The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

J C wrote:

….but the point is that Dr Greenstein ISN’T a Creationist – and yet he appreciates the scientific validity of Intelligent Design - and it's ability to provide objective PROOF for the existence of God.

Hmm, I read the paper - but where was the objective proof bit? :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

All of the original languages of the Nations of Mankind, were CREATED at Babel.

I wonder why God hasn't continued his policy of knocking down tall buildings to teach humility to his imperfect, defiant creations? Perhaps once is enough?

J C wrote:

Dr Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. Bill has done post-doctoral work at MIT, University of Chicago, Northwestern, Princeton, Cambridge, and Notre Dame. He has been a National Science Foundation doctoral and post-doctoral fellow.

So, as the leading mathematical expert on Intelligent Design, Dr. Dembski IS an eminent, conventionally qualified mathematician of world status.:D

Kind of narrowing the pool somewhat by limiting the field to mathematical experts on ID. Are there any others besides Dembski? I am the leading world expert on things I keep on my desk. No one knows as much about the things I keep on my desk as I do.

J C wrote:

In our Fallen World, this is largely the case – but our Immune System is still RESPONDING to the challenges of disease – and if those challenges are reduced the response is reduced – and if those challenges didn’t exist (as in the Pre-Fall World) the response would be absent!!!
So, our Immune Systems were Created by God as a contingency for our subsequent Fall!!!

Out of curiosity, how do you explain why viruses (presumably made by God) which need a host to survive and propagate were able to exist before the Fall where illness and infection were non-existant? You said they might have had beneficial relationships with humans? Please elaborate with a specific example of a disease-causing virus having a beneficial effect on a disease-free human whose immune system is dormant.

J C wrote:

They had indeed very long and productive lives – but they still died as a result of their disobedience ……………

Well isn't death returning to paradise/heaven? More of a reward than a punishment. Unless you're saying Adam and Eve went to hell?

J C wrote:

Religion still is a major part of education – only now the 'religion' increasingly takes the form of Atheism, Materialism and Humanism.:D

Can't remember taking those classes tbh. Religion rightfully deserves to be part of an enlightened education, just not in science class.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

So, our Immune Systems were Created by God as a contingency for our subsequent Fall!!!

Why did God create our immune systems in one state that would never be used and then alter it during the Fall to a different state

The first state of our immune systems (the perfect state as you call it) that existed in Adam and Eve would never be used since no disease existed in Eden pre-Fall. This state would be significantly changed to an imperfect system by God during the Fall, and God would know this at the time he created the first immune system.

The second state (the imperfect state) would be used after the Fall when we actually had disease to fight, but would be imperfect because of the punishment given to Adam by God So God changes his original design into a lesser design as punishment to us.

So you are basically saying that God created an immune system that he knew would never be used

Utter utter nonsense.

This is a classic example of why Creationism is not taken seriously JC. You are just making this crap up as you go and you are getting yourself in knots over your nonsense

I await the inevitable back track that you are famous for

Sapien

Jakkass wrote:

Do you guys not get the point You are never going to find a definitive argument that will either prove or disprove Creationism. So leave it be.

If you mean that nobody will ever find an argument that is so ineluctable that it will force avowed creationists to recant, then you're probably right. But if you're suggesting that it can never be demonstrated to a reasonable, objective observer that Creationism is a tissue of ignorance, deception and delusion, then I disagree - I think this has been extremely valuable in that sense.

Seriously though - there's easily a PhD in local epistemology to be had from a reasonably intelligent review of this thread. Dibs!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There's that "as a scientist" again. You still haven't told us what kind of degree it is, and you have yet to demonstrate even a basic understanding of science.

Your gratuitous Ad Hominem remarks are the weakest form of debate – by (erroneously, in this case) attacking the personal attributes of your opponent and NOT their arguments – you betray your inability to actually address the arguments!!!

……a bit like a bad footballer attacking the man and not the ball!!!!:D

Not a bit. An understanding of science is, one would think, rather de rigeur in a discussion about the scientific standing of Creationism, although it's hardly surprising you don't agree.

J C wrote:

…….and still NO evidence proffered for ‘big picture’ Evolution!!!:eek:

You're only hurting yourself here, lad.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The length of phone numbers tend to match the population served by the numbers. For example the Dublin area has 7 digit numbers (or 10 million number permutations) serving a population of about 1 million phones.
So if I randomly dial a 7 digit number in Dublin it will be an active number in about one in ten attempts - which is a reasonable 'hit rate'.

However, the ‘numbers’ that we are ‘dialling’ in the case of even simple proteins are hundreds of digits long (with permutations in excess of the number of electrons in the Universe) – and the population of specific proteins required to perform a necessary function in a particular time and space can be as little as ONE.
So if random processes are used to generate the sequences for these proteins they will NEVER be produced.

And since they're not, your maths is irrelevant.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Sigh. You really didn't understand that, did you? The maths you use is inapplicable, no matter how much it impresses you.

Sigh, but YOU don’t appear to understand that randomly dialling a number in the Dublin area will meet with ‘success’ i.e. an active number ringing out, in about one in 10 attempts – which is a reasonable ‘hit rate’.

The DNA in a cell supposedly ‘searching’ it’s combinatorial space (by using mutations and NS) will meet with ‘success’ i.e will produce a particular necessary protein for a specific cellular task in about one in ten to the power of 130 attempts – which is more than the number of electrons in the entire Universe AGAINST doing so - which is an IMPOSSIBLE ‘hit rate’!!!:eek:

Both impossible and irrelevant.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The following quote from the above article is a good summary of what most scientists who objectively look at the evidence conclude:-
“Theoretical astrophysicist George Greenstein, in his book, Symbiotic Universe, asks, “Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon the scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?

Er, OK. And what was his answer to the question? Did he conclude that the only rational answer was the God of the Bible?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
No, he's simply unrepresentative. JC, there's no point in trotting out these 'luminaries', because for every 1 Creationist luminary, there are 10,000 equally luminous non-Creationists. That you wish to ignore the vast majority in favour of the tiny handful who you agree with indicates only that you cannot be looking at the evidence objectively.

….but the point is that Dr Greenstein ISN’T a Creationist – and yet he appreciates the scientific validity of Intelligent Design - and it's ability to provide objective PROOF for the existence of God.

Er, no - he asked a question about it.

J C wrote:

Even Professor Richard Dawkins, concedes that “life has the appearance of design” ........

.........just like living creatures 'have the appearance' of being alive .........
.........and scientifically qualified Evolutionists 'have the appearance' of being scientists, I suppose!!!!:D

You know, JC, you can't build a scientific case out of the misquotes of scientists, however hard you try.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There are more non-Creationist scientists called 'Stephen' (or variant thereof, like Stephanie) than there are Creationist scientists full stop.

……and most of them are ‘running with the herd’ on Evolution – and that is why Skepics are so fearful of any in-depth examination of the non-existent evidence for Evolution!!!:eek:

Ah, yes, the good old "conspiracy of the misguided"...

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
your story requires that we should see genomes entirely different from what is actually observed - and that ancient dog genomes should be massively larger than modern ones - again, not observed.

Genetic diversity is a qualitative (and NOT a quantitative) issue.
So, there is no difference in the SIZE of a mongrel’s genome or a pedigree dog's genome – but the mongrel’s genome is much more diverse ……
……ditto for the original Dog Kind!!!:D

And the deeply humorous claim that one string of DNA going AAGGTTTTCC is 'better' than another going AAGGTTTTCC.

This could be your silliest argument, but it's a very crowded field, and full of strong contenders.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
According to your hypothesis, all populations, no matter how large, are inbred, since no new genetic information has ever been added.

Only inbred/isolated/pedigree populations are significantly inbred.
Hybridised/outbred/mongel populations are genetically diverse!!!!

From a planetary point of view, all populations are isolated and inbred, unless you know some rather startling information you're keeping to yourself.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
The problem is that there are only 4 'letters', and that every life form uses them - as if every language in the world was written with a, c, g, and t, and the same word in different languages was both pronounced differently, and the word itself meant something entirely different.

The language of DNA is the SAME universal genetic language Created by God for ALL life.
Interestingly, the original Human spoken language was ALSO one universal language created by God – who subsequently Created a multitude of languages at Babel to confound the scheming of Nimrod and his buddies!!!!:)

Interestingly, your 'point' has no relevance to the issue.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
By the way, you're aware that no-one designs languages (with a couple of exceptions, say, Esperanto and Klingon)? They, er, evolve.

All of the original languages of the Nations of Mankind, were CREATED at Babel.
These languages have since ‘evolved’ via the appliance of Human Intelligence and DESIGN!!!!!:D

Oh, of course. My bad.

J C wrote:

Robin
So, given that you say you reject dishonesty, why do you say that no evidence has been produced for evolution on this thread, when it has been produced in quantity?

Firstly, evidence for Evolution HASN’T been produced in any substantial quantity. Indeed, there is a considerable reluctance to proffer ANY scientific evidence for Macro-Evolution.

None whatsoever - the entire fossil record is its testominy.

J C wrote:

Robin
Why do you continue to claim to be a scientist when you are clearly unable to grasp even the most basic scientific concepts and are unaware of its basic principles?

One could answer these by suggesting that you are delusional, but I would like to think that the inhabitants of this thread are at least partially sane

Once again another example of a gratuitous Ad Hominem remark !!!

Could I remind you that Ad Hominem attacks are the weakest form of debate……..
…..and by attacking the person of your opponent and NOT their arguments – you also betray your own inability to address the arguments!!!

No, JC. We went over this before. You constantly claim to be a scientist simply in order to bolster your very silly 'proofs' for Creationism. When you are asked to provide the level of your qualification (as provided by other posters), you resort to claiming that we wish to know only for the sinister purposes of tracking you down and having you fired to 'silence' you.

What we agreed (with the mod) is that you don't have to provide any information, however basic, about your claimed qualification, as long as you don't make the claim, but that if you again claimed to be 'qualified as a scientist' without even saying what that qualification is, we would again deride you.

And what we all said is that you'd wait a few pages, and make the claim again. And here you are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

2Scoops
Out of curiosity, how do you explain why viruses (presumably made by God) which need a host to survive and propagate were able to exist before the Fall where illness and infection were non-existant? You said they might have had beneficial relationships with humans? Please elaborate with a specific example of a disease-causing virus having a beneficial effect on a disease-free human whose immune system is dormant.

Firstly, I don’t think that viruses were originally Created by God.

These agents of disease and death were probably produced around the time of the Fall - or shortly afterwards.


Originally Posted by J C
They (Adam & Eve) had indeed very long and productive lives – but they still died as a result of their disobedience

2Scoops
Well isn't death returning to paradise/heaven? More of a reward than a punishment. Unless you're saying Adam and Eve went to hell?

In Adam and Eve’s case they certainly DIDN’T return to Paradise/Heaven upon their death because Jesus Christ hadn’t made His atonement for their sin when they died.
They may have joined the souls of the righteous dead in Hades …….
…..and another ‘school of thought’ holds that they are 'sleeping' and awaiting resurrection by God to Judgement during the ‘End Times’.


2Scoops
Religion rightfully deserves to be part of an enlightened education, just not in science class.

The Christian Faith certainly brings enlightenment to all aspects of our lives, including education and Science.
It is indeed both incongruous and bizarre to suggest that pupils must ‘leave their faith at the door’ on the way in to any class, including science. :eek:

Of course, the reason that Evolutionists are so ‘twitchy’ about faith and science is because they want THEIR faith in Evolution to be EXCLUSIVELY taught in science class........
...........and in the case of American Public Schools, Evolution is the only FAITH that can be taught in ANY class during school hours!!!:)


Wicknight
The first state of our immune systems (the perfect state as you call it) that existed in Adam and Eve would never be used since no disease existed in Eden pre-Fall. This state would be significantly changed to an imperfect system by God during the Fall, and God would know this at the time he created the first immune system.

The second state (the imperfect state) would be used after the Fall when we actually had disease to fight, but would be imperfect because of the punishment given to Adam by God So God changes his original design into a lesser design as punishment to us.

So you are basically saying that God created an immune system that he knew would never be used

Firstly, God knew that Humans would eventually need an immune system (after the Fall) …………..
……… and that is why He Created the immune system during Creation Week!!!

Secondly, God rested from His direct creation activity on the Seventh Day - and He has never returned to this activity again …………
…………… so Humans were Created perfectly and complete (with a dormant immunity system) on the Sixth Day!!!!:D


Sapien
a tissue of ignorance, deception and delusion

As good a description of Evolution as you are likely to ever get!!!!!:eek:

…….and the Evolutionists on this thread don’t even pretend to provide any evidence for Evolution any more!!!


Scofflaw
An understanding of science is, one would think, rather de rigeur in a discussion about the scientific standing of Creationism, although it's hardly surprising you don't agree.

On this I certainly DO agree!!!:eek:

Could I gently remind you that as a conventionally qualified scientist, I am very much a proponent of the appliance of science to the study of the evidence for Creation.

Science is indeed de rigeur to a full understanding of the ‘origins question’ – and the Evolutionists are the ones that are ‘running scared’ on this thread and refusing to provide any scientifically valid evidence for their faith in Macro-Evolution !!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
…….and still NO evidence proffered for ‘big picture’ Evolution

Scofflaw
You're only hurting yourself here, lad.

……see what I mean about the blank refusal to provide ANY evidence for Evolution!!!!:eek:

…..although I don’t blame the Evolutionists for not doing so …….
………because there is NO scientifically valid evidence for Macro-Evolution!!!!:D


Scofflaw
the entire fossil record is its (Evolution’s) testimony.

How does a fossil record of billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the Earth ‘say’ anything about Evolution when this record clearly indicate a cataclysmic worldwide flood that drowned and buried all of these fossilised creatures.

……and the ultimate ‘clincher’ is that all fossilised creatures show NO intermediate fossils between different species groups and many fossils that are claimed by Evolutionists to be hundreds of millions of years old……..
………are exactly the same as creatures that are alive and well on Earth at PRESENT!!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
And the deeply humorous claim that one string of DNA going AAGGTTTTCC is 'better' than another going AAGGTTTTCC.

In your example, the two strings are IDENTICAL – so your claim to any difference is indeed humorous!!!!!.:)

However, a Human GENOME is OBJECTIVELY ‘better’ than, for example, than the genome of an Amoeba!!!!

……..or are you saying that Evolutionists place the same ‘value’ on the life of an Amoeba as that of a Human????


Scofflaw
You constantly claim to be a scientist simply in order to bolster your very silly 'proofs' for Creationism.

I claim to be a scientist BECAUSE I am a conventionally qualified scientist - and I am both legally and ethically entitled to do so.


Scofflaw
When you are asked to provide the level of your qualification (as provided by other posters), you resort to claiming that we wish to know only for the sinister purposes of tracking you down

You could have a point there!!!!!

……and the following exchange some time back on this thread may help explain my reluctance as a working scientist and a Christian to identify myself:-

Originally Posted by J C
The Materialist (Evolutionists) have also labelled ID as ‘non-science’ and it’s proponents as ‘morons’. They have BANNED all discussion about it within Evolutionist peer review – with the OVERT pronouncement (repeated many times on this thread) of dire consequences for the career prospects of any scientist who shows any sympathetic interest towards Intelligent Design or Creation Science

Wicknight
Yes, you won't get a job.

Originally Posted by J C
CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED Biologists who are Creationists are eminently
qualified to work in the Biotech industry

Robin
Indeed! But thankfully, they are all so inanely incompetent that they're functionally unemployable as real biologists.

Sangre
I call shenanigans on your qualifications JC.

stevejazzx
seconded

The above exchanges provide very good reasons not to identify myself!!!!!

……and as I have said before, the fact that I have roundly defeated the Evolutionists on every substantive scientific point made by them, is even MORE embarrassing for them, if I'm not a qualified scientist!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
What we agreed (with the mod) is that you don't have to provide any information, however basic, about your claimed qualification, as long as you don't make the claim, but that if you again claimed to be 'qualified as a scientist' without even saying what that qualification is, we would again deride you.

I certainly didn’t agree to any such arrangement – and I have never asked you to provide your qualifications – I accept your word that you are a qualified scientist – and I judge your abilities upon the evidence of your contributions to this thread

……and anyway, why would you believe me if I listed the various sciences that I have read at University, when you don’t believe me when I tell you that I am a conventionally qualified scientist??

……so there can only be one reason why you are so fascinated with my scientific credentials – and that is to use them to identify me????

2Scoops

J C wrote:

Firstly, I don’t think that viruses were originally Created by God.

Who did make them? Surely you're not suggesting that they came about by natural processes? Incidentally, was the Fall an act of God or, if not, how did it come about exactly?

How do you come up these ideas? They are not part of the Christian faith and they have no evidence behind them from a scientific point of view. Are you just making it up as you go along?

BTW, if you could explain the bit where the maths paper gave definitive proof of creation, I'd be grateful.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
the entire fossil record is its (Evolution’s) testimony.

How does a fossil record of billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the Earth ‘say’ anything about Evolution when this record clearly indicate a cataclysmic worldwide flood that drowned and buried all of these fossilised creatures.

……and the ultimate ‘clincher’ is that all fossilised creatures show NO intermediate fossils between different species groups and many fossils that are claimed by Evolutionists to be hundreds of millions of years old……..
………are exactly the same as creatures that are alive and well on Earth at PRESENT!!!!!:eek:

Fortunately, there are plenty of transitional fossils, and no problem with groups being both present in the fossil record and today.

The Creationist explanation, alas, has no explanation for the consistent macro-evolutionary development from very simple to very complex shown in the fossil record. I believe you rely on "hydrodynamic sorting" of a sort that has never been demonstrated on any scale whatsoever.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
And the deeply humorous claim that one string of DNA going AAGGTTTTCC is 'better' than another going AAGGTTTTCC.

In your example, the two strings are IDENTICAL – so your claim to any difference is indeed humorous!!!!!.:)

However, a Human GENOME is OBJECTIVELY ‘better’ than, for example, than the genome of an Amoeba!!!!

Er, no. It is subjectively better, because we prefer human beings. Human genomes produce humans, and amoeba genomes produce amoebas - but that is no more objective measure of which one is better. After all, when horses breed, they produce horses , whereas humans produce humans when they breed - are we, then "better at breeding" than horses? Do you think of that as a meaningful thing to say?

J C wrote:

……..or are you saying that Evolutionists place the same ‘value’ on the life of an Amoeba as that of a Human????

Fortunately, that's a totally different question. Personally, I don't value life based on its genetic code, and therefore don't feel any need to pretend that one piece of DNA is 'better' than another.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You constantly claim to be a scientist simply in order to bolster your very silly 'proofs' for Creationism.

I claim to be a scientist BECAUSE I am a conventionally qualified scientist - and I am both legally and ethically entitled to do so.

No, you claim it to bolster your apparent 'authority'. Whether you are entitled to it or not is entirely separate.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
When you are asked to provide the level of your qualification (as provided by other posters), you resort to claiming that we wish to know only for the sinister purposes of tracking you down

You could have a point there!!!!!

……and the following exchange some time back on this thread may help explain my reluctance as a working scientist and a Christian to identify myself:-

Originally Posted by J C
The Materialist (Evolutionists) have also labelled ID as ‘non-science’ and it’s proponents as ‘morons’. They have BANNED all discussion about it within Evolutionist peer review – with the OVERT pronouncement (repeated many times on this thread) of dire consequences for the career prospects of any scientist who shows any sympathetic interest towards Intelligent Design or Creation Science

Wicknight
Yes, you won't get a job.

And do you believe that Wicknight is in charge of giving you a job?

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED Biologists who are Creationists are eminently
qualified to work in the Biotech industry

Robin
Indeed! But thankfully, they are all so inanely incompetent that they're functionally unemployable as real biologists.

And is Robin in charge of giving you a job?

J C wrote:

Sangre
I call shenanigans on your qualifications JC.

stevejazzx
seconded

And those ones are totally irrelevant.

J C wrote:

The above exchanges provide very good reasons not to identify myself!!!!!

No, they are very good evidence that you're either paranoid, or aware that no qualification can possibly support all the fields you claim expertise in.

J C wrote:

……and as I have said before, the fact that I have roundly defeated the Evolutionists on every substantive scientific point made by them, is even MORE embarrassing for them, if I'm not a qualified scientist!!!!!:D

That's right. You'd think it would stop us asking, wouldn't you...

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
What we agreed (with the mod) is that you don't have to provide any information, however basic, about your claimed qualification, as long as you don't make the claim, but that if you again claimed to be 'qualified as a scientist' without even saying what that qualification is, we would again deride you.

I certainly didn’t agree to any such arrangement – and I have never asked you to provide your qualifications – I accept your word that you are a qualified scientist – and I judge your abilities upon the evidence of your contributions to this thread

……and anyway, why would you believe me if I listed the various sciences that I have read at University, when you don’t believe me when I tell you that I am a conventionally qualified scientist??

……so there can only be one reason why you are so fascinated with my scientific credentials – and that is to use them to identify me????

No, it's to inject some realism into your claims. You say you have "read" various sciences at University - and that phrase is traditionally used to mean "qualified in". Is that actually the truth? Do you mean that you obtained BSc level in multiple subjects? Or do you simply mean that like any other NUI science student, you did modules in several different sciences as part of your BSc?

As to identifying you...NUI produces hundreds of science graduates every year - and you could be anywhere from 20 to 80 years old. Armed only with your level of qualification and the subject, I have almost no chance whatsoever of identifying you. At best, I might narrow it down to a few dozen people...

...and still it would be necessary for your paranoid fantasy that I am trying to 'get you fired' to be true.

No, JC - I don't doubt that you studied science at NUI as you say - I just don't think that such a course of study would make anyone as expert in as many fields as you pretend to be. And if you're genuinely convinced that 'we' are trying to identify you, and 'get you fired', then I'm sorry for you, and would quite genuinely suggest you seek help, because you are subject to a paranoid fantasy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Firstly, God knew that Humans would eventually need an immune system (after the Fall) …………..
……… and that is why He Created the immune system during Creation Week!!!

Yes but God in his infinite wisdom also knew that He would significantly alter the immune system into its very imperfect state that we find today during the Falll as punishment for Adam's sin.

So as I asked before explain why God created an immune system only to change it again before it was ever used.

Adam and Eve never used their immune systems until after the Fall, they never used their "perfect" immune systems since there was no disease until after the Fall. Having it was utterly pointless, this perfect defence against a problem that did not exist.

Since God knew that it would never be used why create it? If Adam had never sinned this immune system would never ever have been used, so why create it in Adam until after the Fall.

You are talking utter utter nonsense JC, and simply demonstrating the ridiculousness of Creationism thinking :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

The above exchanges provide very good reasons not to identify myself!!!!!

You have never been asked to identify yourself JC, you have been asked to name your qualification. That cannot identify you unless you went to a college that had one 1 student.

I do chuckle though at the idea that you seem to thing we, the humble readers of Boards.ie, could some how stop you getting a job :rolleyes:

Face it JC, the reason you don't state what qualification you have is because you do not have a scientific qualification. You have been misleading readers.

J C wrote:

……and as I have said before, the fact that I have roundly defeated the Evolutionists on every substantive scientific point made by them, is even MORE embarrassing for them, if I'm not a qualified scientist!!!!!:D

Yes, please JC, make it more embarrassing for us, tell us the truth about your lack of qualifications.

J C wrote:

……and anyway, why would you believe me if I listed the various sciences that I have read at University, when you don’t believe me when I tell you that I am a conventionally qualified scientist??

No one is asking you to list the sciences you have read at university, since no one believes after your vast array of totally inaccurate descriptions of modern scientific theories that you have ever read a book on science, let alone at university.

What people are asking you for is the degree or degrees you possess.

It has already been shown that most of your "scientific" posts are simply copy and pasted from some where else, and any chance you have been given to explain a scientific theory yourself you have got it completely wrong. While mainly providing amusement for the rest of us, it also demonstrates that you know very little about modern science, and certainly rules out that you have ever studied a scientific field at a 3rd level institution (or you were very bad at university)

The reason we are interested in this is that we suspect that you will be more uncomfortable about lying about specific degrees that you are about other things. Therefore the theory is that you won't give us any specific degrees, as such a lie will ultimately prove that you are misleading people in this thread

The fact that you continue to evade the question with ridiculous objects to being "identified" (your Boards nick and IP address could identify you a lot quicker than your university qualifications JC) simply confirms the above

robindch

JC wrote:

I'm not a qualified scientist!!!!!

Creationist debating tactic #3324: Quote out of context.

See, creationists can teach us something after all!

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Creationist debating tactic #3324: Quote out of context.

See, creationists can teach us something after all!

Now you understand what we Biblical studiers have to put up with.

Non-Christian Bilblical study tactic #666.

pH

J C wrote:

……and the ultimate ‘clincher’ is that all fossilised creatures show NO intermediate fossils between different species groups and many fossils that are claimed by Evolutionists to be hundreds of millions of years old……..
………are exactly the same as creatures that are alive and well on Earth at PRESENT!!!!!

I was going to answer this showing you transitional forms, but on re-reading it it seems you are being either deliberately silly or deliberately misleading.

Firstly what exactly do you mean by 'species groups', and secondly you do understand that for any 2 species that exist today, no one is claiming that there are transitional fossils between then - as no one is claiming that either evolved from the other.

I know you are a champion at attacking straw men, and indeed refuting brilliantly claims that no scientist makes, but this level of obfuscation is special even for you.

To be very clear, there are no transitional forms between 2 species (for example Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes) because one didn't evolve from the other.

There are however millions of fossils of creatures than no longer exist that fully illustrate the evolution of many of the species we find on earth today, for example the evolution of cetaceans is now well known, and apart perhaps for Loch Ness, where exactly on earth now days can you find a Basilosaurus?

Memnoch

ph,
I would be grateful if you could link to some examples of evidence regarding transitional species. I'm not very well educated on that subject myself and am running into a brick wall while debating with creationists on the subject.

ie they divide evolution into "micro" and "macro"

"micro evolution is only adaptability"

"macro evolution is what most people describe when they talk about life having evolved and there is no proof of this due to no proof of transitional species"

I know they are wrong but I need some transitional species to prove it to them. Or maybe you can give me examples of other empirical proof I can use?

Scofflaw

Memnoch wrote:

ph,
I would be grateful if you could link to some examples of evidence regarding transitional species. I'm not very well educated on that subject myself and am running into a brick wall while debating with creationists on the subject.

ie they divide evolution into "micro" and "macro"

"micro evolution is only adaptability"

"macro evolution is what most people describe when they talk about life having evolved and there is no proof of this due to no proof of transitional species"

I know they are wrong but I need some transitional species to prove it to them. Or maybe you can give me examples of other empirical proof I can use?

As I think this thread proves, no empirical proof will ever satisfy a Creationist. However, a good list of transitional fossils is here, here, and another one here, insects here, foraminifera here, whales here (pictorial summary here)...

...anyway, try searching at Google for transitional fossil sequences.

Two caveats:

First, it is not possible to prove from the fossil record that species A was directly ancestral to species B.

Second, even if you have an unbroken sequence of transitional forms from A to Z, the Creationist will simply ask you for 'transitional forms' between A and B, and B and C, etc etc.

To convince a Creationist, you would require an unbroken generation-by-generation sequence of fossils or organisms which were observed directly by human observers to have given birth to each other.

Finally, it's worth being aware that there is a certain type of Creationist who will dismiss, say, foraminiferal evolution as 'micro-evolution' on the basis that foraminifera are very small...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Memnoch, the evolution of modern day whales is a pretty clear evolutionary story and a good example to give to Creationists who claim that there are no transitional fossils demonstrating "macro-evolution" Though as Scofflaw points out this will only impress ignorant Creationists, who genuinely don't think that such a chain exists. It will fail to impress "head-in-the-sand" Creationists you find on this thread such as JC, Wolfsbane, and BrainC. But then nothing will impress them because their religious faith requires that they don't accept evolution or science. They will never accept evolution no matter what the evidence supporting it. So a more important question to ask than if there is evidence out there is if the people you are talking to are prepared to consider an alternative view than their religion dictates they must follow. If not it doesn't matter what the evidence is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales

Biblical creationism simply has nothing when it comes to explaining what happened to all these various species, or why they appear to change into each other. Where as evolution explains it perfectly, even to the point where biologists were predicting what they should find in fossils that were discovered at a later date.

In fact it has happened numerous times that evolutionary biologists have predicted the make up of a transitional fossil between two extinct species only to have these predictions confirmed at a later date when a fossil of this transitional species is discovered. Prediction is one of the corner stones of evaluating a scientific theory. The fact that evolutionary theory can be used by biologists to predict what a transitional species should look like before they are discovered clearly demonstrates that evolution is what is going on.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote:

Now you understand what we Biblical studiers have to put up with.

That's rather unfair, Brian. I go to some effort to make sure that I quote accurately and within context, where it's possible to know what it was. The only difference is that my conclusion is different to yours and that's what may be bothering you.

J C

2Scoops
Who did make them (viruses)? Surely you're not suggesting that they came about by natural processes?

Viruses are degenerate life forms in that they are totally dependent on other living hosts for their survival and multiplication. As dependent degenerate life forms that cause disease and death, they were therefore NOT Created by God during Creation Week.

Viruses may have come about by the processes triggered at the time of the Fall and the actions of post Fall Humanity may also have assisted in their emergence and establishment.


2Scoops
Incidentally, was the Fall an act of God or, if not, how did it come about exactly?

God told Adam that "dying he would surely die" if Adam partook of the knowledge of good and evil. The Fall (and with it, disease and death) was therefore automatically triggered by Adam’s defiance of God on this issue.


Scofflaw
Fortunately, there are plenty of transitional fossils, and no problem with groups being both present in the fossil record and today.

Unfortunately there are NO transitional fossils - but plenty of theoretical DRAWINGS in Evolutionist publications......
........and the fact that supposed 300 million year old Crocodile fossils look EXACTLY like the Crocodile down the road in the local Zoo, is most certainly a very BIG problem for the theory of ‘gradual evolution’. :eek:

Evolutionists would have us believe that while ‘miraculous’ Macro-Evolutionary processes were ‘evolving’ Humans and/or Whales from something that looked like a Rat, over the last 100 million years……..
………. these same amazing 'natural' processes left the Crocodile COMPLETELY UNCHANGED for over 300 million years!!!!

What unbelievable CHANGE in the case of the Human and the Whale …….
……and what equally unbelievable LACK OF CHANGE, in the case of the Crocodile!!!!:D

On the other hand, Creation Science postulates no significant change in EITHER the Human, the Whale or the Crocodile, in the approximately 7,000 years since they were ALL Created!!!!:)


Scofflaw
The Creationist explanation, alas, has no explanation for the consistent macro-evolutionary development from very simple to very complex shown in the fossil record. I believe you rely on "hydrodynamic sorting" of a sort that has never been demonstrated on any scale whatsoever.

Experiments have been carried out by Creation Scientists that demonstrate hydrodynamic sorting in action.
Equally, the mechanisms proposed by Creation Science for the order observed in the fossil record are not confined to hydrodynamic sorting.

Palaeontology shows the sequence in which creatures were killed and buried during Noah’s Flood – seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton first – all the way up to large land animals and birds, that obviously would be last to ‘succumb to the waves’. The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely degenerated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.
The list of species in the so-called Geological Column represents the order of their catastrophic burial and it is NOT a record of their supposed evolution.

Equally, using collections of animal and plant fossils to ‘date’ a rock on the basis of Evolutionary assumptions in relation to the assumed position of these creatures in the ‘Evolutionary Tree’ is only valid if Evolution (and its Tree) are scientifically valid. It is actually an example of circular reasoning in action.
Strata, which hold the same collection of fossils, could indicate that these creatures were buried during the same stage of the Flood Event for a number of reasons including their physical location in the Biosphere or the place where they gathered together before being drowned. It could also be related to their size, shape ..........or as has already been pointed out, their hydrodynamic characteristics.


Scofflaw
It is subjectively better, because we prefer human beings. Human genomes produce humans, and amoeba genomes produce amoebas - but that is no more objective measure of which one is better.

Human Beings are OBJECTIVELY intellectually and spiritually superior to all other creatures.

Your belief that we are only SUBJECTIVELY better than other creatures is a logical follow-on from your Materialistic Evolutionary world-view.

However, such Evolution-driven SUBJECTIVITY is quite dangerous in that it could easily lead to a conclusion that some people are SUBJECTIVELY INFERIOR to other creatures.

Ultimately all Human Beings derive their unique and superior position to all other creatures from God – who has made us in His image and likeness and gave us dominion over all other creatures.

Because Materialists don’t believe in God or the veracity of His Word in the Bible, they hold Human Beings to be, at best, subjectively more important than other creatures – and at worst subjectively LESS important than other creatures!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
……and as I have said before, the fact that I have roundly defeated the Evolutionists on every substantive scientific point made by them, is even MORE embarrassing for them, if I'm not a qualified scientist!!!!!

Scofflaw
That's right. You'd think it would stop us asking, wouldn't you...

I would think so……..

….. but I guess you must just like embarrassing yourself………:D

………which seems to be an occupational hazard for Evolutionists, actually!!!!:D


Scofflaw
And do you believe that Wicknight is in charge of giving you a job?

.......And is Robin in charge of giving you a job?

Luckily, neither Wicknight nor Robin are in charge of giving me a job – or else I probably wouldn’t get one, based upon their expressed opinions!!!!!

However, I think that the deep anti-Creationist feelings expressed by Robin and Wicknight are unfortunately, not confined to these two people.

The fact that not a single person on this thread came to my defence or disassociated themselves from these remarks does indicate a significant tolerance across society for these types of comment directed against Creationists. :eek:


Scofflaw
you are subject to a paranoid fantasy

Paranoia is an UNFOUNDED and IRRATIONAL feeling of being threatened.

The remarks vociferously made on this thread (and without anybody else on the thread dissociating themselves from them) indicates that the feelings of Creationists are both WELL FOUNDED and RATIONAL……….

……….. and so, I am not in the least paranoid ………

…….… I am merely behaving prudentially in not identifying either myself or my qualifications!!!!

Natural justice demands that there should be NO job discrimination within Mainstream Science on the basis of a person’s belief in EITHER Creation or Evolution.

There are exceptionally gifted scientists of both persuasions and it would be a terrible loss to both science and to society if either group of scientists were to be subjected to job discrimination based upon their views on the ‘origins question’!!!!


Scofflaw
I don't doubt that you studied science at NUI as you say - I just don't think that such a course of study would make anyone as expert in as many fields as you pretend to be.

Well there you go then!!!!

The NUI is a truly great University Body – and I would highly recommend it’s constituent colleges as exceptional centres of excellence in learning!!!!!!!:D


Wicknight
no one believes after your vast array of totally inaccurate descriptions of modern scientific theories that you have ever read a book on science, let alone at university.

…Er….Scofflaw DOES!!!!:D


Wicknight
Since God knew that it would never be used why create it? If Adam had never sinned this immune system would never ever have been used, so why create it in Adam until after the Fall.

…..but God has NOT directly created anything de Novo since Creation Week – and that includes Immune Systems!!!

……the Fall wasn’t a Creation Event …….it was a Judgement Event!!!!:D

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

....a good list of transitional fossils is here, here, and another one here, insects here, foraminifera here, whales here (pictorial summary here)...

...anyway, try searching at Google for transitional fossil sequences.

Plenty of well written STORIES and plenty of great works of ART and beautifully drawn Evolutionary 'Trees' - but little or NO fossil or taxonomic EVIDENCE!!!!

Scofflaw wrote:

Two caveats:

First, it is not possible to prove from the fossil record that species A was directly ancestral to species B.

Second, even if you have an unbroken sequence of transitional forms from A to Z, the Creationist will simply ask you for 'transitional forms' between A and B, and B and C, etc etc.

Firstly, species A always bears little or NO resemblance to species B - except in the fertile imaginations of Evolutonists!!!:D

Secondly, there is NEVER an unbroken sequence of transitional forms "from A to Z" - except in the fertile imaginations of Evolutonists!!!:D

J C

Memnoch wrote:

ph,
I would be grateful if you could link to some examples of evidence regarding transitional species. I'm not very well educated on that subject myself and am running into a brick wall while debating with creationists on the subject.?

This 'brick wall', as you describe it, IS due to the complete lack of evidence for Macro-Evolution !!!!!:)

Memnoch wrote:

ie they divide evolution into "micro" and "macro"

"micro evolution is only adaptability"

"macro evolution is what most people describe when they talk about life having evolved and there is no proof of this due to no proof of transitional species"

I know they are wrong but I need some transitional species to prove it to them. Or maybe you can give me examples of other empirical proof I can use?

I have been asking the Evolutionists on this thread for such empirical proof as well - but with no success ..........for the past 5,700 plus posts!!!!:eek:

Perhaps you will have more success in 'extracting' this information from the Evolutionists??.........

.......but I doubt it........

....because I don't think it exists!!!!:eek:

Sangre

J C wrote:

I claim to be a scientist BECAUSE I am a conventionally qualified scientist - and I am both legally and ethically entitled to do so.

You are legally entitled to call yourself a scientist? You do realise that this means nothing? I suspect you just added this to add gravitas to your claim of qualification? You do realise there is no legal requirement to have a science qualification before you can call yourself a science? Thus you're legally entitled to nothing.

J C

Wicknight wrote:

Memnoch, the evolution of modern day whales is a pretty clear evolutionary story and a good example to give to Creationists who claim that there are no transitional fossils demonstrating "macro-evolution" Though as Scofflaw points out this will only impress ignorant Creationists, .

.....and it may also impress some ignorant Evolutionists as well....

......but scientifically qualified Creationists don't believe that a Wolf turned into a Whale.

Apparently it all started, or so one (of many) Evolutionary stories goes, with an extinct Wolf (or a Bear) that used to catch flies that hovered over a pond somewhere and the Wolf/Bear developed the habit of swimming through the water with it's mouth wide open to catch the flies!!!!....... (I joke you not!!):eek:

Eventually, its cubs (or the cubs of it's cubs) spent so much time in the water catching flies that they developed enormous wide open mouths and such a liking for the water........that they eventually started eating fish ...... and thus became WHALES!!!!

........and now you know WHY they say that .........

........"a shut mouth catches NO flies"!!!!!:D

Equally, an open mouth doesn't guarantee that you will become a Whale......
......but it can apparently help.......or so an Evolutionist once told me!!!:D

You can read all about the 'evolution of the whale' here:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp

J C

Sangre wrote:

You do realise there is no legal requirement to have a science qualification before you can call yourself a science? .

I would think that it could be fraudulent (and therefore illegal) to claim to have a science qualification if one didn't have one!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

I would think that it could be fraudulent (and therefore illegal) to claim to have a science qualification if one didn't have one!!

No, that would only be the case if scientists were licensed like doctors, which we're not.

Memnoch wrote:

I would be grateful if you could link to some examples of evidence regarding transitional species. I'm not very well educated on that subject myself and am running into a brick wall while debating with creationists on the subject.

ie they divide evolution into "micro" and "macro"

"micro evolution is only adaptability"

"macro evolution is what most people describe when they talk about life having evolved and there is no proof of this due to no proof of transitional species"

I know they are wrong but I need some transitional species to prove it to them. Or maybe you can give me examples of other empirical proof I can use?

Alas, Memnoch, this is why such empirical proof is entirely irrelevant:

JC wrote:

I have been asking the Evolutionists on this thread for such empirical proof - but with no success ..........for the past 5,000 posts!!!!

Perhaps you will have more success in 'extracting' this information from them??.........

.......but I doubt it........

....because I don't think it exists!!!!

And why does JC not think it exists? Because he dismisses the fossil record thus:

JC wrote:

Plenty of well written 'just so' STORIES and plenty of great works of ART - but NO fossil or taxonomic EVIDENCE!!!!

Which is to say that he believes that there is literally no such fossil evidence as we say there is - that it is literally lies and pretence. You can tell Creationists about fossils until you're blue in the face, but they just think you're telling them lies. If you showed them the fossils, you might convince a couple, but the diehards will just say they're fakes (like Piltdown Man, and other 18th century frauds). You cannot convince a 'true believer' - not ever, as I hope you can see from JC's interesting posts.

JC wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

no one believes after your vast array of totally inaccurate descriptions of modern scientific theories that you have ever read a book on science, let alone at university.

…Er….Scofflaw DOES!!!!

Wicknight may never have had the 'benefit' of demonstrating to Ag students. I, on the other hand, did, and am well aware that you can lead the horse to water, but an entirely waterproof horse can still graduate in some disciplines.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

Scofflaw wrote:

No, that would only be the case if scientists were licensed like doctors, which we're not.

you'd think a conventionally qualified scientist would know that.

Scofflaw

Sangre wrote:

you'd think a conventionally qualified scientist would know that.

Hmm. Not necessarily. If they lived in a fantasy universe, for example, what they 'knew' might bear very little relation to reality, despite them managing to get a general degree or an Ag degree.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

that they eventually started eating fish ...... and thus became WHALES!!!!

Really? That is what evolutionary biologists claim happen, is it JC? That a wolf like species started eating fish and one day became whales because of it?

You are an idiot ... you don't even understand what you are claiming doesn't happen :rolleyes:

J C

Wicknight
The fact that evolutionary theory can be used by biologists to predict what a transitional species should look like before they are discovered clearly demonstrates that evolution is what is going on.

Evolution may PREDICT many things – however, FINDING these transitional species is another matter entirely!!!:eek:

Charles Darwin knew that transitional species didn’t exist – but he HOPED that they would be discovered eventually ……..
……however, the former Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago (and an Evolutionist himself) has confirmed that they STILL haven’t been found!!!:D

Charles Darwin, ‘On the imperfection of the geological record’, Chapter x, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, pp 292-293.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

Dr. David M Raup, former Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, ‘Conflicts between Darwin and palaeontology’ Field Musem of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50(1), pp 25.
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition that we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”


Memnoch
I would be grateful if you could link to some examples of evidence regarding transitional species. I'm not very well educated on that subject myself and am running into a brick wall while debating with creationists on the subject.

It is NOT any lack of education on your part, that is the problem...........
Some of the most highly educated Evolutionists in the World have ALSO run up against the same ‘brick wall’ as you have, in relation to intermediate species :-

Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. Quoted in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA pp 89.
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”

Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University, ‘Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology vol 6(1), pp127.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”


Scofflaw
If you showed them (Creationists) the fossils, you might convince a couple, but the diehards will just say they're fakes (like Piltdown Man, and other 18th century frauds).

……but Piltdown Man WAS a 20th Century fake!!!!

……..and leading Evolutionists don’t believe that intermediate fossils exist EITHER – as the following quotes PROVE :-.

Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University. ‘Evolution’s erratic pace’ Natural History, vol LXXXVI (5) pp 14.
“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.”


Prof George Gaylord Simpson Ph D. Late Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. ‘The Major Features of Evolution’ Columbia University Press, New York, pp 360
“It remains true, as every palaeontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families and nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

Truly devastating evidence AGAINST ‘Gradual Evolution’ – and confirmed by some of the top EVOLUTIONISTS that have ever lived!!!!:eek:

........but these observations provide fully consistent evidence for current Creation Science predictions !!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
I would think that it could be fraudulent (and therefore illegal) to claim to have a science qualification if one didn't have one!!

Scofflaw
No, that would only be the case if scientists were licensed like doctors, which we're not.

……or dentists, or vets, or pharmacists………….who are ALL scientists....

…….and BTW it would ALSO be fraudulent for an unqualified person to apply for example, for a science teaching post, whilst declaring themselves to have a science qualification!!!!:D

......and it would equally, be unethical for somebody to claim to be a Creation Scientist if they weren't a conventionally qualified scientist!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
He (J C) believes that there is literally no such fossil evidence as we say there is - that it is literally lies and pretence. You can tell Creationists about fossils until you're blue in the face, but they just think you're telling them lies.

I don’t think that you are lying, you are merely mistaken in your belief that intermediate fossils exist……

…….and if you don’t believe me that these intermediate fossils don't exist - please look at the above quotes from Darwin et al which confirm the ABSENCE of these intermediates!!!!!:D


Wicknight
Really? That is what evolutionary biologists claim happen, is it JC? That a wolf like species started eating fish and one day became whales because of it?

…….it’s a great story alright……..

...... I too am 'gobsmacked' by it!!!:D

........but it is only one of many wonderful stories about how Whale ancestors supposedly first 'took to the water'.....

……. like the rest of Evolution, it comes with NO evidence ………

………and it has a distinctly ‘fishy’ feel to it !!!!:D

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

Do you guys not get the point You are never going to find a definitive argument that will either prove or disprove Creationism.

Outside the arguement that when you date stuff that is found in the ground, it dates to millions of years. Of course that is a factual arguement which seems to be a no-go with creationists.
At the end of the day, the creationist arguement requires dating not to work. However there has never been any statistically significant indication that it doesn't. That would be the end of the story if people were actually scientific about this.

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Outside the arguement that when you date stuff that is found in the ground, it dates to millions of years. Of course that is a factual arguement which seems to be a no-go with creationists.
At the end of the day, the creationist arguement requires dating not to work. However there has never been any statistically significant indication that it doesn't. That would be the end of the story if people were actually scientific about this.

It is Evolutionism that actually requires 'long ages' dating to work!!!

Creationism can 'live with' either 'long ages' or recent Creation......

.........because dating stuff at 'Billions of years' ISN'T a 'no go area' for Old Earth Creationism !!!!:D

However, I am a Young Earth Creationist myself - and I have repeatedly demonstrated the glaring inconsistencies and circular reasoning inherent in current 'long ages' dating methods!!!:eek:

J C

Just a thought………

I have re-read Darwin’s Origin of Species recently, and I am even more impressed with the man, than I was, when I first read the book when I was fourteen!!!.:D

His prose is somewhat long-winded, but most of what Darwin wrote in this book, allowing for the state of scientific knowledge during the mid 19th Century, is consistent with the Natural Selection, Genetic Variation and Speciation of Created Kinds, which Creation Science accepts as scientifically valid.

I think that it would be a fitting gesture to honour Darwin’s contribution to our understanding of the Post-Fall Evolution, Variation and Speciation of Created Kinds, by having a ‘Darwin Medal’ as the prize for ‘Excellence in Baraminology Research’ !!!:eek:

It would also be a nice ‘ecumenical’ gesture to invite a leading Evolutionist Scientist to present the Medal – and it might even aid much-needed mutual respect and scientific co-operation between Evolutionists and Creationists!!!!:D

Son Goku

J C wrote:

It is the Evolutionist argument that actually requires 'long ages' dating to work!!!

Eh,..... duh? Obviously evolution requires long timescales.

J C wrote:

However, I am a Young Earth Creationist myself - and I have repeatedly demonstrated the glaring inconsistencies and circular reasoning inherent in current 'long ages' dating methods!!!:eek:

You haven't. You give case examples (i.e. lack of statistical significance) and use a our lack of knowledge about initial ratios as a criticism, which indicates you don't understand how the function e^x operates. Fundamentally a criticism of dating is a criticism of electroweak theory which you've never given a rebuttal off. So you've done nothing.