The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sangre

wolfsbane wrote:

To illustrate: say that Dawkins set up a foundation to promote atheistic secular humanism, with the central thrust of that being evolution is the fact and creation the lie. Do you think it would be unreasonable for him to demand that all seeking membership accept that no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the secular humanist record?

Would he no longer be a scientist?

How could you be a scientist if you rejected all evidence purely because it contradicts your belief? That's the antithesis of the scientific approach.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

As their organisation [AiG] is committed to the Biblical (and consequently, non-evolutionary) explanation of the universe, it is absolutely proper for them to insist their members hold to this.

AiG reject, without further consideration, anything that doesn't confirm their worldview. You complain at length about prejudice against the creationist worldview in universities (while failing to produce evidence beyond Sternberg), but when the shoe's on the other foot, you claim that it's "absolutely proper for them to insist" on ideological purity (and go on to quote them at length). Do you see why people might think you're being less than consistent here?

wolfsbane wrote:

Religious facists used to burn people at the stake for the same reasons. Watch and see where this current trend is leading. Dawkins gives us a clue.

Are you suggesting that Dawkins is going to burn people at the stake, or advocate the burning of people at the stake?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote:

Do you think it would be unreasonable for him to demand that all seeking membership accept that no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the secular humanist record?

Absolutely, it would be unreasonable. The point is moot, however, since no reasonable and objective person would make such a demand to begin with.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

You need to think more carefully, guys. The Creationist organizations are setting the requirements for membership of their organization, not for being a scientist. As their organisation is committed to the Biblical (and consequently, non-evolutionary) explanation of the universe, it is absolutely proper for them to insist their members hold to this.

By holding to it, a member of such an institute cannot pursue science properly, since he/she may be forced to discard or repudiate evidence where it conflicts with the Bible. So any scientist who is a member of such an institute in good standing is not simultaneously able to pursue science rigorously in any matter that may produce such a conflict.

Since in general, these are exactly the fields that "Creation scientists" choose to study, we can safely say that their work is unscientific as long as they adhere to the terms of membership of such an institution.

wolfsbane wrote:

To illustrate: say that Dawkins set up a foundation to promote atheistic secular humanism, with the central thrust of that being evolution is the fact and creation the lie. Do you think it would be unreasonable for him to demand that all seeking membership accept that no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the secular humanist record?

Would he no longer be a scientist?

Such a foundation would be anti-scientific, certainly, and would cast severe doubt on Dawkins' standing as a scientist.

Anyone who chose to subscribe to the required declaration would have exactly the same problem as one who subscribes to the criteria of Creationists institutes - unable to pursue science rigorously in any field that might produce such a conflict, and therefore not able to produce genuine scientific work in such a field.

wolfsbane wrote:

Would he be saying that one is not a scientist if one does not subscribe to such? Well, he might, knowing his intolerance - so let's put it: would he be right in doing so? Creationists are not so intolerant, and are happy to accept the validity of scientists no matter their religious/ideological beliefs.

Well, willing to accept anything a scientist puts out, scientific or not, as long as it supports the Creationist position, actually.

wolfsbane wrote:

BTW, you might be able to find out what Dawkins thinks when his Foundation for Reason and Science http://richarddawkins.net/foundation,trustees obtains charity status.

Indeed we may - but I would be surprised if Dawkins laid down any such conditions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:

Yes, I can confirm Son's statement.

Evolution has been a prime tool in attacking Christianity, and it has obtained article of faith status in the scientific establishment, making it dangerous to the career for any to suggest tolerating an alternative, much less advocating one. Of course, liberal facism imagines it is serving the greater good, preventing the spread of error. Religious facists used to burn people at the stake for the same reasons. Watch and see where this current trend is leading. Dawkins gives us a clue.

Utter rubbish, I'm afraid. Scientific challenges to evolution are mounted all the time, because overturning such a prominent theory would make one as famous as Darwin. What is unacceptable is to take one's religious beliefs, dress them up as science, and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

You need to think more carefully, guys.

You need to answer the question put to you

wolfsbane wrote:

The Creationist organizations are setting the requirements for membership of their organization, not for being a scientist.

Their "organizations" claim to be scientific organizations, clearing houses for the latest scientific research on "God's Creation", and you and JC are constantly using it as such.

For scientific organizations to have such ridiculous clauses as a requirement that all evidence experiment and observation must be assumed to fit within a very specific religious interpretation is utterly offensive to the very foundation of science.

If you accept that these are religious organisations not scientific ones then stop using them as such. For example you claim that ICR peer reviews anything it publishes. What is the point of peer review if only people who have stated they will only accept Biblical Creation as a valid theory peer review these things.

It is a mockery of science, and your use of these sites simply demonstrates that you still don't really understand what science is.

wolfsbane wrote:

As their organisation is committed to the Biblical (and consequently, non-evolutionary) explanation of the universe, it is absolutely proper for them to insist their members hold to this.

Being committed to a Biblical explanation of the universe makes you a religious organisation, not a scientific one. There is nothing wrong with that, but for these organisations to then claim they are scientific in nature is utterly ridiculous.

wolfsbane wrote:

Do you think it would be unreasonable for him to demand that all seeking membership accept that no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the secular humanist record?

Would he no longer be a scientist?

Yes, he would no longer be acting as a scientist (not sure what you mean by secular humanist record, but I assume you mean current scientific models), nor would an organization set up around that mantra be a scientific organization

Of course since Dawkins is actually a scientist, and has discussed the falsifiability of evolution many times, I seriously doubt he would do this, and that isn't what the RDFRS draft mission statement claims (I cannot see evolution mentioned in that mission statement, simple science)

http://www.secularstudents.org/node/503

wolfsbane wrote:

Would he be saying that one is not a scientist if one does not subscribe to such?

I think Richard Dawkins knows very well what a scientists is or is not, unlike some people.

wolfsbane wrote:

Well, he might, knowing his intolerance

When he does get back to us...

For the time being the only groups claiming to be acting as scientific that have such an un-scientific mantra are Creationists. So perhaps you can deal with that

wolfsbane wrote:

Creationists are not so intolerant, and are happy to accept the validity of scientists no matter their religious/ideological beliefs.

How many Hindu Creationists can join or publish in AnswersInGenesis?

J C

Bonkey
Being "a scientist" does not automatically qualify one to comment with authority on all areas of science - a point which is typically overlooked.

There are Creation Scientists who are qualified in every conventional science discipline – so your point ISN’T overlooked.:D


Son Goku
If you wish to criticise evolution, explain how it gave us modern drugs

NO evidence has been provided on this thread in support of Spontaneous Evolution!!!

…..and modern drugs have been produced by the skilled appliance of intelligence by Mankind!!!!:)


Originally Posted by J C
Firstly, could I point out that Creationists DON’T expect current life-forms to be perfect, due to the Fall and the entry of sin and death into the World, bringing with them imperfection and disease!!!.

Son Goku
How exactly did Sin make disease?
Sin => Mechanism => Disease. What is the mechanism?

The Fall brought sin and death into the World – and sin and death were accompanied by imperfection and disease. This is a theological issue that has resulted in physical effects.


Son Goku
Here's a journal for you to refute.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622826/description#description

The existence of Stem Cells is in FULL conformance with Direct Divine Creation – and so I have nothing to refute – but you, as an Evolutionist have yet another thing to explain!!!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
in the interests of rational argument, lets put evolution aside for the minute and have a look at Intelligent Design,

I think that it is a very good idea to “put evolution aside” in the interests of rational argument – because Evolution is completely IRRATIONAL!!!!:D

Because there is NO evidence for Evolution, it is also a very good idea to not even try to give any evidence for it, and to focus on ID instead.

However, I must once again point out that you are failing to provide ANY evidence for this ‘Theory of Evolution’ for which you claim to have so much evidence !!!!


………………and if you continue to not provide any substantive evidence for Evolution, you risk your fellow Evolutionists losing their faith in it ......and becoming 'apostate Evolutionists' …..AKA Creationists!!!!:D


Wicknight
How can you claim that Intelligent Design is a rational explanation for the life we see around us when you also claim that it is only a rational explanation if one assumes that The Fall took place and effected every animal in the world.

The Intelligent Design inherent in living creatures IS objectively evident from examining these creatures – and so ID is the only rational explanation for the origins of life. Whether it was the God of the Bible who did the designing is an open scientific question - and a closed Christian one.

The Fall is a theological Doctrine which explains disease and death as well as how a perfect, all loving God continues to allow these two infringements of His perfect Creation to continue in existence.
The good news in this regard is that Jesus Christ conquered sin and death, so we can look forward to (perfect) everlasting life with God if we but believe on Jesus Christ.

...BTW isn't it great to see Atheists discussing the Doctrine of the Fall in great detail, on a Christian site. God surely does work in amazing ways!!!


Wicknight
You are basically claiming that life was intelligently designed by God, but due to the Fall life now looks like it wasn't intelligently designed by God.

The vast amounts of Complex Specified Information in living creatures objectively indicates that an effectively infinite intelligence originally created it.

The Fall merely explains why all living creatures must die and are subject to disease.

So life looks like it was Intelligently Designed by God, and the Fall explains why a 99.99999% perfect creature always becomes imperfect and dies.:cool:


Wicknight
As I said a 1st year biology or engineering student could probably come up with a better system given his lunch break and a napkin. Life on Earth doesn't look intelligently designed, unless said intelligence was a moron,

OK Wicknight, please take out your napkin and improve on this, the Intelligent Design of the biochemistry of the sight cascade:-


“When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (BTW a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single Human hair.)
The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it’s behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP).
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (cGMP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers it’s concentation by acting as an ‘absorber’.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of Sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows Sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein ‘pumps’ them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and the ‘pump’ keeps the level of Sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentrations of positively charged Sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP and Sodium ions would be depleted quickly. Several mechanisms turn off the proteins that were turned on, in order to restore the cell to it’s original state. Firstly, the ion channel also lets Calcium ion in as well as Sodium ions. The Calcium is ‘pumped’ back by a different protein so that a constant Calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, Calcium concentrations also decrease too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP slows down at lower Calcium ion concentrations. Second, a protein called guanlate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when Calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. And this is how the cell limits the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin and is reconverted to 11-cis-retinal which is again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, transretinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol – a form containing two more Hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retionol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added Hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal and one cycle is completed (in about one nanosecond).”

Could I suggest that if the undirected production of the sequence for a simple protein is a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY, then the production of the above biochemical sequence for sight is also, how do you say it????....... IMPOSSIBLE.:D

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that ALL 1E+180 sequences COULD potentially produce a 'functional protein', it would be impossible for an undirected system to 'discover' a 'functional protein' like Rhodopsin WHEN IT NEEDED IT because nearly all of the 1E +180 of the protein sequences 'out there' would certainly be in the 'useless combinatorial space' for sight generation agents - so 'finding' the ACTUAL protein sequence to incorporate into the sight cascade at a specific point in time and space would defeat any 'blind' system like Macro-Evolution.
It would be like a spare parts company, randomly searching it's enormous warehouse of 1E+180 spare parts for a particular spare part for your car. You would end up with a pile of useless supplied spare parts the size of the Universe - and still no statistical chance of ever getting the SPECIFIC spark plug (or the Rhodopsin) that you required!!!

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Their "organizations" claim to be scientific organizations, clearing houses for the latest scientific research on "God's Creation", and you and JC are constantly using it as such.

Yes, they produce the scientific research and argument - but they do so in furtherance of a specific aim, a religious aim. Therefore they can both present a scientific argument, and restrict themselves to their religious principles. If they presented themselves as a purely scientific organization, they your criticism would be valid, but they do not.

If you accept that these are religious organisations not scientific ones then stop using them as such.

They are both/and, not either/or.

For example you claim that ICR peer reviews anything it publishes. What is the point of peer review if only people who have stated they will only accept Biblical Creation as a valid theory peer review these things.

The scientific stuff is scientifically peer-reviewed for its scientific validity. That means not accepting an argument or model just because it supports the Creationist case, rather only if it is scientifically supported.

Yes, he would no longer be acting as a scientist (not sure what you mean by secular humanist record, but I assume you mean current scientific models),

No, I mean secular humanist. I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference.

Of course since Dawkins is actually a scientist, and has discussed the falsifiability of evolution many times, I seriously doubt he would do this, and that isn't what the RDFRS draft mission statement claims (I cannot see evolution mentioned in that mission statement, simple science)

Yes, you think secular humanism is simple science. We shall maintain a high quality website (RichardDawkins.net), offering scientific, rationalist and humanist information and materials.

How many Hindu Creationists can join or publish in AnswersInGenesis?

None, I hope. It is a Christian organization. But it should feel free to refer to as good science the findings of any scientist, no matter their religious outlook.

J C

Wicknight
Well, what evidence do you have that these systems were once perfect and that some event altered them? Scientific evidence I mean.

These systems are observed to be PERFECT in creatures today ……. and even minor changes to these perfect systems can cause them to become chaotic, resulting in death or disability!!!
…….. so we can reasonably and rationally conclude that these highly complex, tightly specified systems were originally created perfectly!!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
BTW the ‘just enough’ principle IS evidence of good efficient design

Wicknight
No actually, its evidence of "just enough" design, which as any engineer will tell you is neither good nor efficient design.

Just enough is logically, good enough !!!!!:D


Wicknight
And why did God, in his infinite wisdom, decide to design the menopause as being a system that has quite damaging effect on the woman's body as they go through it?

The Menopause is part of the aging process, and so it can give rise to problems for some women…….but the principal effect of the Menopause results in the removal of the burden of child-bearing and child-rearing for older women.


Wicknight
So why give it to the not fallen, and not human, Gorillas?

According to St Paul, ALL Creation (including the Gorilla) groans under the effects of the Fall.

……..and, as I have said already, the Menopause has the ‘upside’ of removing the burden of child-bearing and child-rearing from older women.


Wicknight
99.999999% of biological systems on Earth use some form of the roundabout way to get something done.

99.99999% of biological systems use the direct way to get something done!!!!!!!

Could I also point out that this aspect of living systems doesn’t rule out Evolution, as you would expect NS to eliminate inefficient indirect biological systems.

However, what DOES rule out the Spontaneous Evolution of these perfect systems is their complexity and tight specificity, which places them beyond the ability of any undirected system to produce them in the first place!!!!:D


Wicknight
firstly JC you may notice that for the last 280 pages myself and others have done pretty much nothing except present you with evidence for darwinian evolution.

I actually didn’t see ANY substantive evidence presented.

Indeed, IF there was such evidence I have no doubt you would be ‘singing it from the rooftops’.

Your reticence to provide any evidence for Evolution, and your equally hasty moves to deflect attention from your failure to provide this evidence by (invalidly) criticising ID, does nothing to bolster the faith of other Evolutionists on this thread ……and provides me with repeated opportunities to provide further evidence for ID and Direct Creation.

You are effectively doing nothing but scoring ‘own goals’ on this one!!!!!!!!!!!:D


Robin
do you have any comments to make on these demands for idealogical conformity -- the kind of thing that gets you upset about evolutionists? Doesn't Ham do the same thing?

Yes, AIG Christian Ministries does have ‘faith’ conditions attached to becoming one of their members.

I also don’t have any problem with an Evolutionist Foundation having a similar ‘faith’ requirement from any Evolutionists that they are employing to study Evolution. It would seem reasonable that such people would have an ideological commitment to Evolution.

However, I think that the Scientific Community should NOT exclude either conventionally qualified Creationists or Evolutionists, nor should they require an a priori commitment from scientists to either viewpoint.
Science progresses by the active challenge of competing ideas and the Creation / Evolution issue is one of the great scientific debates of our times!!!


Sangre
How could you be a scientist if you rejected all evidence purely because it contradicts your belief? That's the antithesis of the scientific approach.

Exactly, so could you please provide some evidence for Evolution!!!!:D


Scofflaw
Scientific challenges to evolution are mounted all the time, because overturning such a prominent theory would make one as famous as Darwin.

Such challenges have been successfully mounted many times, with the same result.

Evolution has been shown to be without foundation and scientifically invalid.

……but Evolutionists still tenaciously hold on to it!!!!!


Scofflaw
What is unacceptable is to take one's religious beliefs, dress them up as science, and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary.

I agree, and it is about time that the Secular Humanists on this thread stopped doing so!!!!:D


Wicknight
Being committed to a Biblical explanation of the universe makes you a religious organisation, not a scientific one.

I agree…….

…… and being committed to an Atheistic explanation of the universe ALSO makes you a religious organisation, not a scientific one.

Objective scientific observation and experimentation can and should be used to examine the evidence for BOTH ‘origins’ beliefs!!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The Fall brought sin and death into the World

I assume you have science to back this up JC ....

What did the Fall do, how do it, and how has this been modelled scientifically

J C wrote:

I think that it is a very good idea to “put evolution aside” in the interests of rational argument – because Evolution is completely IRRATIONAL!!!!:D

Because there is NO evidence for Evolution, it is also a very good idea to not even try to give any evidence for it, and to focus on ID instead.

However, I must once again point out that you are failing to provide ANY evidence for this ‘Theory of Evolution’ which you claim to have so much evidence in it’s favour!!!!

You actually seem rather reluctant to put evolution aside JC ... could it be that you are happier arguing against evolution than arguing for your own theories ...?

J C wrote:

The Intelligent Design inherent in living creatures IS objectively evident from examining these creatures – and so it is the only rational explanation for the origins of life.

Except that life on Earth doesn't look designed.

Now you claim it must be designed because evolution couldn't produce it. But that assumes that evolution is the only natural system on the table, and also that design is the only non-natural system on the table.

You don't have evidence for either of those position. If you rule out evolution as a natural process to create life you are still left with the possibility that another natural process created life. If you rule out all natural processes (which you have yet to do) you are still left with the vast array of supernatural processes.

You are a long long way away from showing that intelligent design is the only possible explanation.

J C wrote:

The Fall is a theological fact

Well I think we can both agree that a theological fact is not a scientific fact.

J C wrote:

which explains disease and death as well as how a perfect, all loving God continues to allow these two infringements of His perfect Creation to continue in existence.

It doesn't actually explain that at all JC. If you think I'm wrong please quote the Biblical passage that explains what the Fall did to all life on Earth.

J C wrote:

The good news in this regard is that Jesus Christ conquered sin and death, so we can look forward to everlasting life with God if we but believe on Jesus Christ.

Again JC you are wandering wildly off course into the realm of religious dogma. Lets stick to the science.

Can you put forward a scientific model of The Fall?

J C wrote:

The vast amounts of Complex Specified Information in living creatures objectively indicates that an effectively infinite intelligence originally created it.

How does does this indicate this?

J C wrote:

The Fall merely explains why all living creatures must die and are subject to disease.

So originally no life form on Earth died? Is that correct? Do you have a biological model of how this worked? What did immortal life on Earth look like, say what did an immortal bacteria or wasp or ant look like. How did its systems function

J C wrote:

OK Wicknight, please take out your napkin and improve on this, the Intelligent Design of the biochemistry of the sight cascade:-

For a start I would have given all humans a squid like nerve system where there is no blind spot caused by the nerve endings being exposed on the retina.

I mean if it is good enough for a squid why didn't God improve on this rather ridiculous design flaw?

J C wrote:

Could I suggest that if the undirected production of the sequence for a simple protein is a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY, then the production of the above biochemical sequence for sight is also IMPOSSIBLE.

Once again back to attempting to disprove evolution :rolleyes:

How about you stick to demonstrating and modelling your own theories JC ...

You claim life is intelligently design. Yet the only evidence you seem to put forward for this claim is the idea that life didn't arise from evolution. As I've explained the two theories are not mutually exclusive JC. If you don't want to talk about evolution that is fine, I'm prefectly happy to put evolution out of the picker for the time being, and we will focus on Intelligent Design. But you don't seem to really want to do this, since you seem to not have anything to support intelligent design. You just seem to want to go back to ragging on evolution.

You have yet to put forward a scientific explanation to why if life is intelligently designed it doesn't look intelligently designed.

You have yet to put forward a scientific model of what happened during this design. What was designed, in what order. What did God do. Did he design everything, or simply the initial properties that nature build upon?

(little hint, "The Fall" is not a scientific explanation)

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Utter rubbish, I'm afraid. Scientific challenges to evolution are mounted all the time, because overturning such a prominent theory would make one as famous as Darwin. What is unacceptable is to take one's religious beliefs, dress them up as science, and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary.

Let me be more specific. Biblical Creation as the cause of all life, instead of evolution, that is the utterly unacceptable model for the scientific majority. Any alternative that permits man to feel unaccountable to God may be considered.

I ask you to imagine the horror that would come if some scientist produced irrefutable proof of the Biblical account of creation. Men would see themselves under condemnation of their Creator and in need of One to save them from their sins. The scientist involved would be regarded as the executioner of all they loved in life, not as some atheist hero like Darwin.

That's why Creationism produces such a wild and panicked reaction amongst unbelievers.

wolfsbane

Sangre said:

How could you be a scientist if you rejected all evidence purely because it contradicts your belief? That's the antithesis of the scientific approach.

Hmm. I think you are mistaking rejecting the interpretation of evidence for the rejection of evidence itself. The latter would not be honest, much less scientific. That is not the intention of the article, as far as I can see. For example, say Dawkins found a sword in the midst of a dinosaur fossil. He might want to suggest other possibilities than that dinosaurs and man were contemporary, in keeping with his evolutionary faith. He would be entitled to do so, but not to say the item wasn't found. Likewise if a creationist found some evidence that strongly suggested millions of years of life on earth: he could suggest other possible explanations, but could not deny the existence of the evidence.

So it is the explanation of the evidence that is the issue, not the evidence itself.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

AiG reject, without further consideration, anything that doesn't confirm their worldview. You complain at length about prejudice against the creationist worldview in universities (while failing to produce evidence beyond Sternberg), but when the shoe's on the other foot, you claim that it's "absolutely proper for them to insist" on ideological purity (and go on to quote them at length). Do you see why people might think you're being less than consistent here?

If AiG were suggesting that their worldview be the only one accepted in the scientific community, then they would be guilty of the same prejudice creationist scientists experience from the scientific establishment. but they are only demanding that standard from their own members. They are happy to acknowledge as bona fide scientists those scientists who totally disagree with their scientific models.

Are you suggesting that Dawkins is going to burn people at the stake, or advocate the burning of people at the stake?

He is on that path, I believe. The communists showed us how to do it in a modern setting, whether be 're-education' in the gulags, permanent removal of one's children, or the neck-shot. Even in Britain today, the thought-police are restless. 'Correct' thinking - for the good of all, of course - is becoming more a requirement than a choice. Dawkins is giving it respectability.

Son Goku

Man, don't you think that the conspiracy theory stuff is a little over the top?
Is it really that realistic that there's a giant conspiracy to put down creationism because we all fear the truth?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Let me be more specific. Biblical Creation as the cause of all life, instead of evolution, that is the utterly unacceptable model for the scientific majority. Any alternative that permits man to feel unaccountable to God may be considered.

Dear me, now I have to say it again - utter rubbish.

Old Earth Creationism/Theistic Evolution accepts man's accountability to God and evolution - it only conflicts with your specific interpretation of the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote:

I ask you to imagine the horror that would come if some scientist produced irrefutable proof of the Biblical account of creation. Men would see themselves under condemnation of their Creator and in need of One to save them from their sins. The scientist involved would be regarded as the executioner of all they loved in life, not as some atheist hero like Darwin.

That's why Creationism produces such a wild and panicked reaction amongst unbelievers.

It produces no such panic, you see, because we're unbelievers.

1. I don't believe in your God, so really, genuinely, I don't believe that Creation can be proved, any more than the next origin myth. I appreciate that you don't believe that I really don't believe, but I'm afraid you're wrong. I accept the existence of gods as speculatively possible, but not your God.

2. If Creation were provable, I rather think it would have been proven by now - after all, it's one of the things that science set out to provide proof of! Science was just honest enough to admit it didn't find any such proof.

3. If someone actually proves Creation, I would be in a position I regard as not much changed. God would remain just as mysterious, just as open to interpretation as before. I would still be left with the question of whether He should be worshipped, as opposed to merely acknowledged.

4. Proving that Creation happened doesn't prove your God, even if it proves the Biblical account correct, because your God is your interpretation of the God in the Bible. Millions of people call themselves Christians, and there are thousands, or tens of thousands, of interpretations of the God in the Bible, even though it's the same book.

Why do you believe that proof of Creation would be so panic-inspiring? Only because you don't believe that I don't believe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:

Yes, they produce the scientific research and argument - but they do so in furtherance of a specific aim, a religious aim.

It seems rather bizarre that you cannot see the issue what that.

What happens if while in this pursuit of a specific religious aim their "scientific" research uncovers something that flatly contradicts this aim?

wolfsbane wrote:

If they presented themselves as a purely scientific organization, they your criticism would be valid, but they do not.

If they present themselves as any form of scientific organization, particularly one that is supposed to challenge standard scientific models and theories then the criticism becomes very valid.

How can an organisation act in any form of scientific fashion if it has already stated that it will disregard any science that conflicts with its religious teachings?

wolfsbane wrote:

The scientific stuff is scientifically peer-reviewed for its scientific validity.

By people who will only accept a very specific explanation that is based on religious teachings .... again how exactly are you not seeing the problem, from a scientific perspective, with that?

wolfsbane wrote:

That means not accepting an argument or model just because it supports the Creationist case, rather only if it is scientifically supported.

No, actually it means the exact opposite. It means only accepting argument if it supports the Creationist case and disregarding evidence that doesn't, no matter how scientific.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, I mean secular humanist. I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference.

Do you actually understand what "secular humanist" is. It is not atheism. It is not a religion. It is not a scientific outlook. You are possibly thinking of materialism (a rejection of the supernatural) or atheism (a rejection of deities). But I've no idea how you think secular humanism relates to this.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, you think secular humanism is simple science.

Secular humanism has nothing to do with science. Humanism is a moral position. Secularism is a governance position.

Materialism does relate to science, if that is what you are talking about?

wolfsbane wrote:

None, I hope. It is a Christian organization. But it should feel free to refer to as good science the findings of any scientist, no matter their religious outlook.

Such as explaining that disease exists because Adam ate the fruit in Eden, as JC does? Yes I'm sure that the Hindus get a real kick out of that one :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Let me be more specific. Biblical Creation as the cause of all life, instead of evolution, that is the utterly unacceptable model for the scientific majority.

Very true, since such a scientific model does not exist

No scientific model = no acceptance from the scientific majority.

wolfsbane wrote:

Any alternative that permits man to feel unaccountable to God may be considered.

Careful Wolfsbane, you betray your religious motivations ... what happened to "good science" ...

wolfsbane wrote:

I ask you to imagine the horror that would come if some scientist produced irrefutable proof of the Biblical account of creation.

Well since science doesn't deal in "irrefutable proof" I would imagine quite a bit of "horror" ... and again the Hindus might raise an eye brow ....

wolfsbane wrote:

That's why Creationism produces such a wild and panicked reaction amongst unbelievers.

And there was the rest of us thinking it was just a case of bad science being treated as bad science .... how foolish of me :rolleyes:

Why when ever you are backed into a corner Wolfsbane, faced with the reality that these groups are simply not interested in science and instead are only interested in promoting an archaic religious literalism, you bring out the conspiracy "big guns"

One would almost think you don't have a proper response ....

Zombrex

Son Goku wrote:

Man, don't you think that the conspiracy theory stuff is a little over the top?
Is it really that realistic that there's a giant conspiracy to put down creationism because we all fear the truth?

One thing I never understood about the grand conspiracy...

Surely to fear the "truth" one must know and accept the "truth", otherwise why be afraid of it

And if all these scientists around the world know and accept the truth, know and accept that God's punishment is baring down upon them, why bother with the conspiracy in the first place?

I really don't think Wolfsbane has thought this one through....

Zombrex

J C wrote:

These systems are observed to be PERFECT in creatures today

Actually they aren't JC ... we have been over this :rolleyes:

You simply call working in the manner which they work to be "perfect"

Which is nonsense. But then I doubt that will stop you ....

J C wrote:

…….. so we can reasonably and rationally conclude that these highly complex, tightly specified systems were originally created perfectly!!!!!:D

Accept then aren't perfect, because us humble humans, after only a few hundred years looking at them, have already identified thousands of ways these systems could work better. So clearly, they aren't perfect.

J C wrote:

Just enough is logically, good enough !!!!!:D

Agreed, but it is far from perfect.

As I said, the route that will get me to the station in 1 and a half hours is "good enough" if my train leaves in 95 minutes.

But since I only live 10 minutes from the station 90 minutes to the station is far from a perfect time to get me there, no is it

"Good enough" is far from "perfect" or "efficient"

J C wrote:

The Menopause is part of the aging process, and so it can give rise to problems for some women

Seems rather funny that a prefect intelligence would design it that way doe sit not? Surely it would be better to simply not design it that way?

Face it JC, the only logical conclusion from something like the menopause is that it wasn't in fact designed by any intelligence, since no intelligence (human or otherwise) would have actually been stupid enough to design it llike that, just as no intelligence would take 90 minutes to get to a train station that is 10 minutes away.

Your Intelligent Design theory does not stand as a rational conclusion, let alone the only rational conclusion.

J C wrote:

According to St Paul, ALL Creation (including the Gorilla) groans under the effects of the Fall.

J C wrote:

Really? I forgot St Paul was God ...

Perhaps you can ask him why God gave Gorilla's the menopause ... :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

……..and, as I have said already, the Menopause has the ‘upside’ of removing the burden of child-bearing and child-rearing from older women.

And taking the 90 minute drive to the station is the upside of catching my train in 95 minutes....

If only where was a quicker way to get to the train station ....

If only there was a better way the menopause could have been designed ...

Oh thats right ... there is :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

99.99999% of biological systems use the direct way to get something done!!!!!!!

No actually, the don't. We have been over this before

J C wrote:

Could I also point out that this aspect of living systems doesn’t rule out Evolution, as you would expect NS to eliminate inefficient indirect biological systems.

Once again you demonstrate that you really don't understand how natural selection works. NS won't eliminate inefficiency in systems that work "good enough"

So one would expect that if NS designed these systems that they would all be working "good enough"

What do we find in nature? Trillions of biological systems that work on "good enough" principle

Wow ... its almost as if evolution is responsible .... imagine that ...

J C wrote:

Indeed, IF there was such evidence I have no doubt you would be ‘singing it from the rooftops’.

Your religious beliefs prevent you from doing that, and they most likely always will.

Which is a shame I guess. Though I'm sure you comfort yourself with the idea that you are "saved", so that is something I suppose. Doesn't make you very good at science though.

J C wrote:

…… and being committed to an Atheistic explanation of the universe ALSO makes you a religious organisation, not a scientific one.

I suppose we can be thankful to God that most evolutionary biologists aren't atheist then...

J C wrote:

Objective scientific observation and experimentation can and should be used to examine the evidence for BOTH ‘origins’ beliefs!!!!

Why only 2 .... ?

J C

Wicknight
You actually seem rather reluctant to put evolution aside JC ... could it be that you are happier arguing against evolution than arguing for your own theories ...?

You have only presented your ideas against ID – which I have easily refuted!!!!!

……..and I am happy to argue both against Evolution and in favour of ID and Special Creation.:cool:


Wicknight
Now you claim it must be designed because evolution couldn't produce it. But that assumes that evolution is the only natural system on the table, and also that design is the only non-natural system on the table.

“because evolution COULDN'T produce it”………… and ......"that assumes that evolution is the only natural system on the table” ……..

Do I detect a little weakening in YOUR faith in Evolution then ???


Wicknight
If you rule out evolution as a natural process to create life you are still left with the possibility that another natural process created life.

“…another natural process CREATED life”……….

Do I detect a FURTHER weakening of YOUR faith in Evolution then ???


Wicknight
If you think I'm wrong please quote the Biblical passage that explains what the Fall did to all life on Earth.

Rom 8:22-23 “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”

This proves that "the whole creation" (i.e. including all life on Earth) groans under the condemnation of the Fall – and this situation will only be eventually resolved with the redemption of our bodies on the Last Day.

The direct link between the Fall of Adam (one man’s disobedience) and Jesus Christ’s atonement (the obedience of one) is established in the following verse:-
Ro 5:19 “For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

Wicknight
So originally no life form on Earth died? Is that correct? Do you have a biological model of how this worked? What did immortal life on Earth look like, say what did an immortal bacteria or wasp or ant look like

It looked exactly like a Wasp, an Ant or a Human in peak health and vigour, looks like today.

The Fall introduced disease and death – and that is why, even the strongest and healthiest Ant or Human will eventually die!!!


Wicknight
For a start I would have given all humans a squid like nerve system where there is no blind spot caused by the nerve endings being exposed on the retina.

It would be a ‘good design’ IF humans ALSO had squid-like ‘squishy’ physiognomies – and I for one, prefer my current physiognomy to that of a ‘squishy’ Squid!!!:D

I also must say, that I have never encountered ANY problem with my retinal ‘blind spot’ ........because other Intelligently Designed mechanisms have compensated so perfectly for it, that I am blissfully unaware that it even exists!!!!:D


Wicknight
You claim life is intelligently design. Yet the only evidence you seem to put forward for this claim is the idea that life didn't arise from evolution.

My claim that life is Intelligently Designed is primarily based on the evidence for ID and CSI in living systems.

…… and the fact that life didn’t arise from Evolution is patently obvious.


Wicknight
If you don't want to talk about evolution that is fine, I'm prefectly happy to put evolution out of the picker for the time being, and we will focus on Intelligent Design

But I DO want to ‘talk about evolution’ – and especially the (non-existent) evidence for it’s existence!!!

I’m also very happy to talk about Intelligent Design – and the overwhelming evidence for it’s existence.

Out of fairness to Evolution, I must continue to point out that discussing the merits of ID while completely failing to provide ANY objective evidence for Evolution, could erode the faith other Evolutionists on this thread to the point of 'apostasy' – and you therefore run a serious risk of a mass defection to Creationism!!!:eek:


Wolfsbane
I ask you to imagine the horror that would come if some scientist produced irrefutable proof of the Biblical account of creation.

……..That's why Creationism produces such a wild and panicked reaction amongst unbelievers.

We DON’T need to imagine it, Wolfsbane..........

……….irrefutable proof for the Biblical account of creation has been provided on this thread ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
……..and there was indeed “a wild and panicked reaction” amongst the Evolutionists!!!!

……the Skeptics shut down three threads in PANIC and HORROR when the evidence for Creation initially emerged.

The panic has subsided somewhat since then – and they have concentrated on avoiding ALL discussion of Evolution and comforting each other with 'mantra-like' remarks about Creationists not being ‘real’ scientists – despite the fact that Creation Scientists have impeccable conventional science qualifications and many operate at the very highest levels of academia!!!!:D


Wicknight
What happens if while in this pursuit of a specific religious aim their "scientific" research uncovers something that flatly contradicts this aim?

Then they would be in the dilemma, that some Evolutionist scientists have found themselves over the past fifty years.

Indeed many of these Evolutionists became Creationists as a result of repeatedly finding scientific evidence that flatly contradicted Evolution and supported Direct Creation!!!:D


Wicknight
You simply call working in the manner which they work to be "perfect"

No, I’d call working in the manner, which they WERE DESIGNED to work, to be “perfect”!!!


Wicknight
Accept then aren't perfect, because us humble humans, after only a few hundred years looking at them, have already identified thousands of ways these systems could work better. So clearly, they aren't perfect.

I’m still waiting for any suggested improvements from you to the Sight Biochemical Cascade……


Originally Posted by J C
Just enough is logically, good enough !!!!

Wicknight
Agreed, but it is far from perfect.

As I said, the route that will get me to the station in 1 and a half hours is "good enough" if my train leaves in 95 minutes.

But since I only live 10 minutes from the station 90 minutes to the station is far from a perfect time to get me there, no is it

"Good enough" is far from "perfect" or "efficient"

‘just enough’ would imply that your train makes a 10 minute journey in 10 minutes …….
‘good enough’ would imply that you were on it!!!!

........and your arrival at your destination after 10 minutes would be BOTH 'just enough' and 'good enough'!!!:)


Originally Posted by J C
The Menopause is part of the aging process, and so it can give rise to problems for some women

Wicknight
Seems rather funny that a prefect intelligence would design it that way doe sit not? Surely it would be better to simply not design it that way?

Just like different people suffer from different levels of bad health at different stages of their lives, some women have health problems during the Menopause, while other women 'sail’ through it.
The primary effect of the Menopause is the removal of the burden of child-bearing and child-rearing from older women.
Other health factors can create problems for women at this stage, just like ageing and disease factors can create health problems for women (and indeed men) at every stage of their lives!!!


Wicknight
Really? I forgot St Paul was God ...

The Letters of St Paul are part of the Canon of Scripture written under the direct inspiration of God – and so these writings are regarded as the Word of God by Christians


Wicknight
Perhaps you can ask him why God gave Gorilla's the menopause ...

You can ask God yourself, when you meet Him face to face at the Last Judgement…….

……although, I somehow doubt that such a question will be a priority for you at that time!!!


Wicknight
If only there was a better way the menopause could have been designed ...

Oh thats right ... there is

……….please do tell us HOW??????


Originally Posted by J C
Indeed, IF there was such evidence (for Evolution) I have no doubt you would be ‘singing it from the rooftops’

Wicknight
Your religious beliefs prevent you from doing that, and they most likely always will.

It was YOU that I expected to be ‘singing from the rooftops’ about Evolution. You obviously don't have ANY evidence for it – or you WOULD be singing like a Canary!!!

But I am prepared to have one last try, so Wicknight finish this song……….

Do, Re, Me…….1, 2, 3………..Evolution occurred because…………:)

I'll hum it ....... if you'll sing it !!:D


Wicknight
I'm sure you comfort yourself with the idea that you are "saved", so that is something I suppose. Doesn't make you very good at science though.

……being saved doesn’t make me bad at science EITHER!!!!:D

……..and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit does give me an advantage when debating matters theological!!!!

…….in fact Jesus Christ promised ALL Christians this facility in Jn 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

Originally Posted by J C
Objective scientific observation and experimentation can and should be used to examine the evidence for BOTH ‘origins’ beliefs!!!!

Wicknight
Why only 2 .... ?

I am also prepared to examine the evidence for any other ‘origins’ explanations .....IF there are any!!! :eek: :cool:

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Old Earth Creationism/Theistic Evolution accepts man's accountability to God and evolution - it only conflicts with your specific interpretation of the Bible.

Yes - but I wasn't saying Evolution can only be held by atheists. I was saying that Creation can only be held by theists. More specifically, that the Biblical account will be rejected by them no matter how much proof is found. Because they are enemies of God in their hearts and minds, even though they claim not to believe in His existence.

It produces no such panic, you see, because we're unbelievers.

The weeping and wailing over Creationism seems to suggest otherwise.

1. I don't believe in your God, so really, genuinely, I don't believe that Creation can be proved, any more than the next origin myth.

Yes, but when any evidence is produced that suggests you are wrong, I detect - even in the sensible and cordial Scofflaw - a certain nervousness.

I appreciate that you don't believe that I really don't believe, but I'm afraid you're wrong. I accept the existence of gods as speculatively possible, but not your God.

That last sentence reveals you are living in denial. Other gods may be true, but NOT the God of the Bible - such certainty from a skeptic!

2. If Creation were provable, I rather think it would have been proven by now - after all, it's one of the things that science set out to provide proof of! Science was just honest enough to admit it didn't find any such proof.

The evidence of Design (especially Irreducible Complexity), the necessity of abiogenesis for non-Creation, and the Law of Entropy seem to me to be strong indicators of Creation, if not absolute proofs.

3. If someone actually proves Creation, I would be in a position I regard as not much changed. God would remain just as mysterious, just as open to interpretation as before. I would still be left with the question of whether He should be worshipped, as opposed to merely acknowledged.

OK, but I think any sensible man would then consider the wider claims of the Bible to be validated, and see himself required to answer the great question, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&verse=21&end_verse=23&version=50&context=context

4. Proving that Creation happened doesn't prove your God, even if it proves the Biblical account correct, because your God is your interpretation of the God in the Bible. Millions of people call themselves Christians, and there are thousands, or tens of thousands, of interpretations of the God in the Bible, even though it's the same book.

Certainly, only God the Holy Spirit can clearly reveal God to you. But my point was that atheists flee from the idea of any god to whom they are accountable. That skews their approach to the scientific debate on origins.

Why do you believe that proof of Creation would be so panic-inspiring? Only because you don't believe that I don't believe.

No, for the reasons given above: it would put you in the firing line of God's judgement.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

What happens if while in this pursuit of a specific religious aim their "scientific" research uncovers something that flatly contradicts this aim?

They should note that this appears to flatly contradict this aim. That applies to Evolutionists too. Then they should look for alternative explanations.

If they present themselves as any form of scientific organization, particularly one that is supposed to challenge standard scientific models and theories then the criticism becomes very valid.

How can an organisation act in any form of scientific fashion if it has already stated that it will disregard any science that conflicts with its religious teachings?

Depends what you mean by disregard. If you mean they deny the evidence exists, then they would be liars. But if you mean they must accept as fact an interpretation of the evidence just because it is the only one that suggests itself, then you are wrong. They, creationist or Evolutionist, are entitled to continue with their presuppositions as they seek alternative explanations of the evidence. Maybe their case will become increasingly untenable until it becomes obvious they were misled from the beginning: in that case they should abandon their presuppositions. Many evolutionists did so and are now creationists.:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The scientific stuff is scientifically peer-reviewed for its scientific validity.


By people who will only accept a very specific explanation that is based on religious teachings .... again how exactly are you not seeing the problem, from a scientific perspective, with that?

You are confusing the science with the religion. Religious people can do science, just as much as scientific people can do religion. Honesty requires Creationists to say where the science appears to support or refute their case. Scientific peer-review can be done in those circumstances.

No, actually it means the exact opposite. It means only accepting argument if it supports the Creationist case and disregarding evidence that doesn't, no matter how scientific.

Maybe that's how evolutionists do it, but not creationists. You seem unable to understand how impartial judgement takes place.

Do you actually understand what "secular humanist" is. It is not atheism. It is not a religion. It is not a scientific outlook. You are possibly thinking of materialism (a rejection of the supernatural) or atheism (a rejection of deities). But I've no idea how you think secular humanism relates to this.

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance or a praxis focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives (eupraxsophy). The term was coined in the 20th century to make a clear distinction from "religious humanism". A related concept is scientific humanism, which the biologist Edward O. Wilson claimed to be "the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature". http://www.reference.com/search?q=secular%20humanist

Materialism does relate to science, if that is what you are talking about?

No, only its atheist manifestation.

Such as explaining that disease exists because Adam ate the fruit in Eden, as JC does? Yes I'm sure that the Hindus get a real kick out of that one

Yes, that is a spiritual revelation, not a scientific one. Christians know it is factual, but are not suggesting science can prove it. You DO keep getting science and religion confused, don't you?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes - but I wasn't saying Evolution can only be held by atheists. I was saying that Creation can only be held by theists. More specifically, that the Biblical account will be rejected by them no matter how much proof is found. Because they are enemies of God in their hearts and minds, even though they claim not to believe in His existence.

That seems slightly confused. You claim that people can accept evolution and be theists, so presumably their motivation cannot be to look for "any alternative that permits man to feel unaccountable to God", since they accept their accountability to God. What, then, is their motivation in accepting evolution?

That's an important question, because the majority of scientists are, and always have been, theists, not atheists.

wolfsbane wrote:

The weeping and wailing over Creationism seems to suggest otherwise.

The weeping and wailing over climate change denial is as loud, or louder, since it makes more difference. However, the Creationist denial of science is contributory to climate change denial.

I've said this before, but clearly it needs to be said again - my problem with Creationism is the distortion of science, not the religious question. I don't care whether you're wrong or right, but I care that you distort the meaning of science in order to make your claims.

Of course, you don't believe that, but I can assure you that I would find an 'intelligently designed' universe just as interesting as one designed by the blind operations of natural laws.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, but when any evidence is produced that suggests you are wrong, I detect - even in the sensible and cordial Scofflaw - a certain nervousness.

Hmm. I have yet to see anything that held up for more than a couple of minutes. What you certainly do get to see is irritation...

wolfsbane wrote:

That last sentence reveals you are living in denial. Other gods may be true, but NOT the God of the Bible - such certainty from a skeptic!

Er, no - not your God. I did say it quite particularly, and my reasoning on the subject is, I think, pretty simple:

I can never exclude the possibility of gods, because the concept covers such a lot of ground. There's no way of disproving the deist conception of a remote, non-interventionist god, for example.

However, the more fully specified a god is, the more falsifiable/provable it becomes. The god you worship is very well-specified, almost concrete, and contradictory in multiple aspects - benevolent, yet allowing war/famine/rape etc, and condoning/encouraging it in places; ominiscient, yet acts as if surprised by the course of events; loving, but condemning most of his creation to Hell - etc etc.

wolfsbane wrote:

The evidence of Design (especially Irreducible Complexity), the necessity of abiogenesis for non-Creation, and the Law of Entropy seem to me to be strong indicators of Creation, if not absolute proofs.

Except that the first is moonshine, the second merely a partially unsolved problem, and the third based on ignoring the role of the Sun in pumping massive quantities of energy into Earth's systems.

wolfsbane wrote:

OK, but I think any sensible man would then consider the wider claims of the Bible to be validated, and see himself required to answer the great question, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”

Not really, because there's so little detail in Genesis that it's pretty much impossible to prove its account over any wider interpretation.

For example, if you managed to prove that abiogenesis cannot happen under any circumstances, and that evolution cannot happen under any circumstances, and that therefore life must have been created in pretty much its present form, you haven't proven the Biblical account over any other creation myth.

If you can prove that the Earth is really only 6000 years old, we're a little closer to proving Genesis, but not actually there, since there are plenty of other mythological ancestries which could give comparable dates. Same for the Flood - it turns up in far too many myth cycles to prove Christianity, not least because some of those myth cycles predate the Biblical account.

So, Genesis is too vague to be provable - even the detail of the ark, the pairs of animals etc is not unknown outside Christianity.

Seriously, wolfsbane, you can't prove Genesis, because Genesis is not provable, because it doesn't contain the level of detail necessary to do so. Whatever else it may be, it is unquestionably a narrative account, and the only thing that can prove it is a time-machine.

wolfsbane wrote:

Certainly, only God the Holy Spirit can clearly reveal God to you. But my point was that atheists flee from the idea of any god to whom they are accountable. That skews their approach to the scientific debate on origins.

Since that explanation totally fails to account for the millions of scientists who are also theists, and believe fully that they are accountable to God, but yet accept that evolution is scientifically true, you'll excuse me if I simply say again that such a claim is a silly, self-serving delusion.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, for the reasons given above: it would put you in the firing line of God's judgement.

Which I made up my mind about before I even stopped believing in God all those years ago. I first read the Bible when I was about seven or eight. It made a rather strong impression on me, with its description of what seemed to me, even then, to be a remarkably wicked god. I didn't at that stage disbelieve in this god, but I did decide, even then, that worshipping such a god was rather obviously wrong, despite the penalties.

As the years went by, re-reading the Bible made it more and more obvious that not only was the god described in it wicked, but he was also nothing like the god who Christians are supposed to worship. Further, the Bible looked more and more like something cobbled together by a lot of different authors at different times, contradicting each other and frequently talking complete bibble.

I am sure that you will think me stupid for believing such a thing, but should the god you believe in turn out to exist, I am prepared to accept damnation rather than worship such a debased tyrant. A tyrant may have the power to condemn, but to resist a tyrant is always the right choice, even if it not the easy one, something even an eight-year old can see. Mere power does not make God good, it makes him only powerful.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

You have only presented your ideas against ID – which I have easily refuted!!!!!

Where have you "easily refuted" anything JC ... I've read back over the last few pages and you haven't refuted anything

Is this because you cannot?

J C wrote:

Do I detect a little weakening in YOUR faith in Evolution then ???

Again you cannot help but talk about evolution ....

And again you did not actually answer my question ...

J C wrote:

This proves that "the whole creation" i.e. all life groans under the condemnation of the Fall – and this situation will only be eventually resolved with the redemption of our bodies on the Last Day.

Accept "the creation" refers to humans ... so I guess you have lucked out on that one there JC. Another case of you not reading your Bible properly :rolleyes:

Unless of course you want to argue that bacteria and pond slim are waiting to be saved?? :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

The direct link between the Fall of Adam (one man’s disobedience) and Jesus Christ’s atonement (the obedience of one) is established in the following verse:-

Let me say this again - only applies to humans

J C wrote:

It looked exactly like a Wasp, an Ant or a Human in peak health and vigour, looks like today.

Why did it have an immune system if disease didn't exist?

Not sure you thought that one through there JC :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

It would be a ‘good design’ IF humans ALSO had squid-like ‘squishy’ physiognomies – and I for one, prefer my current physiognomy to that of a ‘squishy’ Squid!!!:D

No its got nothing to do with facial features. Do you actually understand what the word physiognomies means or did you just copy and paste that from a Creationists web site?

J C wrote:

I also must say, that I have never encountered ANY problem with my retinal ‘blind spot’

Well then I imagine you have never tried to do anything remotely difficult or interesting with your eyes.

But then if you want to lock yourself in a small house for your entire life and claim that your eyes are perfect for just such an environment be my guest :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

My claim that life is Intelligently Designed is primarily based on the evidence for ID in living systems.

Which is?

J C wrote:

No, I’d call working in the manner, which they WERE DESIGNED to work, to be “perfect”!!!

Well that makes you someone who doesn't understand what the English word "perfect" means

So I guess the next obvious question is how can someone who doesn't understand what the concept of perfection actually is make a judgement that something is perfect?

J C wrote:

I’m still waiting for any suggested improvements from you to the Sight Biochemical Cascade……

Certainly. The entire process wastes blood and risks the damage of the blood capillaries that feed the eye, which eventually leads to most people losing eyesight in later life. One improvement would be to well not waste blood or strengthen the capillaries.

Its amazing that your god didn't think of that ....

J C wrote:

‘just enough’ would imply that your train makes a 10 minute journey in 10 minutes …….
‘good enough’ would imply that you were on it!!!!

........and your arrival at your destination after 10 minutes would be BOTH 'just enough' and 'good enough'!!!:)

No, it wouldn't. Did you actually understand the example. Do you need me to explain it again?

J C wrote:

Just like different people suffer from different levels of bad health at different stages of their lives, some women have health problems, while other women 'sail’ through the Menopause.

Hence the evidence that it is a flawed system

J C wrote:

Other health factors can create problems for women at this stage, just like ageing and disease factors can also create health problems for women (and indeed men) at every stage of their lives!!!

Again, badly designed system. Not perfect. Not even particularly good.

J C wrote:

The Letters of St Paul are part of the Canon of Scripture written under the direct inspiration of God – and so these writings are regarded as the Word of God by Christians

So he wasn't God ... so that kinda nullifies your point a little then JC :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

You can ask God yourself, when you meet Him face to face at the Last Judgement…….

I will take that as meaning you don't know :rolleyes:

You have not really thought this intelligent design thing through have you ...

J C wrote:

……….please do tell us HOW??????

You remove the on set of osteoporosis by properly controlling the hormones

For a start ....

Wow, I must be smarter than God ....

J C wrote:

……being saved doesn’t make me bad at science EITHER!!!!:D

There is another reason you are bad at science .... please tell

J C wrote:

……..and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit does give me an advantage when debating matters theological!!!!

Is that why you think you don't need to actually read the Bible?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

They should note that this appears to flatly contradict this aim. That applies to Evolutionists too. Then they should look for alternative explanations.

Yet they cannot do this, since they have already agreed that they won't do this.

If some thing, anything, appears to contradict something in the Bible the assumption must be followed that this does not contradict the Bible, no matter how ridiculous or unsupported that assumption is.

They actually have to agree to this Wolfsbane. They have to sign up for it.

Such an agreement is, from a scientific point of view, utterly ridiculous.

If you don't get that you don't understand science, pure and simple

wolfsbane wrote:

They, creationist or Evolutionist, are entitled to continue with their presuppositions as they seek alternative explanations of the evidence.

Wolfsbane people are entitled to do what every they want.

But if a scientists has a presupposition of how evidence must be interpreted before said evidence is studied or even discovered they are not acting as scientifically. The exact opposite in fact.

Therefore anyone who carries out any scientific research under this idea, the idea that all evidence must be interpreted within Biblical scripture, is not being scientific.

Again if you genuinely do not understand why this is you do not understand science.

wolfsbane wrote:

You are confusing the science with the religion. Religious people can do science, just as much as scientific people can do religion.

A person, religious or otherwise, cannot do science if their personal beliefs have already decided for them what the out come of any specific research must match

That goes against the very fundamentals of science

wolfsbane wrote:

Honesty requires Creationists to say where the science appears to support or refute their case. Scientific peer-review can be done in those circumstances.

No it cannot if the peer-review organisation only accepts members who have to agree that they will never find anything that contradicts the religious doctrine and interpretation. Which they do have to agree.

You don't seem to quite understand what these people are agreeing to Wolfsbane.

wolfsbane wrote:

You seem unable to understand how impartial judgement takes place.

Are you kidding?

Wolfsbane they sign a declaration that specifically states that they WILL NOT BE IMPARTIAL to the evidence. That is the entire point of the objection

wolfsbane wrote:

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making.

Groan ... I know. The key phrase is "moral reflection and decision-making"

Humanists believe that morality does not come from God, it comes from humans. This is in contrast to someone like yourself you believes that morality comes from God.

Of course this has nothing to do with science, since science does not attempt to comment on morality either way.

Again you are getting confused with "materialism", which is the rejection of the supernatural as a force in nature.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, only its atheist manifestation.

Which is...? :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, that is a spiritual revelation, not a scientific one. Christians know it is factual, but are not suggesting science can prove it. You DO keep getting science and religion confused, don't you?

Perhaps you don't read the websites or articles you link to, but I assure you Creationists do claim that the Fall is a scientificly verifiable event that resulted in scientifically observable alterations in life.

In fact JC claimed just such a thing in his last post.

Wolfsbane no offence but I do sometimes wonder where you are coming from. You seem to know as little about Creationism as you do science. Yet you are constantly defending Creationism, often claiming that Creationists would not do the very thing they do do.

Your posts are along the lines of "Oh they would never do that, that would be bad science" without realising that they do do that, it is bad science, and that is why people like myself object in the first place.

Your post above hints that if you actually understood what Creationism was you would find it as objectionable as the rest of us.

Its all rather bizarre.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Depends what you mean by disregard. If you mean they deny the evidence exists, then they would be liars. But if you mean they must accept as fact an interpretation of the evidence just because it is the only one that suggests itself, then you are wrong. They, creationist or Evolutionist, are entitled to continue with their presuppositions as they seek alternative explanations of the evidence. Maybe their case will become increasingly untenable until it becomes obvious they were misled from the beginning: in that case they should abandon their presuppositions. Many evolutionists did so and are now creationists.:)

The whole of science did so, and is now evolutionist...

wolfsbane wrote:

No, for the reasons given above: it would put you in the firing line of God's judgement.

I have to come back to this one. Thing is, wolfsbane, there's not really that much standing between me and salvation. I don't smoke, rarely drink, never gamble. I'm a faithful and loving husband, and a devoted father. I work hard, and try to use my abilities to do good. Heck, I barely even curse any more.

There really isn't anything for me to give up to lead a Christian life - there's only the small matter of not believing in your god, and thinking that if he did exist as the Bible describes him, I would reject him anyway as a tyrant.

It isn't even intellectual pride any more. I know I'm smart, but (a) I assume everyone is unless they provide a lot of evidence to the contrary, and more importantly (b) so what? I'm prouder of working hard and doing good, because those are things I chose.

So, why would I worry about Creationists proving Genesis, or the whole Bible? All that I need to do is admit I was wrong (no big deal), and accept Jesus. If a murderer on death row can do it, what's to stop me?

Unless of course, God has so hardened my heart that I will always reject him? If that's the case, I don't see the point in you arguing with me, or claiming that I would worry about proof of the Bible - obviously, no matter what happens, I'll be rejecting God, unless God chooses for me not to.

Which is it, wolfsbane? Am I a damnéd rebel because God has hardened my heart, or through my own choice? If it's my own choice, why do you think I choose to reject God, and why would it not be easy for me to repent and be saved? If it's God hardening my heart, why do you think I would worry about someone proving the Bible - after all I'll never believe it, come what may?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

JC wrote:

……the Evolutionists shut down three threads in PANIC and HORROR when the evidence for Creation initially emerged.

Well, let's take a look at the evidence for this PANIC and HORROR, shall we?

Thread 1, shut down here when Davros pointed out that the thread was, as expected, going nowhere. Wicknight's last posting on that thread said that he "couldn't be arsed" refuting JC's claims, because everybody had already done it "5 times each". That was over two years ago and thing haven't changed much, except that Wicknight clearly remains bothered about your continuing stream of penny dreadfuls.

Thread 2, shut down here when Davros pointed out a second time, that the thread was rutted:

davros wrote:

I'm seeing the same point repeated over and over. It bothers me that it can be thoroughly demolished any number of times and still pop up again through sheer wilful ignorance. I regard it as a waste of my time to have to read an endless debate that is going absolutely nowhere because one side is completely deaf to the other.

Thread 3, which pointed to the predecessor of this thread and which was prioritized by davros to make sure that everybody knew about it.

Er, where's the PANIC and HORROR? Or, by any chance, would you be trying to conjure up a controversy by being less than honest about the facts?

2Scoops

Wicknight wrote:

Certainly. The entire process wastes blood and risks the damage of the blood capillaries that feed the eye, which eventually leads to most people losing eyesight in later life. One improvement would be to well not waste blood or strengthen the capillaries.

The primary reason why eyesight gets poorer with age is that God wanted to remove the 'burden of seeing things' from older people, tbh. It's obvious, right J C?

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote:

The primary reason why eyesight gets poorer with age is that God wanted to remove the 'burden of seeing things' from older people, tbh. It's obvious, right J C?

I suppose that would be so that they can concentrate more on seeing Jesus with their inner eye, what with death approaching and all...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

2Scoops wrote:

The primary reason why eyesight gets poorer with age is that God wanted to remove the 'burden of seeing things' from older people, tbh. It's obvious, right J C?

LOL

It was designed, perfectly, to do that which is why they true believers all go blind in old age

Ah it all makes perfect sense now!! :rolleyes: