The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Have you actually read the article?

Yes.

The article goes on to explain that it is not, in fact, a debate, but rather a convoluted battle to keep creationism out of the science classroom. The actual scientific debate ended a long time ago.

You are defining debate in a very particular way. You seem to be saying once an overwhelming majority agree on something the debate has ended. I would content that so long as any expert in the field puts forward contrary propositions, the debate continues. And I'm not talking of the debate as to whether creationism should be taught in schools, but the actual arguemt amongst scientists about the viability of creation/evolution.

An analogy is the Roman Catholic Church of the 16th Century. It could be said the overwhelming majority of the experts agree it was right. Some weirdo expert then nails 95 points of contention to the church door, initialing a debate. Was there no real debate? Had it all been settled long ago? Just look at the outcome.

BTW, Christians are not realy interested in persuading folk of the truth of creation as such. They first of all want to defend the integrity of Scripture to their fellow Christians. Then also they use the debate to remove a stumbling block (that the Bible is in error) to unbelievers whom they seek to bring to Christ. If it wasn't important to these people, it would hardly be discussed by Christians.

J C

Quote Morbert
You yourself have admitted that the deus ex machina is outside the realm of science, yet you then go on to claim we can scientifically infer such a mechanism from natural evidence.

What I have said is that that the ‘deus ex machina’ putative Act of Creation, is outside of science because it is not repeatably observable.
I went on to point out that all putative Abiogenesis processes are also not repeatably observable and Abiogenesis is therefore strictly outside of science as well.

Divine Creation and Abiogenesis are therefore BOTH strictly outside of science. They are faith-based positions, so to speak – Creation because it CAN’T be observed and Abiogenesis because it has NEVER been observed.

I do however believe that science HAS a vital role to play in relation to helping answer the ‘origins question’. It is certainly capable of assessing any repeatably observable evidence for EITHER Creation or Abiogenesis.


Quote Morbert
So far you're simply relied on incredulity to support creationism, yet such an approach is nowhere near adequate enough to lift creationism to the status of a science. Even if evolution were found to be completely absurd (which it isn't). This would not mean anything regarding the acceptance of creationism as a science.

’Incredulity arguments’ as you have styled them are made by both sides.

Creationists point to, for example, the mathematical impossibility of the purposeful information present in living systems arising by undirected, essentially random or repeating processes.

Evolutionists point to the possibility of numerous attempts being made throughout the Universe, over incredibly long periods of time as likely to lead to the spontaneous emergence of life somewhere in the Universe.

Could I point out that the ‘incredulity arguments’ of Creationists about the information present in living systems IS repeatably observable and is therefore within the competence of science to evaluate it.

On the other hand, the ‘incredulity arguments’ of Evolutionists which claim inordinate amounts of time, numerous attempts and the spontaneous emergence of life are NOT repeatably observable and therefore outside of the competence of science to evaluate.
That ironically is one of the reasons why macro-evolution has not been more vigorously challenged by science – because most of it’s claims haven’t been proven by observation, it is therefore difficult to disprove them by science.

The recent scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of living processes that have occurred with Molecular Biology, in particular, show that the evidence is now dramatically favouring Creation and effectively ruling out natural processes as the originators of life.


Quote Morbert
Even if the flood was responsible for a fraction of today's limestone, enough heat would be generated to boil the flood waters. Geological processes need huge amounts of time which allows the heat to be radiated gradually. Creationism, of course, does not address any of this.

The primary exothermic reaction of limestone occurs with the addition of water to 'burned' (or oxidised) limestone and it indeed does generate considerable heat.
However, the putative underground waters of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ would have been saturated with HYDROLYSED Calcium Carbonate – which wouldn’t produce exothermic reactions in water.
In any event, even if some exothermic processes accompanied the formation of limestone, the massive relative difference in volume between the water in the World’s Oceans as compared with the volume of the World’s Limestone deposits would ensure that any heat would be rapidly dissipated.


Quote Morbert
The standard geological model has no problem with limestone formation.
The great PURITY of most Limestones rules out the standard model of gradual deposition, which would have produced significant contamination with organic matter and other materials – which is not observed in commercial Limestone quarries.
It also WASN’T produced by animal bone breakdown – the fossils that are found in Limestone are generally very well preserved – and therefore they were rapidly entombed. Because these fossils weren’t chemically eroded, there is no reason to believe that the rest of the crystalline Calcium Carbonate found in these rocks came from chemically eroded bone or shells either.


Quote Morbert
The inner canyon is carved into strongly metamorphosed sediments …………

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

Noah’s Flood was an on-going process that lasted for roughly a year. There were three main phases to the Flood.
The First Phase was the flooding process itself caused by the subsidence of the ante-diluvian landmasses accompanied by the explosive release of subterranean waters as well as the deluge of rainfall from the collapse of the water canopy above.
The Second Phase involved massive tectonic movements, and huge underwater currents, which transported and sorted out the sediment generated during the first phase as well as generating further sediment itself.
The Third Phase involved huge up-thrusts and down-thrusts leading to the emergence of sediment-covered land that dried out as the waters ran-off it back into the oceans. The sediments then petrified into sedimentary and metamorphic rocks.

The sedimentary rocks observed in the Grand Canyon Plateau were probably laid down under water during the Second Phase of Noah’s Flood and a water-carved canyon was made into these sediments by waters running off the newly-emerging North American landmass as they made their way towards the ocean, during the Third Phase. The metamorphic rock was probably formed by localised volcanic heating during the Third Phase, or indeed even more recently.


Quote Morbert
If we follow generation history along the mother's path, we come to a very different woman than if we travel along the father's path, or if we mix the two.
The first woman was by definition, the common ancestral mother of all men AND women.


Quote Morbert
The truth is the woman could only be considered common ancestors along specific genetic descent. But the fact that our history lies in 2 parents, and therefore 4 grandparents etc. means we can't call them "Eves".

Yes, as we go back through our immediate ancestors, we find that each generation expands exponentially viz 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.
However, the fact that science has established that we are all ultimately descended from a very SMALL population of people, means that our 'ancestral tree' approaching the so-called ‘population bottleneck’ begins to narrow back in numbers again, to the point where only a few women (I believe them to be four i.e. Noah’s wife and her three daughters-in-law) are the common female ancestors of all of Mankind.


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

Could you please provide the surrounding text to this quote?

The following are the lead-in paragraphs to the above quote (which are equally devastating to the case of gradual evolution):-

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

‘The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.’

Darwin’s argument still persists as the favoured escape of most palaeontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little evolution. In exposing it’s cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks.

Palaeontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”


As a scientist, I have nothing to add to the above words of Professor Stephen Jay Gould on this issue, other than to express my admiration for his frankness and integrity, as a great Evolutionary Scientist who wasn’t afraid to critically evaluate the evidence for his own beliefs.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

There is no scientific controversy

Again, how can you say that when some experts challenge the received understanding on evolution/creation? How can you just dismiss these scientists' arguments? If they argue the case, be they right or wrong, there is a scientific debate.

Make up your mind - elite or majority? The words have opposite meanings.

As in Hitler's Germany, both an elite and a majority.

J C

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

I have no issue with the scientific validity and strong evidential support for micro-evolution aka Natural Selection – which is also completely accepted by Creation Science.

However, if you have “objective, repeatable, reputable mechanisms supported by evidence” for macro-evolution from primordial chemicals to advance life forms, I would certainly like to see it.

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

Science already knows enough about abiogenesis to declare it to be impossible – and all recent breakthroughs in our understanding of living systems have ‘copper-fastened’ the Law of Biogenesis.


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

Any so-called scientific bridge built on a ‘leap of faith’ is on a very shaky foundation indeed.

The reason why science is so immensely powerful and rightly trusted by society to deliver reliable knowledge and useful ideas is because it is built on repeatably observable phenomena and it’s theories (in general) are under constant scrutiny and subjected to intense debate and re-evaluation by professional scientists in each particular field as new evidence emerges.

Macro-evolution is unique, in that it is not based on repeatably observable phenomena and any critical scrutiny or debate by professional scientists appears to be about as welcome as a Porcupine in a Balloon Factory.


Quote Morbert

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

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

Information Theory describes two types of information – syntactic and semantic.
Syntactic information is raw data with no meaning. A good example is a snowflake, or indeed any crystalline structure. A snowflake is a complex arrangement of hexagonal ice crystals. There is information there, but it is syntactic – or meaningless. A snowflake is a reasonably complex and ordered hexagonally based structure, often of great beauty, but it doesn’t contain any discernable message or meaningful information.
Equally, the information from a repeating or random pulsar is also syntactic, or meaningless – and therefore it is correctly classified by SETI as being from a natural as distinct from an intelligent source.

Semantic information is meaningful. The software in a computer is an example of purposeful, meaningful information and Computer Science therefore classifies it as semantic. The computer will not run without meaningful, precisely specified information, which has been designed and inputted, into the machine by an intelligence outside of the computer.
The information in DNA is also semantic or meaningful, precisely specified information. Whenever the ultimate source of semantic information has been identified, it has always been observed to be an intelligent agent.
Equally, the development of semantic information by undirected processes has been proven to be a mathematical impossibility. Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE semantic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst pre-existing semantic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate semantic information – they merely degrade it. The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is to conclude that DNA had an external intelligent source. Science cannot identify this source – but it can validly conclude that such intelligence existed at some point in the past when life originated.


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

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

Rock samples taken from submarine lava flows, which are known to have occurred in the 1950’s, have been radiometrically ‘dated’ at 4 million years old.

The 'apparent' nuclear decay rates in rocks can be ‘altered’ dramatically if the radioactive component being measured in the rock is differentially water soluble. For example the leaching of water soluble potassium salts within a rock can confound the potassium/argon test.


Quote Morbert
But mutations can account for increase in diversity. Be they beneficial or simply neutral. Harmful mutations are indeed destroyed by natural selection.
The only problem is that the ‘diversity’ provided by mutations is predominantly observed to be deleterious and even the very rare beneficial mutations are always observed to result in a loss of genetic information. The ‘big need’ of macro-Evolution is for a mechanism to provide INCREASED genetic information – and no plausible mechanism to meet this need has ever been identified.

It seems that Evolution is engaged in it’s very own “survival of the fittest” struggle at present.
It’s refusal to ‘cross breed' with Intelligent Design – is one of it's most immediate survival issues.


Quote Bluewolf
I know of a creationist doing a degree in biology/biochemistry, I'm sure that would be quite interesting to discuss...

And I know of hundreds of conventionally trained scientists, many with doctorates and professorships in mainstream universities who are creationists.

Another piece of evidence for Creation entering the ‘mainstream' was evident at this years Young Scientist Exhibition, where the Evolution / Creation issue was the subject of one of the exhibits.

The exhibit presented the results of a survey of 200 twelve to sixteen year olds on their knowledge and views of Creation and Evolution.

The data presented indicated significant confusion among young people about the issue with 40% of the respondents claiming that they didn’t understand the concepts.
The 60% who did claim to understand evolution and creation, were split 50:50 on whether they believed that the ‘origins mechanism’ was creation or evolution.
Of the people who believed in evolution 22% didn’t know what caused it, 30% believed it to be by natural processes and 48% believed it to be controlled by God.

The 50:50 split on the Creation / Evolution issue among this group of young people, is not as high as in America, where up to 80% are Creationists.

wolfsbane

twentycentshift said:

at least science is willing to say "prove it. if i'm wrong, give me proof, and i will agree with your proof." creationists will never say " if you can show me anything different, i will change my mind."

But so many secular scientists are very reluctant to put it into practise. Even in lesser matters where their pet theory is under attack, just look at how much scheming and dishonesty prevails. They are just men, not gods.

Also, I'm sure many creationists do say they will change their minds if real proof is presented. I would abandon my faith if it were proved false. I don't beleive it can be - but let's see what you've got. But the fluctuating interpretations of science cannot be trusted to determine such a matter. Real hard facts are required.

just the closed-mindedness of bible believers makes them suspect....refusal to see other perspectives is a sure sign of insecurity.

Surely that applies to my opponents? I do see their perspective, though I don't agree with it. They refuse even to concede any other possibility for our being here than evolution.

robindch

Scofflaw -

> Are there not two debates? There is one debate over whether
> creationism has enough evidentiary support, intellectual
> coherence, and testability to be considered scientifically - this
> is the one that most scientists think they are having with creationists.

Yes, that's the scientific debate -- evidence and logic.

> Creationists, on the other hand, think they are debating whether
> evolution or creationism is the better scientific theory - in other
> words, they act as if the first debate is either irrelevant, or has
> been concluded in their favour.

Some few might seriously do that -- Behe springs to mind as a possible candidate -- but I don't believe that most do. See some of the postings above where not only do creationists suggest that any evidence for evolution has simply been planted by god, but also, that even if it wasn't planted, well, it's not there anyway (ie, no fossil support etc). When your religious worldview allows you to *know* with full confidence that the opposition have either lots of fake evidence, or no evidence at all, it's hardly any wonder you end up believing whatever you're told to believe.

This parable is worth reading:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_parable.htm

robindch

> 'PC' applies because of the fear amongst scientists who are open to
> debate to publically reveal themselves lest they lose their employment.

Aren't christians supposed to stand up and be proud of their beliefs, and not hide their "light" under a bushel?

If you're right and there actually are plenty of "christian" scientists who are too scared to go public with their beliefs, doesn't it suggest to you that, as good christians, they must be a pretty worthless lot?

> there is a scientific debate.

Wolfsbane, my friend, I really wish you would read what I write. To date, there have been no -- zero, zilch, nada, none -- scientific papers based upon original research published in any scientific journal which suggests that ID explains the world better than Evolution (see here). Your claim that there is a scientific debate is false.

If, as you claim, there are piles of "christian" scientists, then why aren't they publishing anything? Even creationists can't produce a list of publications...

wolfsbane

robindch said:

This is not a debate based upon evidence, but based upon belief, consequently, it is not a scientific debate, but a religious one.

I beg to differ. The motivations of creationist scientists may be spiritual, but their argument is science. Have you read their papers on any of the areas of biology, geology, astrophysics, etc?

Secondly, to date, there have been no -- zero, zilch, nada, none -- scientific papers based upon original research published in any scientific journal which suggests that ID explains the world better than Evolution (see here). Your claim that proponents of ID "publish against" evolution is false.

I note your qualification - ' in any scientific journal'. By which you mean those journals recognised and controlled by the evolutionists. Do you think any of these magazines would dare to publish, even for debate, any of the many papers published by creationist scientists? I've heard the testimony of scientists who 'came out' as creationists and how they were treated.
There are scientific journals published by creationist scientists, setting out many scientific arguments in support of creation rather than evolution. JC should be able to refer you to an extensive list of such papers.

I would be careful saying thigs like this if you're trying to insult evolutionists -- recall that in the USA, around 85% of people have creationist beliefs of one form or another.

My point is that the majority is not always right - and being a majority brings with it real dangers of blindness to the truth. That applies to everyone.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Aren't christians supposed to stand up and be proud of their beliefs, and not hide their "light" under a bushel?

If you're right and there actually are plenty of "christian" scientists who are too scared to go public with their beliefs, doesn't it suggest to you that, as good christians, they must be a pretty worthless lot?

I agree, they should. But we have weak and fearful amongst the sheep too. The threat of losing your job, maybe your house, etc. is pretty intimidating. But not all non-evolutionists are Christians. They have even less to depend on if they speak up.

The thought-police in the Soviet Union kept most of their academics saying the right things. Those in today's democracies don't use the gulag (yet) but economic pressures work pretty well on their own. See modern Stalinism at work: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

Son Goku

I note your qualification - ' in any scientific journal'. By which you mean those journals recognised and controlled by the evolutionists. Do you think any of these magazines would dare to publish, even for debate, any of the many papers published by creationist scientists? I've heard the testimony of scientists who 'came out' as creationists and how they were treated.
There are scientific journals published by creationist scientists, setting out many scientific arguments in support of creation rather than evolution. JC should be able to refer you to an extensive list of such papers.

This is a generic response to everything you've written.

There is no evolutionist/materialist conspiracy in the scientific community.
99.99% of scientists are not creationist and it has nothing to do them being against Christianity.
There is also Vedic creationists, who believe that there is evidence of Brahma's creation in scientific findings. Their papers aren't accepted for the same reason creationist ones aren't.
They're badly written.
I've seen creationist Astrophysics papers, they use Newtonian Theory badly and whenever the use anything more advance the paper contains almost no mathematical content and whats used is evidently poorly understood.

There will always be a group who disagree with some "conventional wisdom".

There are people who think that computer coding doesn't work and that computers work through some undisclosed method kept secret by Turing since World War II.
This opinion isn't represented anywhere in Computer Science litrature and these guys say the same thing creationists do, that "[Computer] Scientists are being biased because they won't publish their material and that they're blind to the truth".
Should we start representing every single unconventional opinion from now on every major subject branch?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

The thought-police in the Soviet Union kept most of their academics saying the right things. Those in today's democracies don't use the gulag (yet) but economic pressures work pretty well on their own. See modern Stalinism at work:

Yet?
Speak coherently on the subject at hand, instead using "Brave New World"-isms.

robindch

> But we have weak and fearful amongst the sheep too.

An unintentional accuracy, I think.

> note your qualification - ' in any scientific journal'. By which you
> mean those journals recognised and controlled by the evolutionists.

No, I mean scientific journals. I mean journals that discuss science by means of peer-reviewed, evidence-based, original research. I do not mean journals owned and run by religious publishing concerns. I do mean journals owned by the mainstream publishing houses.

You have said that there is a scientific debate. I have shown you that there is not a scientific debate in scientific journals and I think you should stop repeating that claim because that claim is false.

> The thought-police in the Soviet Union kept most of their academics
> saying the right things.

Have you ever considered, even for one moment, that creationists might be the "thought police"?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Should we start representing every single unconventional opinion from now on every major subject branch?

No, only from those willing to back up their assertions with data and argument based on that data. Creationist scientists do so. You will say they don't. How can we decide who is right? A clue might be in seeing who seeks to suppress debate. Witness the Washington Post article, for example.

wolfsbane

Son Goku:

Yet?
Speak coherently on the subject at hand, instead using "Brave New World"-isms.

George and Tony will have no bother getting your vote then. I'm not sure how much of the current slide into totalitarianism is deliberate (conspiracy) or negilgent, but I for one watch every encroachment on free-speech and every suppression of dissent, and every appeal to 'trust us, we're scientists/ patriots/democrats, etc.'

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I mean journals that discuss science by means of peer-reviewed, evidence-based, original research.

And if those people rule out any discussion of the arguments for creation their fellow scientists present, that's OK then? A Brave New World indeed?

Have you ever considered, even for one moment, that creationists might be the "thought police"?

I will when they have control of the scientific instituitions and agree to prevent any discussion of evolution. The Christian Reconstructionists would gladly do so. They sadly have the same mindset as the liberal fascists currently in control.

robindch

> And if those people rule out any discussion of the arguments
> for creation their fellow scientists present,

It's creationists who are not producing the research for publishing.

Let me make this point more clearly -- for the journals to publish something, they must have something to publish. Creationists do not produce research, so they cannot produce papers which report on this (non-existent) research. Creationists, while they have plenty of cash for public-relations companies, do not seem to have enough cash to fund labs full of geneticists carrying out research. Almost without exception, they do not fund paleontological/geological digs looking for fossils. They do not own telescopes looking out into space and they do not fund those that do. I could go on, but I think you get the point which is this:

Before you can publish something, you need to do some research to publish about. Creationists do not do any research, so they do not get published.

> They sadly have the same mindset as the liberal fascists currently in control

Can you name ten "liberal fascists currently in control", please?

Son Goku

How can we decide who is right?

Based on which has more evidence. Which is currently evolution. Creationism amounts to little more than pointing out ambiguities and slight points of contention in evolution rather than formulating an opposing theory. If you want to replace a scientific theory you have to have something to replace it with.
Dan Koshland didn't explain muscle enzymes by pointing out holes in the lock-key explanation which already existed, he did it by proposing an alternate theory which matched the evidence better.
Creationists haven't done that yet. It's easy to point out ontological holes in evolution when you haven't a better theory to replace it.
What is the Creationist explanation for ecology that can be tested?

wolfsbane wrote:

George and Tony will have no bother getting your vote then. I'm not sure how much of the current slide into totalitarianism is deliberate (conspiracy) or negilgent, but I for one watch every encroachment on free-speech and every suppression of dissent, and every appeal to 'trust us, we're scientists/ patriots/democrats, etc.'

Oh come on, do you really think scientists are part of some conspiracy to supress free speech?
This is just getting ridiculous.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Oh come on, do you really think scientists are part of some conspiracy to supress free speech?
This is just getting ridiculous.

Who was gagging Richard Sternberg?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Creationists do not produce research, so they cannot produce papers which report on this (non-existent) research.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp for an insight into this. Further, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp On the question of suppression, note this paragaph in the latter:
In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had 'a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.' Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, 'It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.' This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent 'the range of opinions received.' e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Can you name ten "liberal fascists currently in control", please?

Let me offer senior scientists at the Smithsonian and the National Center for Science Education. Here's a quote on their behavior in the case of Richard Sternberg:
Sternberg's case has sent ripples far beyond the Beltway. The special counsel accused the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif.-based think tank that defends the teaching of evolution, of orchestrating attacks on Sternberg.

"The NCSE worked closely with" the Smithsonian "in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited," McVay wrote to Sternberg.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Based on which has more evidence. Which is currently evolution.

'More' and 'currently' suggest some not absolutely proven, something that may have to be thought about again. Yet evolution cannot be questioned. When ID points out the absurdities required by evolution it is not taken on board for serious consideration - instead a heresy hunt begins.

What is the Creationist explanation for ecology that can be tested?

Sorry, I'm not a scientist. That's more in JC's line.

Son Goku

Who was gagging Richard Sternberg?

Why didn't he publish in a philosophical journal. ID makes no falsifiable predictions, it isn't science.
And that isn't a criticism of ID, it just doesn't belong in a scientific journal, just like ecology findings don't belong in a philology journal.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yet evolution cannot be questioned. When ID points out the absurdities required by evolution it is not taken on board for serious consideration - instead a heresy hunt begins.

ID doesn't point out absurdities required by evolution, it's an interpretation of evolution and genetics. It's a philosophy, that’s why you can't publish it in a scientific journal, because it doesn't have anything to do with science.
And for crying out load, stop with ready-made language. (heresy hunt)

'More' and 'currently' suggest some not absolutely proven, something that may have to be thought about again.

No, it means it's tentative, this is how science works.

robindch

> I'm not a scientist

That much is clear and which makes me wonder why you hold strong opinions on something that you admit you know little about.

Gathering togather the topics of your postings so far, we find that you believe that any evidence of evolution has been planted by a god, but you won't tell us why this might have been done. You tell us that evolutionists are dogmatic, while slagging off others for not reading your holy book in the same way you do. Then we hear -- without evidence -- that scientists are involved in "scheming and dishonesty". Next, you tell us that scientists, who make up around 1.5% of the population, are actually a Nazi-like elite, majority. And this evil majority are actively involved in supressing debate and frightening into submission your own less-than-brave academic supporters (whom you call 'sheep') despite, presumably, many of them having tenure (designed specifically so that they can disagree, without fear of losing their jobs). Then, gathering momentum, we hear that scientists aren't Nazis, but actually Stalinist "thought-police". Finally, we hear that the world is actually being run by "liberal fascists", some of whom you tell us, are some guys working in a museum in Washington.

Wolfsbane -- do you worry that some people, reading what you've posted, might think that you are both paranoid and completely insane?

Morbert

J C wrote:

What I have said is that that the ‘deus ex machina’ putative Act of Creation, is outside of science because it is not repeatably observable.
I went on to point out that all putative Abiogenesis processes are also not repeatably observable and Abiogenesis is therefore strictly outside of science as well.

Divine Creation and Abiogenesis are therefore BOTH strictly outside of science. They are faith-based positions, so to speak – Creation because it CAN’T be observed and Abiogenesis because it has NEVER been observed.

I do however believe that science HAS a vital role to play in relation to helping answer the ‘origins question’. It is certainly capable of assessing any repeatably observable evidence for EITHER Creation or Abiogenesis.

You are assuming mechanisms behind natural abiogenesis would not leave behind specific evidence. (Clay scaffolding models would yield, for example, different predictions of structures based on a study of the proposed mechanisms and behaviour of clay/organic chemicals. Yet we cannot study divine mechanisms, so we cannot rigorously define what predicitons it would yield. That's the difference.

J C wrote:

Quote Morbert’Incredulity arguments’ as you have styled them are made by both sides.

Creationists point to, for example, the mathematical impossibility of the purposeful information present in living systems arising by undirected, essentially random or repeating processes.

Evolutionists point to the possibility of numerous attempts being made throughout the Universe, over incredibly long periods of time as likely to lead to the spontaneous emergence of life somewhere in the Universe.

Could I point out that the ‘incredulity arguments’ of Creationists about the information present in living systems IS repeatably observable and is therefore within the competence of science to evaluate it.

On the other hand, the ‘incredulity arguments’ of Evolutionists which claim inordinate amounts of time, numerous attempts and the spontaneous emergence of life are NOT repeatably observable and therefore outside of the competence of science to evaluate.
That ironically is one of the reasons why macro-evolution has not been more vigorously challenged by science – because most of it’s claims haven’t been proven by observation, it is therefore difficult to disprove them by science.

The recent scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of living processes that have occurred with Molecular Biology, in particular, show that the evidence is now dramatically favouring Creation and effectively ruling out natural processes as the originators of life.

Could you please explicitly explain how the Creationist arguments from incredulity are repeaedly observable? And the 'incredulous arguments' you claim Evolutionary Biologists are making is a severe misrepresentation of the Theory. There is nothing inordinate/spontaneous about the tenets of Evolution, which have all been rigorously compared to evidence (Which I address further down in this post).

And again, there has been no evidence favouring Creation, as no model of Creation/Intelligent Design has been layed out yet. And I fail to see where evidence is pointing away from Evolution, as many of the concepts you mention in your post have been refuted for decades, read on.

What is the scientific theory of creationism? And how can it be tested using the scientific method? It is not unreasonable to ask for rigorous definitions of a theory and its predictions, and I have not seen any such criteria met by creationism. References to papers or links to research projects would be greatly apprectiated.

J C wrote:

The primary exothermic reaction of limestone occurs with the addition of water to 'burned' (or oxidised) limestone and it indeed does generate considerable heat.
However, the putative underground waters of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ would have been saturated with HYDROLYSED Calcium Carbonate – which wouldn’t produce exothermic reactions in water.
In any event, even if some exothermic processes accompanied the formation of limestone, the massive relative difference in volume between the water in the World’s Oceans as compared with the volume of the World’s Limestone deposits would ensure that any heat would be rapidly dissipated.

Again, the same problems would arise even if we postulate "fountains of the deep", as such fountains would be superheated, the same goes for the water canopy you mention below. The rapid release of heat that would accompany any such sudden geological event is unavoidable, and could not have been dissipated during the year of the flood. And anyway, if such fountains of the deep did exist, then where's the evidence? Where are the basaltic erosional deposit patterns near fissures, where's the erosional evidence along fissures? Why didn't such volumes of water rise to the surface beforehand?

J C wrote:

The great PURITY of most Limestones rules out the standard model of gradual deposition, which would have produced significant contamination with organic matter and other materials – which is not observed in commercial Limestone quarries.
It also WASN’T produced by animal bone breakdown – the fossils that are found in Limestone are generally very well preserved – and therefore they were rapidly entombed. Because these fossils weren’t chemically eroded, there is no reason to believe that the rest of the crystalline Calcium Carbonate found in these rocks came from chemically eroded bone or shells either.

The formation of pure limestone from clacite from organic material etc along with subesquent erosion (Which is why Such limestone is pure white) isn't special. Most of the material from limestone comes from microscopic organisms, which is why limestone does not simply consist of bone jigsaws. It's these microscopic orgnaisms that are responsible for the massive pure deposits you refer to. And the fact that larger fossils are found in limestone highlights the biological importance in its formation, there is no reason a fossil is guaranteed to erode completely, so you get a mix of preservation quality.. The hydrocycle results in a wide range of limestone purity, which is why you get such a wide range of colours.

J C wrote:

Noah’s Flood was an on-going process that lasted for roughly a year. There were three main phases to the Flood.
The First Phase was the flooding process itself caused by the subsidence of the ante-diluvian landmasses accompanied by the explosive release of subterranean waters as well as the deluge of rainfall from the collapse of the water canopy above.
The Second Phase involved massive tectonic movements, and huge underwater currents, which transported and sorted out the sediment generated during the first phase as well as generating further sediment itself.
The Third Phase involved huge up-thrusts and down-thrusts leading to the emergence of sediment-covered land that dried out as the waters ran-off it back into the oceans. The sediments then petrified into sedimentary and metamorphic rocks.

The sedimentary rocks observed in the Grand Canyon Plateau were probably laid down under water during the Second Phase of Noah’s Flood and a water-carved canyon was made into these sediments by waters running off the newly-emerging North American landmass as they made their way towards the ocean, during the Third Phase. The metamorphic rock was probably formed by localised volcanic heating during the Third Phase, or indeed even more recently.

Such a model contains large incosistencies, as the turbulent flood would have to also be responsible for the careful layering of sediments found around the world. A Global flood cannot be responsible for both huge erosion and massive finely layered deposition, even if it did last a year, or five, or 10 etc. It cannot explain the formation of granite batholists, or chalk deposits, or the ratio of aquatic:terrestrial fossils, or even fossil mineralization itself for that matter, or salt deposits etc. ect. without compromising/contradicting it's initial postulates of massive upthrusting/turbulent waters/quick deposition etc. And inconsistencies aside, in order for the flood to account for such creation and transportation of sediments, it would have had to last thousands of years. One year simply isn't enough.

So you have a basketload of problems with flood geology that need to be sorted out before you can present it as a valid scientific explanation for anything.

J C wrote:

The first woman was by definition, the common ancestral mother of all men AND women.

Yes, but such "Eves" mentioned before can't be the common ancestors of all men and women. They can simply be called the most common ancestor of men and women alive at the time the study was performed, which means that plenty of other humans were also around at the time. If you performed the study 1,000 or even 100 years ago, you would come to a different "Eve", for reasons mentioned before.

J C wrote:

Yes, as we go back through our immediate ancestors, we find that each generation expands exponentially viz 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.
However, the fact that science has established that we are all ultimately descended from a very SMALL population of people, means that our 'ancestral tree' approaching the so-called ‘population bottleneck’ begins to narrow back in numbers again, to the point where only a few women (I believe them to be four i.e. Noah’s wife and her three daughters-in-law) are the common female ancestors of all of Mankind.

See above... This bottleneck is not stationary in the history of life, and is changing constantly.

Morbert

J C wrote:

The following are the lead-in paragraphs to the above quote (which are equally devastating to the case of gradual evolution):-

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

‘The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.’

Darwin’s argument still persists as the favoured escape of most palaeontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little evolution. In exposing it’s cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks.

Palaeontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”


As a scientist, I have nothing to add to the above words of Professor Stephen Jay Gould on this issue, other than to express my admiration for his frankness and integrity, as a great Evolutionary Scientist who wasn’t afraid to critically evaluate the evidence for his own beliefs.

Heh... Poor Stephen... Here's another one of his:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

J C wrote:

I have no issue with the scientific validity and strong evidential support for micro-evolution aka Natural Selection – which is also completely accepted by Creation Science.

However, if you have “objective, repeatable, reputable mechanisms supported by evidence” for macro-evolution from primordial chemicals to advance life forms, I would certainly like to see it.

What's the difference between the two? Microevolution and Macroevolution both have the same mechanism. So if you accept all of mircroevolution you inevitably accept macroevolution. Nevertheless, I shall provide an example of reputable evidence which describes Macroevolution. If you rigorously examine and study phylogenies which are independant of one another, you get incredibly high correlation between them. i.e. Biochemistry and Morphology. If such correlations did not permeate all of life, then we would have reason to believe we weren't all related. If you would like me to expand on this, or provide another example, feel free to ask.

J C wrote:

Science already knows enough about abiogenesis to declare it to be impossible – and all recent breakthroughs in our understanding of living systems have ‘copper-fastened’ the Law of Biogenesis.

Could you please provide references to such declarations?

J C wrote:

Any so-called scientific bridge built on a ‘leap of faith’ is on a very shaky foundation indeed.

The reason why science is so immensely powerful and rightly trusted by society to deliver reliable knowledge and useful ideas is because it is built on repeatably observable phenomena and it’s theories (in general) are under constant scrutiny and subjected to intense debate and re-evaluation by professional scientists in each particular field as new evidence emerges.

Macro-evolution is unique, in that it is not based on repeatably observable phenomena and any critical scrutiny or debate by professional scientists appears to be about as welcome as a Porcupine in a Balloon Factory.

Oh I agree completely. I'm not saying scientific theories are built on leaps of faith, I'm saying it's often the first step. Theories such as General Relativity were originally explored with leaps of faith, and once the empiricle evidence and mathematics started pouring in, it was taken as a scientific theory. And your Macroevolution assessment is wrong for several reasons. a) It's always open to research and scrutiny. b) It's not a leap of faith for reasons mentioned above and many more. c) It is based on repeated observable phenomenon (speciation).

J C wrote:

Information Theory describes two types of information – syntactic and semantic.
Syntactic information is raw data with no meaning. A good example is a snowflake, or indeed any crystalline structure. A snowflake is a complex arrangement of hexagonal ice crystals. There is information there, but it is syntactic – or meaningless. A snowflake is a reasonably complex and ordered hexagonally based structure, often of great beauty, but it doesn’t contain any discernable message or meaningful information.
Equally, the information from a repeating or random pulsar is also syntactic, or meaningless – and therefore it is correctly classified by SETI as being from a natural as distinct from an intelligent source.

Semantic information is meaningful. The software in a computer is an example of purposeful, meaningful information and Computer Science therefore classifies it as semantic. The computer will not run without meaningful, precisely specified information, which has been designed and inputted, into the machine by an intelligence outside of the computer.
The information in DNA is also semantic or meaningful, precisely specified information. Whenever the ultimate source of semantic information has been identified, it has always been observed to be an intelligent agent.
Equally, the development of semantic information by undirected processes has been proven to be a mathematical impossibility. Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE semantic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst pre-existing semantic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate semantic information – they merely degrade it. The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is to conclude that DNA had an external intelligent source. Science cannot identify this source – but it can validly conclude that such intelligence existed at some point in the past when life originated.

I'm not sure what concept of information you are referring to, because scientific information theory uses mathematical models which ignore any concepts of meaning. Evolution is an objective principle, so it does not differenciate between meaningful information and noise, which are subjective concepts. It's what makes information theory so powerful. A careful study of thermodynamics and statistical mechanincs renders any concept of "meaningful information" irrelevant and ridiculous. Consequently, this also addresses your claim that mutations are always deleterious. If we apply the definitions of information theory, mutations are infact not deleterious, and are perfectly capable of adding information.

J C wrote:

Rock samples taken from submarine lava flows, which are known to have occurred in the 1950’s, have been radiometrically ‘dated’ at 4 million years old.

The 'apparent' nuclear decay rates in rocks can be ‘altered’ dramatically if the radioactive component being measured in the rock is differentially water soluble. For example the leaching of water soluble potassium salts within a rock can confound the potassium/argon test.

These samples, and this has been known for a long time, did not properly use Potassium-Argon Dating. The compontents of the Lava dated were actually xenoliths, which contain excess argon. When a proper study of lava was carried out, such anomalies were removed. It had nothing to do with apparent nuclear decay rates. It is a well established fact that you cannot use Potassium Argon datng with such examples for obvious reasons, and the problem is easily rectified with Argon Isotopes measurements. So my point still stands. You still haven't explained the high correlation between various dating techniques. Pointing out the misuse of dating techniques does not consistute a refutation.

J C wrote:

The only problem is that the ‘diversity’ provided by mutations is predominantly observed to be deleterious and even the very rare beneficial mutations are always observed to result in a loss of genetic information. The ‘big need’ of macro-Evolution is for a mechanism to provide INCREASED genetic information – and no plausible mechanism to meet this need has ever been identified.

It seems that Evolution is engaged in it’s very own “survival of the fittest” struggle at present.
It’s refusal to ‘cross breed' with Intelligent Design – is one of it's most immediate survival issues.

See above. Information theory says mutations do indeed increase information, as noise and meaningful information are the same thing as described by statistical mechanics et al.

Son Goku

Actually JC, what do you think prevents the "microevolutions" from adding up to a "macroevolution"?
And don't say "because they can't add information,", because that makes no sense. Genetic information isn't linear in the sense of how many "kilobytes" there are on the gene.

Whiskey Priest

Proposition 1: There is either a Hell, or there is not
Bible: there is a Hell

Proposition 2: God either created the World, or did not
Bible: God created the world

Proposition 3: God is either omniscient (knows everything), or not
Bible: God is omniscient

Proposition 4: Sinners are either condemned to Hell, or not
Bible: Sinners are condemned to Hell


Possibility 1: When God created the world, He did so in the sure knowledge that a certain number of sinners were going to be condemned to Hell, there to be tormented for Eternity.

Is this a God worthy of worship? Is it the act of a responsible Creator to create beings with the potential for sin, and to create Hell at the same time for their Eternal torment, knowing how many would sin?

Possibility 2: God created the world, knowing that many would sin, but accepting that as the price that had to be paid so that some might be saved.

Is this a God worthy of worship? If none of us had been created, none of us would go to Hell.

Possibility 3: When God created the world, He did not 'know' the outcome of the free-will choices of all sinners - it was possible that none would sin, and all would be saved.

Is this a God worthy of worship? Is it the act of a responsible Creator to create beings with the potential for sin, and to create Hell at the same time for their Eternal torment, not knowing how many would sin?

Possibility 4: God created the world, but the Devil created sin.

If God created all, God created the Devil, and thus God created sin - the sin that He condemns us to Hell for.

Possibility 5: Sinners are not really condemned to Hell, or Hell is not as bad as it is made out to be.

The Bible is either literally true, or not - however, it is possible that the New Testament supercedes the Old, and that Christ's dispensation frees us from Hell - but, if that is the case, why not sin?

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

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

Sorry about the late reply, I had to go home for the weekend.

Evolution does not say any such thing - particularly the common form we know of, whatever about origin of the species - it says "this is what we've observed and our scientifically reached conclusions based on the data". Pretty much. It makes no claims about god because as I said, it doesn't deal with god. None of the gods. Remember, there are more religions than christianity but since this is a christian thread I suppose that is irrelevant.

Yeah I'd agree they're two different issues, which is what I was saying in my last post. As for the origins of the universe, we've gotten as far back as we can observe, until we know how to deal with singularities =/

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Why didn't he publish in a philosophical journal.

Because he considered it a scientific question?

ID makes no falsifiable predictions, it isn't science.

Pardon an non-scientist for asking, Is this science: 'One cannot lift oneself off the ground by pulling on one's bootstraps'? Seems to be asserting a fact of physics. When ID says various biological meachanisms cannot have evolved due to their irreducible complexity, sounds like science to me. But you say it's just philosophy. A handy device for removing opposition from the table.

And for crying out load, stop with ready-made language. (heresy hunt)

Maybe we come from a differnt culture. Heresy-hunt is commonly used in British and American circles to describe the zealous defence of received truth by persecuting those who hold or teach otherwise. 'Witch-hunt' is in a similar vein. Conduct one might expect from bodies holding to 'absolute truths', such as religions and ideaologies. Not from bodies holding to 'tentative truths'. To remove one's tenure or the withhold graduation to those who hold to minority views is to me a manifestation of religious zeal.

edit blank: robin explained it a lot better

robindch

> Is this science: 'One cannot lift oneself off the ground by
> pulling on one's bootstraps'?

No, that is not science. That is an English sentence about something that you believe to be true. As you do not know what science is, here's Robert Carroll's definition:

Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural. Science is also the organized body of knowledge about the empirical world which issues from the application of the abovementioned set of logical and empirical methods.

> When ID says various biological meachanisms cannot have evolved
> due to their irreducible complexity, sounds like science to me.

Well, you see, it's not science because science needs evidence. That means that if you're going to say that something is true, you need to back it up.

If a bunch of things, as you say "cannot have evolved due to their irreducible complexity" then it's up to the ID people to provide some evidence to back this up.

So far they have provided no evidence at all and instead of searching for any, instead, like the irredeemably idiotic JC, have spent their time bamboozling people like you who are trying to be honest within the terms of their belief system.