught with absolutism. Any dissenters are treated with contempt and their scientific arguments are ruled out of order.
    Eh? We're still evolving. Here.
    I did say relative stability. I have no problem with the concept that our gene pool is being altered. We are losing information, by natural selection. We are not changing into superior forms of human, and certainly not into replacements of homo sapien.
    Just to clarify that again - no. However, it is likely that someone whose beliefs require science to say certain things will not do good science unless it is science that cannot challenge their beliefs.
    Yes, presuppositions can colour our thinking. Same thing applies to materialists. But both can do valid science if they just record the facts.
    Perhaps this is why most Creationists are not in the life sciences....
    Many are, e.g: Scientists in the Biological Sciences
    http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/
    But belief that God intervened in those things that make Creationism scientifically testable, makes those things scientifically untestable, and Creationism untestable.

    Unless you are prepared to rule all miracles, and all divine intervention, out of your 'scientific interpretation of Genesis', then it isn't a scientific interpretation, because science cannot test it...
    This is a key to your error. Creationism can be tested on those aspects that leave evidence: e.g., the geological record, the irreducible complexity of living things. It can’t be tested on their assertion that God intervened to cause the Flood - but the Flood as an historical event can be tested. Putting it another way, if we look at a massive crater on the earth’s surface, we can see if the evidence points to a meteor-hit or a volcanic explosion. We cannot test whether God caused the hit or the volcano to explode.
    The eternal complaint of those in the wrong - "it's a conspiracy, it isn't fair, the rules are aginst me, I could've been a contender". Stop whining and do some science.
    Creationists are presenting the evidence and increasingly breaking new ground in research.
    http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html
    http://www.icr.org/research/
    http://www.icr.org/article/13/
    What rubbish. We can all abandon evolution at any time for the Creationist version of 'salvation', or any other. It's easy to do, if harder to stick to.
    Yes, a cheap belief evaporates in the heat of trial. That's why real Christianity is not an attractive alternative to unbelief.
    As for me, I don't even deny the possibility of God - I just reject him. I'd still, on balance, prefer him to exist than not, because it would mean that a lot of good people will have not have lived and died futile existences.
    I agree, if God is not real, life is a futile existence. But it can be fun, if you have the power and the lack of conscience to exploit it. But the gospel tells one that the Day of Judgement for the wicked is coming. That's one reason men would rather face a futile existence than accept the truth about the God of the Bible.
    While I usually have quite a lot of respect for you, your post showed a great deal of wrong-headed arrogance. Stop preaching at us, wolfsbane. You aren't an atheist, so you think it's easy. You're flat wrong.
    As I pointed out above, I once did not believe in any god. And I'm preaching at you because I want to see you rescued from your sin and its eternal consequences. That's the mandate Christ left His people with, and this is a 'Christian' board - so don't be surprised if we bring you the gospel.
    Science doesn't agree with you, so rather than doing some yourself, you call it all a conspiracy. Flat wrong another time.
    None of us can be experts in every field, so does that rule out our having an informed opinion based on experts?
    Finally, you have the arrogance to think you define what a Christian is, and you're flat wrong a final time.
    Any honest scholar will have no trouble in defining what the New Testament views as a Christian. That’s the only definition I am concerned about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw said:
    Interesting. Where is that supported? It seems a somewhat more complete explanation than I remember being available in the Bible, but presumably it's somewhere in the Letters?
    Christ's fulfilment and abolition of the Old Covenant is dealt with in various places in the New Testament, notably Romans and Galatians, but the book of Hebrews provides the fullest account.

    For example: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&version=50


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    wolfsbane wrote:
    So Creation Science is non-scientific because it posits an ex-nihilo creation by God.
    It's not viewed as science because:
    wolfsbane wrote:
    I’m not sure what you mean by testable. Surely it means something like, ‘Here’s what we would expect to find if Creation happened 6000 years ago’, and then follows a list of evidences indicating a young earth. Are you thinking of something different?
    What you have said above is almost never done and is the main weakness of creationism. If you wanted to do Creation science you'd have to take the assumption that creation happened 6,000 years ago and use it to deduce features of the world around us.
    If anybody could provide me with a paper that does that I'd be happy, but I've never seen one. (And yes I have looked)
    Most of the time Creationists talk about how evolution is wrong, rather than how their own ideas explain the world.

    Can anybody give me a paper that uses the assumption of a 6,000 year old Earth to derive some feature of the world.

    An example if I'm being vague:
    1. A matlab or suitable geological simulation suite, which uses the assumption of a 6,000 year old Earth to obtain any of the gross features on the world's major continents which standard science claims is due to lengthy geological processes. For example a detailed simulation of how the flood formed the Grand Canyon.

    2. Numerical Simulations or Analytic solutions to GR (which are stable) showing how galactic structures are what they appear to be, given the assumption that the universe is 6,000 years old.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    None of us can be experts in every field
    That's true, although I can think of one of your fellow creationists who specifically says he is an expert in every field.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Through rationality, logic, emotion and God given common sense.
    So by these you could determine whether or not she was, for example, spying for the Security Services? Or do you mean only that you rule out any supernatural phenomena? Your wisdom would permit you to believe Christ walked Galilee's shores, but not its waters. So you would rewrite the Bible as history by excising all references to any supernaturally caused event and anything that contradicted the current consensus of science. Of course, you would have to issue a revised edition, when science changes its opinion on anything relevant.
    It will be a sad day for the world Wolfsbane when people become completely dependent on being told what to think and believe, by the Bible or anything else.
    Spiritual things can only be known by revelation, so we are completely dependent on God speaking to us, whether by prophets in the Old testament or the apostles of the New.
    Yes actually, they are.

    If you look at the percentage of the population that died due to war and disease in the 20th Century and in the previous centuries it is a marked improvement.
    Ah, percentages. OK, that may be arguable. It was the massive numbers I was thinking of.
    In Europe we have only had 2 major wars in close to 100 years. That is astounding considering we had periods in the middle ages and renaissence periods that were marked by almost continuous war, often fought over religious differences.
    I'm sure Hiroshima had thousands of fires since the Middle Ages. It had only one on 6th August 1945. A big improvement?
    No, that is the reason why a war was never started between west and the USSR.

    What you should be asking is why has a western European country not declared war on another in close to 60 years?
    Because they were peeking through the blinds in fear, as they looked East?
    Why has there [not] been a war in North America in close to 100 years?
    Because all the Indians - well, most of them - have been killed. Let's ask about the whole of the Americas - why have they lurched from crisis to crisis in Central and South America? Religion? Materialism and greed seem a better explanation.
    Why has peace, health and prosperity in these areas vastly increased as they have embraced humanism, secularism and science in this post-Enlightenment era?
    Why did secularism and science not work in Germany, Russia and China?
    Why have these societies not crumbled under God's wrath and been stricken from the face of the planet? They seem to have been rewarded with the longest period of sustained peace in the history of western civilisation.
    The sustained peace is more likely to come from the balance of terror than secular humanism. Once that balance goes, the veneer of civilised society crumbles when it has no strong moral constraint. As to godless societies prospering, America and Britain are living on past credit. Their Christian heritage restrained their evil to some extent, but now we see the degeneracy bearing fruit. Not that these countries were ever truly Christian, for the rich and powerful who normally run the country seldom let morality get in their way. And The West's involvement in two World Wars seems pretty much a judgement to me.
    It would appear judging by the history of humanity that religion, Christianity included, encourages ignorance and poverty. Christianity has a pretty poor record when it comes to this.
    You have heard my definition of real Christianity before. False Christianity obviously uses oppression to bolster its claims.
    A move away from mass organised institutionalised religion (ie secularism in public matters such as the state) appears to do the opposite, ie encourages tolerance, health and prosperity.
    Tolerance - civil and religious liberty - is the real marker. That is fully in keeping with Biblical Christianity. State-enforced religion is opposed to it.
    Such as?
    A few from social movements:
    http://www.antislavery.org/2007/campaigners%20wilberforce.htm
    http://www.antislavery.org/2007/campaigners%20gsharp.htm
    http://website.lineone.net/~gsward/pages/wknibb.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapham_Sect

    A few from science:
    James Joule
    Michael Faraday
    James Clerk Maxwell

    Education: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0131education.asp


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    wolfsbane wrote:
    James Clerk Maxwell
    Ugh!, Maxwell was deeply Christian and an avid Church goer, but any biography of Maxwell I've ever read has him say several times that he found electromag so interesting he couldn't stop working on it. I've never read (even including a biography from fellow Christians) that it was his Christianity and not his natural curiosity that motivated him in this regard.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote:
    So by these you could determine whether or not she was, for example, spying for the Security Services?
    No, you are missing the point. You can tell if the claim made in the biography is probably true or not. If the biographer claims she was and he appears to be talking nonsense you know that that claim is nonsense.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    So you would rewrite the Bible as history by excising all references to any supernaturally caused event and anything that contradicted the current consensus of science.
    Groan .. you are so fixed on the idea that the Bible MUST be used some where that you are completely missing my point. No one has to rewrite the Bible, why would someone have to re-write the Bible. People are stupid, they can determine what is or what isn't nonsense in the Bible.

    You do know that for most of the history of Christianity the vast vast majority of Christians never even read the Bible. Can you really not imagine being a Christian without pouring over every word in the Bible?
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Spiritual things can only be known by revelation

    Reading a book isn't a revelation Wolfsbane.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    I'm sure Hiroshima had thousands of fires since the Middle Ages. It had only one on 6th August 1945. A big improvement?
    Yes actually, if you compare Hiroshima to something like the Black Death that wiped out a 3rd of the population in Europe (75 million people) and was spread was helped in part by religious ignorance and superstition.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Because they were peeking through the blinds in fear, as they looked East?
    No
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Because all the Indians - well, most of them - have been killed.
    Yes but why aren't Americans invading Canada? Or Mexico?
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Let's ask about the whole of the Americas - why have they lurched from crisis to crisis in Central and South America? Religion? Materialism and greed seem a better explanation.
    South America is a quite religious area
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Why did secularism and science not work in Germany, Russia and China?
    That is a good question. Possibly because the cultures were so used to the mind set of religious devotion that this was taken advantage of by rulers who set themselves up as personal gods (Hitler, Mao etc). One can only imagine what it would have been like if religion had never spread its unfortunate mindset to the countries in the first place.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Once that balance goes, the veneer of civilised society crumbles when it has no strong moral constraint.
    The USSR is gone. And yet France hasn't invaded Germany.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    As to godless societies prospering, America and Britain are living on past credit.
    God gives out credit now does he :rolleyes:
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Their Christian heritage restrained their evil to some extent, but now we see the degeneracy bearing fruit.
    What, with continuous increase in standard of living across American the UK. At the hight of religious devoting God rewarded the people of Europe with the Black Death. Can you see the difference?
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Tolerance - civil and religious liberty - is the real marker. That is fully in keeping with Biblical Christianity.
    The long bloddy history of Christianity would tend to contradict that idea. In fact Jesus wasn't particularly tolerant, claiming that he was here to turn brothers against brother, sons against fathers, daughters against mothers.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    State-enforced religion is opposed to it.
    And yet we find Christians around the world attempting to get their religion into the class room, either with Creationism or pray in schools.
    wolfsbane wrote:

    But surely Wilberforce is not a true Christian since he rejected the Bible's guidelines and justification for slavery.

    That is not much point Wolfbane using people as examples of how Christianity has helped the world when you don't even view them as true Christians. It would appear that to help the world a Christian has to shed some or all of the nonsense in the Bible, and by doing so you would no longer consider them a "true" Christian.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote:
    So Creation Science is non-scientific because it posits an ex-nihilo creation by God. That would mean Evolution Science is non-scientific because it posits abiogenesis. Neither the Genesis creation nor the materialistic one have been observed by scientists. Why the discrimination? Seems to me the real issue is not their presuppositions on origins, which cannot be proved, but their predictions of what one would expect to find in the results of those origins. The complexity of the natural world, the geological and archaeological record, etc. On this basis, both Creationism and Evolutionism are scientific.

    Hmm. No, although I can see where you get that impression from. The question is not whether Creation, or abiogenesis, were observed. It is whether they are provable from forensic evidence.

    I've used this analogy before, because it's apt - that of a murder trial. The absence of witnesses (observers) does not invalidate the verdict, but means that the verdict must be reached through the examination of evidence.

    What is the evidence to be examined for? It is to be examined for whether it fits with a theory of the murder or not. If someone suggests a theory, then the test of evidence determines whether such a theory is acceptable or not.

    Now, there is a problem - if we suggest a theory that fits any set of facts. Such a theory can never be disproved. It remains, if you like, the null hypothesis. Or rather, hypotheses - since undisprovable theories can be imagined almost without limit.

    When it comes to Creation, the problem is exactly that. We cannot prove that God did not do it - which equally means that we cannot prove He did.

    Given that this is the case, the hypothesis that the Biblical God created the world cannot be disproven - but neither can the hypothesis that Marduk made it out of the body of Tiamat, or Zeus out of the body of a giant, or Allah by pure will, or...well, I'm sure you get the idea.

    So, because none of the religious theories of the origin of the world can be either proved or disproved, they remain unexamined by science - because science only deals with what is provable or disprovable.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    There will certainly be occasions when science will appear to contradict the Bible account. Just as in a criminal investigation, where some evidence may strongly suggest a suspect is guilty, when later and fuller data prove that he is innocent.

    And I agree about the weakness of human nature in its readiness to see what is convenient. Every true student must be vigilant against this.

    Good - although you're putting in an irrelevant plug for your viewpoint there!
    wolfsbane wrote:
    No, I could see me having to say that the scientific evidence does not seem to fit the Biblical account. I would of course believe that later research will overturn this, but I would not now be claiming that science does support my case. And Paul did come to see Jesus as the Son of God.

    Unfortunately, that loophole is too large. You do not have to ever change your view, because 'later science will overturn' the science that appears to show the Bible wrong. So, in fact, science can never challenge your view.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    That was my point - it is not discussed as science. I may discuss Mormonism or Islam, but not as a Christian theology.

    And no religious theory of the origin of the world is science.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Suppression need not be wholesale to be damaging. A token Black did not disprove racial discrimination. As to the clear evidence of distortion and fabrication, that is disputed. And of course it is found in the field of evolutionists, who have imposed frauds on one another or distorted their opponents’ arguments.

    Well, I can see for myself, and so can you, so we'll agree to differ here. However, there are some pretty clear-cut cases, such as Snelling's claim that a paper he discusses doesn't deal with erroneous young ages, when it does.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Creationist do not argue that normal scientific processes are subject to regular interventions by God. They do argue that God has on a few notable occasions intervened in the physical world to give us evidence that remains to the present. The Flood is one such. Evolution also believes in interventions - by asteroids, for example. Should we rule out all non-uniformitarian ologies?

    Not at all. Uniformtiarianism is not quite the dogma that creationists believe it is (I'll resist, just, calling it a straw man). Geologists regularly deal with the results of catastrophic events - volcanoes, earthquakes, landslides, submarine slides, etc etc.

    Actually, uniformitarianism in the geological sense only means that the same processes operated yesterday as today - that a flood will leave the same kind of sediments whether it happened last week or a thousand years ago - or a hundred million.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    A current example of the treatment of dissidents in science:
    WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

    Pfft. One climatologist thinks others should lose their certification if they disagree with global warming. OK, so? One swallow doth not a summer make, as I think you've said yourself.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Well, I began as a functional atheist. Living for the day. Atheism means this life is all there is and if it’s lousey, then an exit can be made without fear of consequences.

    Pfft again. That's no more atheism than being brought up a Catholic is being a Christian. What you mean is that you didn't bother to think about it - something I think both of us regard as a bad thing.

    As to consequences - what of those that love us? What of our dependents? Those who do things without thought of consequences are the same whether atheist or theist.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    More accurately, the majority of those calling themselves Christian. A denial of the historicity of Genesis has not been the belief of the Church of the New Testament times, nor since - until relatively recently. Most of what calls itself Christianity today is in fact theological Liberalism of one sort or another - the equivalent of the Sadducees of Christ’s time, who denied the existence of the spirit world and resurrection.

    Mmmm, no. That's fundamentally just a repetition that your viewpoint is right, and others wrong. They 'call themselves' because they believe themselves to be Christians, not for any other reason. That you don't agree is neither here nor there.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Most of today’s Christians no longer hold to the historic doctrines of the faith, and are therefore not Christians.

    As interpreted by you.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    However, some true Christians are evolutionists, some others hold to an Old Earth/Young Biosphere. I don’t have a big problem with the latter, as it treats Genesis as the historical narrative it is, but the former produces a hermeneutic that undermines all the other historical events of the Bible, notably the resurrection of Christ. That is a real rubbishing of the gospel.

    I am aware that this is your viewpoint. From my perspective, what you have is a false belief that leads on to you rejecting much of modern science. Since I have a lot of experience of modern science, and find it to be correct, I work back in the other direction to find your interpretation of the Bible false.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    OK, I accept it is a judgement call - but it seems to me a lot easier to abandon false notions of an after-life in favour of tangible benefits here, than to abandon the tangible benefits for the hope of heaven. Only the certainty of the latter is likely to produce endurance in the face of hardship, and such certainty comes only from the work of God the Holy Spirit in one’s heart.

    Third pffft. Again, from my point of view, the idea that death is not final, and that you can not just avoid it, but indeed live in 'eternal bliss', just by correct actions in this life, is the 'tangible benefit'.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    I gladly say so. That is what the Bible reveals about the blindness of the lost:
    2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

    Actually, you'd said it before.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    First, not believers in the Biblical sense. Second, becoming a Christian is the last thing a sinner wants to do. It means dying to one’s old nature, and only those who have a new heart from God will want to do that. Men would rather die in despair than serve Christ.

    Less hard than turning over a new leaf without benefit of reward or comfort.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    I’m not sure what you mean by testable. Surely it means something like, ‘Here’s what we would expect to find if Creation happened 6000 years ago’, and then follows a list of evidences indicating a young earth. Are you thinking of something different?

    Yes. For it to be testable, it has to mean "here's what we expect to find if Creation happened 6000 years ago as written in Genesis, and if we don't find that then Creation didn't happen that way".

    In other words, Creationism is testable if it is tied to its predictions. It isn't. There isn't any fact that cannot, in the last analysis, be explained by 'God did it that way'.

    Even without resorting to 'God did it that way', the Bible says so little about what actually happened that almost any explanation can be offered - from the earth splitting open, to hydroplates, to vapour canopies, and so on. Creationism is simply not tied to the evidence. It makes no predictions other than that the world is 6000 years old and that there was a worldwide flood - both predictions which science finds false, leading to your necessary rejection of science.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Well, I’m 100% sure science will eventually be seen to support that view. Like all detective work, sometimes the evidence may lead one to make incorrect inferences. But eventually all the evidence fits.

    Yes, you are 100% sure. And that's the problem.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    This is just my point: science did not always hold to billions of years, but the current consensus is taught with absolutism. Any dissenters are treated with contempt and their scientific arguments are ruled out of order.

    Er, no. We were, and are, encouraged as scientists to question everything. You keep telling me thats not true, but all you offer as evidence is anecdotes and news snippets from the political front - which is as irrelevant to the science of evolution as it is to the science of global warming.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    I did say relative stability. I have no problem with the concept that our gene pool is being altered. We are losing information, by natural selection. We are not changing into superior forms of human, and certainly not into replacements of homo sapien.

    Again, the claim that we are 'losing information' is just a claim, without support. It is a doctrinal position contradicted by evidence.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Yes, presuppositions can colour our thinking. Same thing applies to materialists. But both can do valid science if they just record the facts.

    Science is more than just 'recording the facts', butthe methodology is such that the facts remain the ultimate arbiter.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Many are, e.g: Scientists in the Biological Sciences
    http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/

    This is the same old list, with the same old problems. Really, wolfsbane, it is not impressive. Physiology/kinesiology a 'life science'? It's P.E.! Science Education a 'life science'? No, it most certainly isn't.

    In that whole list, which only contains a handful of scientists, most are not actually in the life sciences at all.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    This is a key to your error. Creationism can be tested on those aspects that leave evidence: e.g., the geological record, the irreducible complexity of living things. It can’t be tested on their assertion that God intervened to cause the Flood - but the Flood as an historical event can be tested. Putting it another way, if we look at a massive crater on the earth’s surface, we can see if the evidence points to a meteor-hit or a volcanic explosion. We cannot test whether God caused the hit or the volcano to explode.

    No, but as you say, we can test the Flood. The evidence doesn't just 'not support it'. There is no evidence whatsoever for a global Flood, and the idea bears no relation whatsoever to even Irish rocks. They are simply not flood sediments. Really, honestly, and truly, cross my heart and hope to die, they aren't. There's no evidence of any widespread flood in Ireland at all.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Yes, a cheap belief evaporates in the heat of trial. That's why real Christianity is not an attractive alternative to unbelief.

    Oh, wolfsbane. Unbelief is not the same as atheism - that's like me calling you a Catholic because I can't be bothered to distinguish (or indeed because I want to score a cheap debating point).

    All you're saying there is that something like a near-death experience makes people re-examine their lives - if they previously considered the 'big questions' irrelevant, they are likely to suddenly start examining them.

    How many near-death experiences have you had - where you genuinely thought you were about to die? I've had three so far (car off a road in the Alps, fire at sea in a hurricane, drug-dealers in Tangiers), and none have made me abandon atheism.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    I agree, if God is not real, life is a futile existence. But it can be fun, if you have the power and the lack of conscience to exploit it. But the gospel tells one that the Day of Judgement for the wicked is coming. That's one reason men would rather face a futile existence than accept the truth about the God of the Bible.

    That certainly applies to some people - but I think you'll find that actually most of those people either shy away from such questions, or believe in a vague way that it will work out OK for them. Plenty would call themselves Christians, or Muslims, or whatever - very few would call themselves atheists!
    wolfsbane wrote:
    As I pointed out above, I once did not believe in any god. And I'm preaching at you because I want to see you rescued from your sin and its eternal consequences. That's the mandate Christ left His people with, and this is a 'Christian' board - so don't be surprised if we bring you the gospel.

    Well, no, I'm not surprised as such, obviously...however, "preaching at someone" and "bringing them the Gospel" are two different things. The former is characterised by you telling me how I think or feel about something, based on nothing more than your prejudices. It's deeply unattractive.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    None of us can be experts in every field, so does that rule out our having an informed opinion based on experts?

    When you pick and choose your experts based on whether they say what you want to hear, despite your lack of expert knowledge, it tends to shout your bias, yes.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Any honest scholar will have no trouble in defining what the New Testament views as a Christian. That’s the only definition I am concerned about.

    Well, frankly, that's just saying that you have the arrogance to assume that people who disagree with your point of view are dishonest!

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    This news just in from researchers looking into homo/heterosexual sex within captive Koala populations:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10425714

    Turns out that female Koalas engage in lesbian sex three times as often as in heterosexual sex. Can't wait to see (honorary) Dr Ken get his mits on this story!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    The increase in resistance of human pathogens to antimicrobial agents is one of the best-documented examples of evolution in action at the present time, and because it has direct life-and-death consequences, it provides the strongest rationale for teaching evolutionary biology as a rigorous science in high school biology curricula, universities, and medical schools. In spite of the importance of antimicrobial resistance, we show that the actual word “evolution” is rarely used in the papers describing this research. Instead, antimicrobial resistance is said to “emerge,” “arise,” or “spread” rather than “evolve.” Moreover, we show that the failure to use the word “evolution” by the scientific community may have a direct impact on the public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives.

    http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050030


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    robindch wrote:
    Turns out that female Koalas engage in lesbian sex three times as often as in heterosexual sex.
    Did they film it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pH wrote:

    Interesting.

    I always wondered how one would explain bacterial resistence to a religious person who rejected evolution as simply something that doesn't happen, end of story. Maybe they put bacterial resistence down to Satan or the Fall or something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Wicknight wrote:
    Interesting.

    I always wondered how one would explain bacterial resistence to a religious person who rejected evolution as simply something that doesn't happen, end of story. Maybe they put bacterial resistence down to Satan or the Fall or something.

    Easy. Pre-existing genetic diversity. Next, please!

    Actually, I think we have JC on record claiming exactly that.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    An interesting article on chimp and human evolution which suggests that chimpanzees are evolving 30% faster than us.

    A little quote:
    In the chimpanzee lines, BRI found numerous instances of species-strengthening mutations that were passed down and reproduced in subsequent generations. These included DNA-chain shifts that are associated with increased fine-motor skills, improved verbal communications abilities, increases in brain volume and activity, improved memory, greater lower body strength, and variations in hip structure that would tend toward a more upright posture. Chimpanzees still use their forearms for support during locomotion, but apparently less so than they did 200 years ago.

    Those are positive mutations being passed on, those are...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Scofflaw wrote:
    Easy. Pre-existing genetic diversity. Next, please!

    Actually, I think we have JC on record claiming exactly that.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Ah yes ... now if they could only define what "pre-existing genetic diversity" is :D


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > if they could only define what "pre-existing genetic diversity" is

    Um, I think you'll find that "god did it" :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw said:
    Those are positive mutations being passed on, those are...
    "The results are in: chimps are evolving faster than human beings. This startling discovery was made by a group of biologists and evolutionary scientists at the Biped Research Institute of Portland, Oregon following a three-year study into the genetic and evolutionary patterns of multiple generations of both species."

    "Obviously we'd like to perform this study on a sample that included thousands of cases from multiple and disparate family groups, on both the ape and the human side, but that's simply not possible," said Dr. Kettle. "However, if current trends continue, we at Biped Research wouldn't be surprised if you were to find a chimp sitting in the White House before the next century is out."

    http://studenthealth.oregonstate.edu/answerspot/message.php?message=5338
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body/

    All I can say is: Crystal Meth; Oregon; Planet of the Apes. You shouldn't believe all you read. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote:
    Scofflaw said:

    "The results are in: chimps are evolving faster than human beings. This startling discovery was made by a group of biologists and evolutionary scientists at the Biped Research Institute of Portland, Oregon following a three-year study into the genetic and evolutionary patterns of multiple generations of both species."

    "Obviously we'd like to perform this study on a sample that included thousands of cases from multiple and disparate family groups, on both the ape and the human side, but that's simply not possible," said Dr. Kettle. "However, if current trends continue, we at Biped Research wouldn't be surprised if you were to find a chimp sitting in the White House before the next century is out."

    http://studenthealth.oregonstate.edu/answerspot/message.php?message=5338
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body/

    All I can say is: Crystal Meth; Oregon; Planet of the Apes. You shouldn't believe all you read. :)

    Very true, but if you can have the Conservapedia (I'm pretty sure it's why JC has been so quiet), why can't we have our own satires?

    I did particularly like the idea of the Dutch Museum, though...alas, it still didn't tempt JC out of wherever he is...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,257 ✭✭✭hairyheretic


    wolfsbane wrote:
    Scofflaw said:
    "Obviously we'd like to perform this study on a sample that included thousands of cases from multiple and disparate family groups, on both the ape and the human side, but that's simply not possible," said Dr. Kettle. "However, if current trends continue, we at Biped Research wouldn't be surprised if you were to find a chimp sitting in the White House before the next century is out."

    I'm sure many people would say one already is :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Scofflaw wrote:
    it still didn't tempt JC out of wherever he is...
    He doesn’t seem to have posted for over a fortnight. Could it be that he’s finally convinced?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Schuhart wrote:
    He doesn’t seem to have posted for over a fortnight. Could it be that he’s finally convinced?

    No, I genuinely think he might be writing the Conservapedia...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    God's gone and caused more trouble for creationists -- turns out that he planted some fossils in Alberta, Canada which would make it look like a dinosaur "missing link" had been discovered when they were dug up six years ago:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2921625
    CLEVELAND Mar 4, 2007 (AP)— A new dinosaur species was a plant-eater with yard-long horns over its eyebrows, suggesting an evolutionary middle step between older dinosaurs with even larger horns and the small-horned creatures that followed, experts said.

    The dinosaur's horns, thick as a human arm, are like those of triceratops which came 10 million years later. However, this animal belonged to a subfamily that usually had bony nubbins a few inches long above their eyes.

    Michael Ryan, curator of vertebrate paleontology for the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, published the discovery in this month's Journal of Paleontology. He dug up the fossil six years ago in southern Alberta, Canada, while a graduate student for the University of Calgary.

    "Unquestionably, it's an important find," said Peter Dodson, a University of Pennsylvania paleontologist. "It was sort of the grandfather or great-uncle of the really diverse horned dinosaurs that came after it."

    Ryan named the new dinosaur Albertaceratops nesmoi, after the region and Cecil Nesmo, a rancher near Manyberries, Alberta, who has helped fossil hunters. The creature was about 20 feet long and lived 78 million years ago.

    The oldest known horned dinosaur in North America is called Zuniceratops. It lived 12 million years before Ryan's find, and also had large horns. That makes the newly found creature an intermediate between older forms with large horns and later small-horned relatives, said State of Utah paleontologist Jim Kirkland, who with Douglas Wolfe identified Zuniceratops in New Mexico in 1998. He predicted then that something like Ryan's find would turn up.

    "Lo and behold, evolutionary theory actually works," he said.
    Note the name of the university where the Michael Ryan was studying when he discovered the fossils :)

    In other news, and a bit like our four-legged duck from a week or two back, an information-increasing mutation preserved the life of a frog in China last week -- take a look at the fourth picture along.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robindch wrote:
    In other news, and a bit like our four-legged duck from a week or two back, an information-increasing mutation preserved the life of a frog in China last week -- take a look at the fourth picture along.

    Not sure if this was the point you were getting at, but it is a fascinating area the study of how other animals have evolved in certain ways to appear pleasing to humans, thus adapting to life with humans. It is a well often quoted theory that dogs evolved to appear more "baby like" during puppyhood to inspire humans to protect and care for them.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > it is a fascinating area the study of how other animals have evolved in
    > certain ways to appear pleasing to humans, thus adapting to life with humans.


    Yes, that's what I was getting at -- it would be interesting to see what happened if that eight-legged frog were to reproduce. I doubt we'll ever know...

    Then there's the similar story about the Samurai Crab from Japan which had its seven-and-a-half minutes of fame on Carl Sagan's Cosmos years ago:

    http://www.kirainet.com/english/heike-crab/

    ...but the story, it turns out may be over-stated:

    http://www.docbug.com/blog/archives/000701.html
    http://crustacea.nhm.org/people/martin/publications/pdf/103.pdf


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    A good piece of evidence for evolution that I just came across recently, is apparently genetic dating of head lice shows that their population bottlenecked about 100,000 years ago.
    Genetic dating of humans indicates that our population bottlenecked 100,000 years ago. So we have two independant sets of data correlating evolutionary data for a parasite and its host.

    Apparently all the major findings about human population bottlenecks, migrations and adaptations are replicated in headlice.

    I'll see if I can get a paper.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Son Goku wrote:
    Apparently all the major findings about human population bottlenecks, migrations and adaptations are replicated in headlice.

    I'll see if I can get a paper.
    Feels a little itchy all of a sudden. Just get a fine tooth comb.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement