The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Excelsior

There is nothing contradictory in holding a firm acceptance of modern evolution theory and having a firm faith in Jesus as Lord. There is no contradiction even, between holding the Bible to be the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct of Christian life and to have been divinely inspired and in some way infallible and simultaneously being an evolutionist.

You can believe that God intentionally and personally created all that is, including the idea of "is" in the first place and believe in the theory of evolution.

They do no contradict unless you reach too far with the science into philosophy and meta-physics or unless you bring philosophical or ideological assumptions with you about what God must be like to the text.

I think Intelligent Design advocates do just that. They feel a need to defend God's Word, but like a hapless school friend who picks fights in the yard at breaktime with anyone who makes fun of you, all in an effort to defend your honour, God's Word can (and has) taken care of itself.

I came in from a long journey this evening and decided to make myself a cup of tea. I filled up the kettle and switched it on. The water boiled. I made tea. There are 2 ways of understanding that event. One is scientific and it describes the heating of the water through the electical processes that drive my kettle and the convection currents that heat the water. The other is a wider, but not at all scientific explanation that talks about my desire for a nice cup of tea at returning home, like any self respecting Irish person would.

Whether you choose to describe it in terms of how (the science of boiling water) or why (the tastes of a young man upon returning home), the fact remains that the tea is made and the drinking of it is where the pleasure is. I would love for this to be the case with the Creation-Evolution debate. I doubt that will happen.

It would be a ludicrous fool, or at least someone you wouldn't want to invite to a party, who would try to warp my desire for a cup of tea into some convoluted explanation of convection currents. This is what the Intelligent Design people are doing. Science asks how. That is too small a question to get at God. It is a terrific, productive and important question to ask of evertyhing, but it isn't the only question available to us. To demand that it is, you run the risk of looking like the Soviets who declared that there was no God since they had travelled to space and hadn't found him there. Intelligent Design is an adventure in missing the point.

It also is a strange attempt at defending God's Word because in its effort to force itself into a Science-shaped hole, it has removed any potential of referencing Scripture. It also aligns Christianity with Islam, some Buddhisms and weirdly enough, the Raelians. These are not belief systems that I would have thought congruent with serious Christianity...

Robin, I think you'll have seen this but it is worth sharing with the others:

(From theOnion.com): Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With "Intelligent Falling" Theory.

Final new point is this: That "Prophecy" has nothing to do with the issue of Creation.

To sum up this post: Christianity and Science only come into conflict when someone or some group manipulates them there for their own benefit. God and Evolution do not clash.

J C

An Evangelical Christian Responds By Excelsior

Could I start by saying that I found about 90% of what you wrote to be perfectly consistent with my own worldview as a Christian.

As you have written a very comprehensive and quite long four-part reply, I therefore will confine my reply to the points that you made with which I take issue.

Quote Excelsior
This will never become a sticky under my watch.

And why not?

There are plenty of other “stickies” on the Boards, debating far less substantive issues than the Origins of Mankind and the proofs for God. In fact these are two of the most important issues for Christians – only exceeded in importance by the need to actually be saved in the first place by believing on Jesus Christ and His Word, The Bible.


Quote Excelsior
the New Testament which describes the birth, life, ministry, and death of a carpenter called Jesus of Nazareth. It is mostly concerned with the very strange events 3 days after his death by crucifixtion that have (for better or worse) changed history.

As a self-proclaimed "Evangelical Christian" why do you leave open the question whether Jesus changed history for the better?

For somebody who accuses me of completely ignoring the ‘core issues’ of the Christian Faith your above description of Jesus Christ and His Earthly Ministry strikes me as being quite 'sketchy' indeed. You do not mention any of the following ‘core issues’ in relation to Jesus Christ which differentiates Him COMPLETELY from all other people since or before:

1. That He was God incarnate, born of a Virgin.
2. That He proved that He was God by various miracles, but in particular by raising a number of people from the dead as well as more than matching the combined wisdom of the Sanhedrin at only 12 years old.
3. That His perfect sacrifice as God AND Man was the ONLY sacrifice acceptable to God for the remission of sins.
4. That He died on a cross so that all who believe on Him might be saved and be able to have life everlasting with Him in Heaven.
5. That He resurrected BODILY on the third day as witnessed by over 500 people and as proof that He had in fact conquered death, as He said He would.
6. That He ascended BODILY into Heaven whilst assuring us that He would send His Holy Spirit to guide all Christians and would return some day in glory for His elect and to judge the rest of non-repentant Humanity and to restrain the demonic host.

Quote Excelsior
Danno and JC are Creation Scientists. The science word could justifiably be put in inverted commas since they can never propose any empirical, testable, falsifiable experiments to back up any of their direct or indirect claims.

I don’t personally know Danno, but my understanding from his previous posts is that he is NOT a Creation Scientist – but I certainly am.

Creation Science is a VERY OLD SCIENCE and numbers among it’s ranks some of the best scientific brains to have ever lived including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal.

Creation Science currently employs the best scientific brains available to carry out experiments at the very ‘cutting edge’ of 21st century science. Hundreds of peer reviewed papers deny your second point in relation to the numerous valid Creation Science experiments conducted and observation made each year.


Quote Excelsior
Creation Scientists are a product of the 1900's and reached their zenith with the Scopes Trial. They find their roots in the controversial sect, The Seventh Day Adventists.

Creation Science is at least several hundred years old as I have already pointed out and contains within it’s ranks people from all Christian denominations, other mono-theists and people with no particular religious conviction.

Could I also gently point out that the Scopes Trial was ‘WON’ by the State of Tennessee on a point of state law that prohibited Science teachers from teaching evolution in state schools. The case DIDN’T rest on the merits or otherwise of EITHER evolution or creation, but was merely a normal prosecution for a breach of State Law.
It was indeed a pyrrhic victory (for the State of Tennessee) as the case highlighted the obvious injustice of REQUIRING science teachers to avoid mention of current science controversies such as evolution in school. This led to the repeal of the law under which Scopes was convicted.

Creation Scientists hold that science progresses on the free criticism and the free development of scientific ideas and so they welcome robust debate of their ideas as long as the opposing ideas (such as evolution, intelligent design, etc) are ALSO accessible to questioning using objective means.

I am NOT a Seventh Day Adventist and I know nothing about Seventh Day Adventists.

I am a Christian who BELIEVES on the Lord Jesus Christ and a Creation Scientist who KNOWS that ‘muck didn’t evolve into MAN’.


Quote Excelsior
My final word on the invalidity of the literalist approach is that Jesus was a Rabbi. Rabbis trained their whole lives to interpret the Scriptures. Jesus interpreted the Scriptures. He astonished his hearers on the words he spoke on his own authority. He often begins sentences with, "You have heard it said, but I tell you this...." He is reinterpreting the Scriptures. Jesus didn't think literalism applied across the board.

The above statements by Jesus Christ were actually an admonishment from Him against the Pharisees for their incorrect interpretations of His clear Word.

Could I also say that I share your belief that every word of Scripture must NOT be taken LITERALLY. Many words are clearly METAPHORICAL, such a Jesus Christ’s parables, and the poetry of the Psalms, for example.
However, it is always clear, at least to Christians indwelt with the Holy Spirit, when God is providing LITERAL information or admonitions and when He is not.
In Genesis He CLEARLY tells us that He Directly Created the Universe and all life therein RAPIDLY AND RECENTLY. He also tells us why we are currently living in a fallen world and what we must do to be saved out of it.
These issues are much too serious (because they directly affect our eternal destinies) for a loving God to confuse us with allegories or other such obfuscations.
However, I will give you two guesses WHO might actually benefit from such confusion!!!


Quote Excelsior
Fundamentally guys, I disagree with your 6-day Creation theory because days didn't actually exist until the 4th day. As you well know, the Hebrew word used can apply just as easily to the term "eon" as it does to "day". For a day to exist, the sun must exist. Therefore, according to you, God made days on the 4th day. Therefore, according to you, God is illogical.

God is certainly NOT illogical - and this is NOT my "6-day Creation theory". God tell us in Ex 20:11 “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (NIV).

The Hebrew word for Day is “Yom” and when it is accompanied by a number (as in first, second, etc.) it is ALWAYS a literal day everywhere else in the Bible.

A DAY is a 24 hour period. Genesis 1 refers to ‘evening and morning’ in relation to ALL SIX DAYS of creation – again indicating that they were real 24 HOUR days.

For a DAY to exist a Sun is NOT required. All that is required is a rotating planet and a source of light (probably God Himself for the first three Days of Creation). The Sun from the Fourth Day of Creation onwards marked times and seasons including days on Earth!!!

God determined that DAYS would be created on the First Day of Creation – AND SO IT WAS, even BEFORE the Sun was created – is that an amazing majestic God or what?.


Quote Excelsior
There is nothing contradictory in holding a firm acceptance of modern evolution theory and having a firm faith in Jesus as Lord.

To that I will merely ask where in The Bible did Jesus Christ say that He created Mankind by a process of evolution.

Secondly could I gently point out that the multiple ‘Theories of Evolution’ have no SCIENTIFIC validity – and the failure of all evolutionists on this thread to provide ANY valid answers to over twenty straightforward questions on evolution also proves this contention.

As I have said before, if you accept the ‘modern evolution theory’ then this acceptance can only be on the basis of FAITH and faith alone, as there is NO SCIENTIFIC i.e. repeatably observable basis for macro evolution and indeed many serious unanswered questions ‘hanging over’ it.

J C

Quote Excelsior
I think Intelligent Design advocates do just that. They feel a need to defend God's Word, but like a hapless school friend who picks fights in the yard at breaktime with anyone who makes fun of you, all in an effort to defend your honour, God's Word can (and has) taken care of itself.

An important task for all Christians is actually the promotion and defence of God’s Word – otherwise they will not be living up to the Great Commission to 'go forth and teach all nations.'

I share your assessment of the hapless predicament that Intelligent Design advocates find themselves in as they try to negotiate a coherent rationale for an intelligent basis for evolution (without defining the source of the intelligence). However, the fact that Intelligent Designers don’t define the source of the intelligence means that they neatly avoid any need to defend God’s Word.

However, could I gently point out that theistic evolutionists (presumably) DO try to defend God’s Word by defining the intelligence supposedly behind evolution as Jesus Christ. If they don’t, I suppose they should be classed as agnostic evolutionists or even Intelligent Designers!!.


Quote Excelsior
(From theOnion.com): EVANGELICAL SCIENTISTS REFUTE GRAVITY WITH "INTELLIGENT FALLING" THEORY.

On a previous thread Robin advocated that I should visit a ‘spoof’ Creation Science site.
Quite frankly, I didn’t expect that you Excelsior, would be promoting a ‘spoof' Evangelical Intelligent Design 'report'.

Could I repeat what I said to Robin in relation to the Laws of Gravity?
Sensible physical LAWS that work together in a purposeful coordinated manner to achieve definite and predictable results (as the Laws of the Universe do) indicates that a sensible ‘intelligence’ devised them – and this ‘intelligence’ as well as His Laws are working on such an astronomical scale that this ‘intelligence’ can only be God.


Quote Excelsior
Christianity and Science only come into conflict when someone or some group manipulates them there for their own benefit. God and Evolution do not clash.

There is NO conflict between Christianity and (real) Science.

God and evolution don’t clash – God EXISTS – and evolution DOESN’T – except in the minds of some wishful thinkers – who have great FAITH indeed!!

Danno

Excellent posts by both of you lads. I think that it is very well summed up indeed.

Now, I would like to hear opinions on prophecy and where we are all going...

Asiaprod

Danno wrote:

Now, I would like to hear opinions on prophecy and where we are all going...

"The belief in oracles [prophets] can be traced to the desire to know the future. There are literally dozens of strange techniques humans have developed in an effort to divine events before they occur. Unfortunately, the only sure guide to the future is the past, and even that isn't always reliable."

That just about encapsulates my personal take on prophecy, the only acception I make is Nostradamus, I can`t help but feel that in his case there is something unusual.

Excelsior

Thanks for responding in such a tone of respect and dealing with the issues at hand. I'm going to follow your lead and just deal with the major points that I feel need to be clarified.

The stickies on this forum are for Christian churches (which you will be glad to see I edit if psuedo-Christian, trinity denying churches are proposed ) and the charter. We are hosted here under the principle that prosyltising won't happen here. There is no need for a sticky on how to get yourself saved*, how creation scientists view the world or how Rapture will happen.

* In the unlikely event that Robin and Croc decide today is the day, just drop me a pm.

JC wrote:

For somebody who accuses me of completely ignoring the ‘core issues’ of the Christian Faith your above description of Jesus Christ and His Earthly Ministry strikes me as being quite 'sketchy' indeed. You do not mention any of the following ‘core issues’ in relation to Jesus Christ which differentiates Him COMPLETELY from all other people since or before:

1. That He was God incarnate, born of a Virgin.
2. That He proved that He was God by various miracles, but in particular by raising a number of people from the dead as well as more than matching the combined wisdom of the Sanhedrin at only 12 years old.
3. That His perfect sacrifice as God AND Man was the ONLY sacrifice acceptable to God for the remission of sins.
4. That He died on a cross so that all who believe on Him might be saved and be able to have life everlasting with Him in Heaven.
5. That He resurrected BODILY on the third day as witnessed by over 500 people and as proof that He had in fact conquered death, as He said He would.
6. That He ascended BODILY into Heaven whilst assuring us that He would send His Holy Spirit to guide all Christians and would return some day in glory for His elect and to judge the rest of non-repentant Humanity and to restrain the demonic host.

I didn't mention any of those things but then again, I felt I alluded to them. Most of the people I am talking with here don't accept Jesus in the way you do. I feel it would be simply rude to continue to talk loudly about what I believe when what I want to do is listen to people, not tell them what to do.

You left out that the whole of the Hebrew Bible, including Genesis 1-3, looks towards his coming. But then again, I don't resent that because JC, if you try to list the work of Jesus you fall into the trap John the Beloved warned us of. He did so much that all the pages of all the books in the world couldn't contain his adventure.

So when I summed things up into one "sketchy" sentence it was out of respect for most people on this board and out of a sense that encapsulating Jesus in a sentence is wiser choice than missing him in a paragraph.

JC wrote:

Creation Science is a VERY OLD SCIENCE and numbers among it’s ranks some of the best scientific brains to have ever lived including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal.

The vast majority of these men existed before Darwin. Claiming Newton as a Creation Scientist is bizarre. Deism is not Creation Science. I don't think listing vaguely Christian scientists from pre-Darwin days and deeming them your supporters is going to win many arguments. Pythagoras and Augustine were Man City supporters.

Creation Science really got going with the work of George McCready Pierce that was re-popularized in the 60s when a subset of evangelical Christianity in the USA found the cultural shifts far too distressing to stay involved. If anyone wants a brilliant theology PhD topic, study the relationship between the southern USA churches who were caught up by Creation Science and their relationship to the overall revolution being led by the wider Christian church in their states, figure-headed by Martin Luther King.

JC wrote:

However, it is always clear, at least to Christians indwelt with the Holy Spirit, when God is providing LITERAL information or admonitions and when He is not.

That is a deeply offensive dig. I just don't want to take up such low tactics.

JC wrote:

In Genesis He CLEARLY tells us that He Directly Created the Universe and all life therein...

I agree with you entirely here.

JC wrote:

...RAPIDLY AND RECENTLY.

I think this is a modern fantasy.

JC wrote:

He also tells us why we are currently living in a fallen world and what we must do to be saved out of it.

And I diagnose the root of the fantasy here. He doesn't just ALSO tell us why the world is the way it is. That is the main point of the story. He doesn't say anything at all about the nature and mechanics of salvation in Genesis 1-3 but instead alludes prophetically to a coming solution. The Bible matters and if you mangle it to win an argument that seems relevant in 1926, you find yourself on the eve of 2006 trying to support a fantasy that drives people away from discovering more about God.

JC wrote:

These issues are much too serious (because they directly affect our eternal destinies) for a loving God to confuse us with allegories or other such obfuscations.

How strange a disrespect you have for poetry when you are a son of Yahweh. No one ever mis-interprets the poems, allegories and metaphors of the Psalms. They do however get confused by the legal arguments of Paul. On what basis do you deem allegory confusing. I propose again, you have swallowed the myth of modernity.

JC wrote:

However, I will give you two guesses WHO might actually benefit from such confusion!!!

I have no doubt that Satan benefits from pointless discussions of the kind I am foolishly engaging with here.

Excelsior wrote:

There is nothing contradictory in holding a firm acceptance of modern evolution theory and having a firm faith in Jesus as Lord.

JC wrote:

To that I will merely ask where in The Bible did Jesus Christ say that He created Mankind by a process of evolution.

The Bible is not a legal document or a manual for life. The Bible says that all that was created was created by God and it was initially good. The Bible says that the natural world is God's 2nd revelation. The Bible says that we should love God with all our mind. The list of magically Creation Scientist Christians above all did this in their studies. Honestly investigating the universe shows us that species evolve. The Bible does not say they don't.

Equally, honestly investigating the universe shows that at a subatomic level, things get a little bit cheeky. The Bible describes a world of order. Fundamentalist Christians don't deny the last 100 years of physics? Why not? Who knows. But they are happy to say that order exists out of chaos and God's Son is sustaining it all. Why can't they make the same honest assessment with modern evolution theory as they do with modern subatomic physics?

JC wrote:

and the failure of all evolutionists on this thread to provide ANY valid answers to over twenty straightforward questions on evolution also proves this contention.

I do hope that the folk I discuss with don't discard my testimony of Jesus on the basis of a lack of straightforward answers.

JC, I feel you have skipped over a lot of what I have said about the Bible, namely Genesis 1-3. But that is ok. I do have one question for you though:

Do you think that theistic evolutionists can be CHRISTIANS!?

Danno- prophecy has no relation to origins. Start a new thread.

robindch

> Fundamentalist Christians don't deny the last 100
> years of physics? Why not? Who knows.

That's an interesting, and interestingly unanswered, question that I posed some while back, afair, on this forum.

My own suspicion is that modern physics is something which:

1. nobody cares about because what it describes is sufficiently remote that it can be ignored (who wants to think of themselves as a bunch of quarks? much easier and nicer to think of oneself as "specially created", imbued with undefinable attributes absent from the rest of the physical world, and which set one apart from it -- very platonic )
2. is sufficiently abstruse that nobody who's not already interested in physics is going to go to the effort of understanding any of it
3. is completely ignored by the bible, for the obvious reason that its authors knew as much about it, as they did about modern evolutionary theory.
4. can be completely ignored by fundamentalists, because it makes no claims which contradict the bits of the bible which the fundamentalists are most familiar with (ie, the first half-page or so).

...or, in short, they don't deny it because they don't know about it and don't care about it. Is this a reasonable explanation?

robindch

> Creation Science currently employs the best scientific brains

False.

Creationists employ almost nobody qualified in biology, and those that they do, are emphatically clueless. See again the link which I included above:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

where the world's most prominent biologically-qualified creationist was forced to admit in court that creationism is logically equivalent to astrology.

> Hundreds of peer reviewed papers deny your second point in
> relation to the numerous valid Creation [...] experiments
> conducted and observation made each year.

Creationists regularly report successes in their own fundamentalist literature. However, they do not contribute to peer-reviewed mainstream biology, so, JC, please don't imply that they do -- it's dishonest.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

btw, this article's quite appropriate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/

Enjoy!

Excelsior

How can one claim that the world's finest minds are set to the task of Creation Science when:

a) You must be a Christian or a Jew to be a Creation Scientist, therefore excluding 80% of the population of Earth

b) Boards.ie user JustHalf is not a Creation Scientist.

robindch

> You must be a Christian or a Jew to be a Creation Scientist

FYI - sorry to have to reiterate a comment from some months back, but in its continuous desire to insult and demean the work of real scientists who make real contributions to humanity, the conceited sterility of creationism is diametrically opposed to the aims of science and so the phrase "creation scientist" is a contradiction in terms.

"Creationist" on its own is ok, and "evolutionary scientist" is fine too, but do be careful about mixing them up

Son Goku

J C wrote:

2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?

Explain this one to me.
And I mean, actually explain how it is a mathematical impossibility that is not covered by statistical mechanics.

J C wrote:

Evolutionists have faith in the unfounded belief that NOTHING blew up in the Big Bang.

Nothing didn't "blow up".
The phrase "blow up" isn't even applicable.
The Big Bang is a point on the 4-D surface that is the universe.
What makes it special is the fact that it is the only high-energy limit environment to be found on the 4-D surface.
To humans, who percieve a dynamic 3-D environment, it looks like an origin event, but it isn't.

If you want to see what I mean, I made an attempt to explain it here.

The Recliner

J C wrote:

An Evangelical Christian Responds By Excelsior

To that I will merely ask where in The Bible did Jesus Christ say that He created Mankind by a process of evolution.

Where in The Bible did he say he didn't create Mankind by a process of evolution

No offence as I am neither a scientist or theologion and know far less about this topic than all of the posters here but that really is the worst arguement against the theory of evolution I have ever seen

Because he didn't specifically say it means it didn't happen

I am fairly apathetic about Evolution and Creationism but have a passing interest in both arguements just like I have an interest in Physics and science in general

Personally I don't see why people get so worked up about different theories be they Evolution or Intelligent Design.

I don't think Evolution or any theory is an attempt to destroy God, more like an attempt to understand what we see around ourselves

In my mind believing in God comes down to faith, if you have faith then I don't see how any of these theories are a threat to that.

Also I believe that people take the bible too literally and this is what makes them get so upset when they see something that challanges something that they hold dear

By all means believe in God and believe in his words in the Bible but I don't think that the exist in a world seperate to science, I believe that the two can co-exist and that efforts to explain what we do not understand are not efforts at undermiining God but efforts at understanding the universe that was (delete as required) created/spontaniously came into existance

robindch

> Explain this one to me.

You can find several versions of JC's creationist explanation for this on the thread links which I posted at the top of this thread.

In short, it amounts to JC multiplying some very big numbers together, producing an absolutely enormous one (actually several different ginormous ones, as a quick scope through the previous threads will indicate), and then concluding from this, with his virtual finger raised and wagging, that life shouldn't exist. That's about the height of it really (this silly argument is satirized here).

J C

Quote Excelsior
The stickies on this forum are for Christian churches………………There is no need for a sticky on how to get yourself saved*.

Given the fact that being saved determines our eternal destiny – it is ultimately the most important issue for every person on Earth.
I cannot think of ANY more important reason for a sticky on a Christian Site.

The publication of 'housekeeping' details of individual churches certainly "doesn't rank" in comparative importance.


Quote Excelsior
The vast majority of these men existed before Darwin. Claiming Newton as a Creation Scientist is bizarre. Deism is not Creation Science. I don't think listing vaguely Christian scientists from pre-Darwin days and deeming them your supporters is going to win many arguments.

Evolutionary ideas obviously didn’t start with Darwin (either Erasmus or Charles). Evolution is as old as the Ancient Greeks – and the Creation versus Evolution debate has been ongoing ever since.

As the leading scientists of their time, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal were all fully aware of this debate and chose the rational, evidentially-supported concept of Divine Special Creation.

Their writings clearly show that they were godly men who devoted their lives to trying to describe and scientifically understand different aspects of God’s Creation and so they are ‘fully paid up members’ of the Creation Science community.



Quote Excelsior
Honestly investigating the universe shows us that species evolve. The Bible does not say they don't.

As a Creation Scientist I fully AGREE.

Species DO ‘evolve’ and indeed new sub-species and species do arise very rapidly from time to time.
However, all of this ‘evolution’ and speciation is OBSERVED to utilise EXISTING genetic diversity and to be confined within Created Kinds (which approximates to the Genus level of taxonomic nomenclature).

The critical scientific problem ISN’T explaining the shuffling of existing genes through sexual reproduction or their isolation through natural selection and speciation. The real issue is answering the question of HOW and WHEN all of this genetic information arose in the first place.


Quote Excelsior
Fundamentalist Christians don't deny the last 100 years of physics? Why not? Who knows. But they are happy to say that order exists out of chaos and God's Son is sustaining it all. Why can't they make the same honest assessment with modern evolution theory as they do with modern subatomic physics?

Quantum mechanics is highly speculative and Creation Scientists accept it for the SPECULATIVE scientific endeavour that it is.
The Bible is silent on sub-atomic particles – but it is certainly NOT silent about HOW and WHY Man was made.
The so-called ‘modern evolution theory’ is neither modern NOR scientific – and it is now so completely untenable that even the atheists and agnostics are abandoning it!!


Quote Excelsior
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC
and the failure of all evolutionists on this thread to provide valid answers to over twenty straightforward questions on evolution also proves this contention.
I do hope that the folk I discuss with don't discard my testimony of Jesus on the basis of a lack of straightforward answers.

I think that they just might discard your testimony, if you cannot give straightforward answers to their questions about Jesus.

The Christian Faith is FOUNDED on the Great Commission and the words of Jesus Christ Himself to “go forth and teach all nations”. This implies that Christians must ALWAYS be ready, willing and able to teach others about all aspects of the Christian Faith. This is also confirmed in 1Pet 3:15 where Christians are told to “always be prepared to give an ANSWER to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”.(NIV)

Science is ALL ABOUT providing answers to our questions about how the WORLD works.
The fact that over 20 questions, which completely demolish the SCIENTIFIC basis of evolution, remain unanswered on this thread is a (SILENT) testimony to the invalidity of evolution.

Quote Excelsior
How can one claim that the world's finest minds are set to the task of Creation Science when:

a) You must be a Christian or a Jew to be a Creation Scientist, therefore excluding 80% of the population of Earth

You don’t HAVE to be a monotheist to become a Creation Scientist – ALL that you need to be is a qualified scientist that wishes to study Creation.

I can confirm that being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) does significantly improve your reasoning abilities.
Therefore with the FINEST MIND in the UNIVERSE collaborating on many Creation Science projects – it is no surprise that so many breakthroughs are being achieved.


Quote Robin.
Creationists regularly report successes in their own fundamentalist literature. However, they do not contribute to peer-reviewed mainstream biology, so, JC, please don't imply that they do -- it's dishonest.

Robin please don’t imply that Creation Scientists are ALLOWED to contribute to evolutionary biology journals – they are not.
It is a Catch 22 to prevent somebody from doing something and then to criticise them for not doing it.

In any event, Creation Scientists are far too busy pursuing REAL science to waste their time consulting evolutionists who are ‘yesterdays men’ when it comes to the ‘origins issue’.

Creation Scientists are amongst the best-qualified scientists in the World.
Nearly ALL of them are former evolutionists who continue working at the top of their professions in conventional science as well as devoting some of their spare time to Creation Science projects.

Full-time Creation Scientists carry out most of the ongoing research and they have their own VALID peer-review processes.

J C

Quote Son Goku
Originally Posted by J C
2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
Explain this one to me.
And I mean, actually explain how it is a mathematical impossibility that is not covered by statistical mechanics.

The areas of mathematics involved are Probability Theory and the Law of Big Numbers.

Sir Fred Hoyle, former Astronomer Royal, calculated the probability of the amino acid sequences of the bio-molecules in an Amoeba being produced by undirected chemical processes to be 10^-40,000.

Equally, it is observed that there are 20 common amino acids used in protein synthesis. If such synthesis was achieved using undirected processes then such a ‘blind’ system would have to ‘try’ every possible combination of amino acid to produce a useful protein eventually. It is also observed that you cannot ‘work up’ to a critical amino acid sequence – the exact sequence works, and any other sequence doesn’t work. In addition, there are very limited numbers of useful proteins observed in nature (of the order of thousands).

The chance of producing a specific useful protein containing a 100 chain critical amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ………100 times. This number turns out to be 10^ 130.
This is a number significantly greater than the number of seconds required for a snail to transport all of the matter in the known Universe bringing ONE ELECTRON at a time from one side of the universe to the other side (as measured by the Cosmic Event Horizon) and back again. If, a putative snail made a 40,000,000,000 light year ‘round trip with EACH of the 10^82 electrons in the known Universe, going at a very slow ‘snails pace' of 1 centimetre per hour it would only take 10^114 SECONDS to perform such a feat!!!!

I am therefore at a complete loss to describe what size of number 10^130 is. All that I can say is that it is so large as to be a mathematical impossibility even if all of the matter and time in the Universe were to be utilised in the process.

As for Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculation for the undirected production of the bio-molecular sequences found in an Amoeba of 10^40,000 – there is absolutely nothing that I can even begin to imagine that would remotely describe this massive number!!!!

Chemistry Laws cannot assist in the process either, because it is observed that many of the bonds in protein chains can only be achieved by the use of amazingly specialised enzymes whose use is synchronised in nano-seconds with exact sequential cascades of reactions by other equally complex and specific enzymes. That is why protein molecules that are split into short chains of amino acids are NEVER observed to spontaneously re-form into useful proteins using the (supposedly) "well known attraction of Carbon” as a previous participant on another thread has characterised it. It is also one of the reasons why death is an irreversible physical process and why the spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

The really devastating thing about the above ‘Universe Defeating’ problem is that a 10 year old child of normal intelligence would take less than 20 minutes to arrange ANY specified sequence of 100 bricks representing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from a box of mixed bricks representing all 20 amino acids. What would clearly defeat every electron in the known universe randomly producing 100 amino acid sequences for an effective eternity of time could be accomplished by a 10 year old in 20 minutes – such is the importance of APPLIED INTELLIGENCE to the creation of a simple protein sequence.

Quote Son Goku
Nothing didn't "blow up".
The phrase "blow up" isn't even applicable.
The Big Bang is a point on the 4-D surface that is the universe.
What makes it special is the fact that it is the only high-energy limit environment to be found on the 4-D surface.
To humans, who perceive a dynamic 3-D environment, it looks like an origin event, but it isn't.

Apologies, I should have said that first there was a “SINGULARITY” and then IT blew up.

A Nobel Prize awaits those among you who can explain any substantive difference between “NOTHING” and a “SINGULARITY” or indeed “a POINT on the 4-D surface that is the universe.”

The so called 4-D Universe is still all around us but I don’t see it “Big Banging” anywhere at present – so the “Big Bang” remains in the realm of conjecture and not science.

While matter and energy are interchangeable I am unaware of any postulated transmutation of time with either matter or energy and therefore the origins of EVERYTHING in the Universe is still a scientific mystery.

The Universe could NOT create itself – nothing is capable of self actualisation without the use of pre-existing time, matter, energy and information – which by definition DIDN’T exist before the Universe was created.

The 'Big Bang' attempts to explain this conundrum but fails to explain anything in a logical coherent manner.

The Genesis account of Creation does so in a comprehensive and coherent manner that continues to remain scientifically (i.e. observationally) valid.

Son Goku

Quantum mechanics is highly speculative and Creation Scientists accept it for the SPECULATIVE scientific endeavour that it is.

Speculative?
I think it stopped been speculative when it gave us modern computers, electronics, semi-conductors........

However ignoring that, it has the greatest amount of evidence of any physical theory.
(Yes, even more than Newtonian Gravity)

It is the least speculative area of physics. The machine you used to make that statement is built using quantum mechanical princibles.

In short, it is patently not speculative.

The part about the chances of amino acids forming

Sub-atomic particles obey either the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution or the Fermi-Dirac distribution, not standard "discrete event" probability, you have to use a distribution.

Apologies, I should have said that first there was a “SINGULARITY” and then IT blew up.

The terms you use are dynamical 3-D terms, not static 4-D, which is needed when discussing the Big Bang.
A singularity did not "blow up", merely the neighbourhood of the highest energy point on the spacetime manifold contains progressively lower energy environs and decreasing Riemannian Tensor values if one follows the spatial metric (on its own) along increasing values of τ.

The so called 4-D Universe is still all around us but I don’t see it “Big Banging” anywhere at present – so the “Big Bang” remains in the realm of conjecture and not science.

Again, dynamic 3-D terms.
The Universe didn't "Big Bang" into existence, the Big Bang is just an area of extreme Weyl curvature.
Weyl curvature is attached to measurements of local proper time, meaning a lot of timelines will place their τ = 0 point here, but not all.
Where your τ = 0 point is, is what you call the beggining of the universe if you are a dynamic 3-D observer, where τ = end value is what you'd call the end of the universe.
It's a purely relative term.

A Nobel Prize awaits those among you who can explain any substantive difference between “NOTHING” and a “SINGULARITY” or indeed “a POINT on the 4-D surface that is the universe.”

Nothing = no things.(loose, but anyway)
Singularity = an area of extreme Ricci curvature
A point on the 4-D surface that is the universe. = a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime.

While matter and energy are interchangeable I am unaware of any postulated transmutation of time with either matter or energy and therefore the origins of EVERYTHING in the Universe is still a scientific mystery.

The Universe could NOT create itself – nothing is capable of self actualisation without the use of pre-existing time, matter, energy and information – which by definition DIDN’T exist before the Universe was created.

The 'Big Bang' attempts to explain this conundrum but fails to explain anything in a logical coherent manner.

Eh, no.
The Big Bang is a statement about global spatio-temporal topology, supported by a lot of evidence.

I've put that sentence in bold for a reason.
Your sentence is equivalent to:
"The point south of the surface of the earth".

South only applies when comparing two points on Earth and is not a statement about Earth.
Similarly "before" only applies when comparing two points on the Universe and cannot be used to make a statement about the universe itself.

robindch

> Robin please don’t imply that Creation Scientists are ALLOWED
> to contribute to evolutionary biology journals – they are not.

If creationists were able to contribute anything to the net worth of human knowledge or experience - or indeed contribute anything at all *to* anything at all -- then the praises of creationists would quite rightly be sung from the highest vaults of science.

However, their inept witterings contribute nothing, and consequently their tomfoolery is not permitted to dirty the halls of honest science. Though I should point out that the fact that they actually *submit* nothing may have something to do with the lack of any appearances in the literature.

> It is a Catch 22 to prevent somebody from doing something
> and then to criticise them for not doing it.

Creationists are prevented, by the scientific method, from lying about evidence and lying about conclusions. I don't see anything catch-22 about this.

> Creation Scientists are amongst the best-qualified scientists
> in the World. Nearly ALL of them are former evolutionists [...]

In this, as well as a previous threads quoted above, I have adequately shown this to be complete tosh -- almost none of them are scientists, the vast majority of them holding fake qualifications in religious fundamentalism from intricately inter-related diploma mills.

Creationists, as both I and you (JC, though inadvertently) have shown, are monumentally ignorant about science, about the observable world and about reason itself. You yourself have stuck your foot in it and jiggled it about good-o more times that I could be bothered to mention. If anybody's left alive at this stage in the thread, please feel free to take a look at the previous threads where I deconstruct the junk science and third-rate thought behind Ken Ham's bunch of hooray-gurus (the wonderfully-named Ham is the intellectual bicycle-lamp behind http://www.answersingenesis.org).

> Full-time Creation Scientists carry out most of the
> ongoing research and they have their own VALID
> peer-review processes.

The "valid peer-review process" behind creationism is as comical as the rest of the whole sorry edifice, as Michael Behe's <cough> "peer-review" <cough> of his own book Darwin's Black Box rather pointedly indicated, though not that you would have guessed so from his aerobic exposition of his own excellence and honesty. The good and decent folks over at Panda's Thumb did a bit of research on what constitutes "peer-review" for creationists and produced the following:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/behe_blasted_on.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/two_more_of_beh.html

In case anybody's too bored to follow the (amusing) links, let me tell you that creationist "peer-review" involves discussing the book over the phone for less than ten minutes with a "reviewer" interested in whether or not "the book would sell". Meanwhile, another reviewer was selected "because he was the instructor of the editor's wife."

Did anybody, except JC, expect any different?

juddd

Phew!! You folks are blowing my mind with this thread, I have read some of the long posts and I really enjoyed Excelsior's explanation of Genisis as I have recently read it and I just cannot take everything said in it literally and I guess that is the way I mostly take the parts of the bible that I have read, I dwell on the words spoken and and try to find the meaning behind them.

I also think that when genisis was being written, it was being written by a man to the best of his understanding, as a day in genisis could well be 1,000 or 1,000,000 years, but that detail is insignificant in the story of the creation of all we know, because if we were to know every little detail of how everything was created then the bible would be 1,000 times the size it is and the poor man writing it down would most likely suffer a mental breakdown or brain hemorage due to his incapacity to understand what he is being told, therefore the tale has been simplified and condensed into a few pages to give an overview of how we came to be.
I see intelligent design in everything I lay my eyes upon, by that I mean I can see the design in a blade of grass or a leaf or the sun moon and stars etc and how it all works in harmony as if keeping a delicate balance on everything, surely someone is behind all this...is it God....I am leaning towards yes the more I look.
As for prophecy and revelations, tribulations and rapture well... we will just have to see...I can see how people would think the world at the moment is falling apart with it's wars, hurricanes, eartquakes etc. and how the jewish people are returning back to isreal to prepare for the second coming as we speak.....this all can be seen as the end of days....but the problem I have with prophecy is that if it is not true and will never happen and people read and beleive in it then the fear is that they will self fullfill that prophecy themselves.
I also see the book of revelations as a good thing, I do not see it as an end to all we know but as a new begining, a re-birth or a cleansing if you will.

I hope you don't mind me chiming in as I am not as dedicated and as well educated in religion etc as most of you folks here, but I really enjoy these disscussions and just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject(s).

J C

Quote Son Goku
Speculative?
I think it (quantum mechanics) stopped been speculative when it gave us modern computers, electronics, semi-conductors........

The primary breakthrough that gave us modern computers, electronics, semiconductors, etc was the invention of silicon micro-chips !!!

Could I gently point out that CPU’s and micro-chips are distinctly MACRO-ATOMIC entities that certainly don’t rely on quarks for their operation.


Quote Son Goku
The part about the chances of amino acids forming
Sub-atomic particles obey either the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution or the Fermi-Dirac distribution, not standard "discrete event" probability, you have to use a distribution.

Could I again gently point out that amino acids are distinctly MACRO-ATOMIC entities made up of highly specified atomic structures that are statistically impossible to construct using undirected processes.


Quote Son Goku
A singularity did not "blow up", merely the neighbourhood of the highest energy point on the spacetime manifold contains progressively lower energy environs and decreasing Riemannian Tensor values if one follows the spatial metric (on its own) along increasing values of τ.

Could you please explain the above in Plain English and confirm that it is repeatably observable.

I understand that neither is possible, and therefore it remains firmly in the realm of SPECULATION.

I prefer to speculate that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” – because it is altogether more logical and many repeatably observable phenomena attest to it’s credibility.


Quote Son Goku
The Universe didn't "Big Bang" into existence, the Big Bang is just an area of extreme Weyl curvature.
Weyl curvature is attached to measurements of local proper time, meaning a lot of timelines will place their τ = 0 point here, but not all.
Where your τ = 0 point is, is what you call the beginning of the universe if you are a dynamic 3-D observer, where τ = end value is what you'd call the end of the universe.

Sounds great!!
However, as it is not observable it is unfortunately also in the realm of scientific speculation.

The Big Bang therefore has no more scientific status than “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” because neither are repeatably observable.

As “a dynamic 3-D observer” my own speculative timeline places it’s τ = 0 point at approximately 7,000 years ago and it’s τ = end value within the next 80 years for practically everybody on this thread!!


Quote Son Goku
Quote J C
A Nobel Prize awaits those among you who can explain any substantive difference between “NOTHING” and a “SINGULARITY” or indeed “a POINT on the 4-D surface that is the universe.”

Nothing = no things.(loose, but anyway)
Singularity = an area of extreme Ricci curvature
A point on the 4-D surface that is the universe. = a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime.

I’m sorry, but I still don't see any practical difference between “Nothing”, “An Area Of Extreme Ricci Curvature” or indeed “A Unique Coordinate Set Defined On Spacetime”.

The Nobel Prize is still unclaimed!!!

Quote Son Goku

"before" only applies when comparing two points on the Universe and cannot be used to make a statement about the universe itself

It IS correct to use the phrase “before the Universe was created” – because the Universe had a beginning i.e. the creation of the temporal time/space continuum by God – and God as a transcendant entity therefore existed “before the Universe was created”.


Quote Robin
In this, as well as a previous threads quoted above, I have adequately shown this to be complete tosh -- almost none of them (Creation Scientists) are scientists, the vast majority of them holding fake qualifications in religious fundamentalism from intricately inter-related diploma mills.

Robin, such unfounded Ad Hominem stereotyping, of Creation Scientists who are of the HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC CALIBRE, seriously hurts your credibility in relation to any other claims that you may wish to make in favour of Evolution.

Robin, I must ask you which of these Creation Scientists ‘fits’ your sweeping statement above?

For obvious career security reasons I have only included retired or otherwise tenure-secure individuals in the list – but I can assure you that there are many other active Creation Scientists who are equally well qualified.

Professor Thomas G Barnes, D.Sc., Professor of Physics, University of Texas, El Paso, Texas.

Professor Edward Blick, Ph.D., Professor of Aerospace, Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Professor David R Boylan, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Professor Larry Butler, Ph.D, Professor of Biochemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Dr. Kenneth B Cummings, Ph.D., Research Biologist, US Fisheries Service, LaCrosse, Wisconsin.

Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.

Professor Donald Hamann, Ph.D., Professor of Food Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Dr. Harold R Henry, Ph.D., Chairman, Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Dr. John R Meyer, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Louisville, Kentucky.

Professor John N Moore, Ed.D, Professor of Natural Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Professor Dean H Kenyon, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California.

Quote Robin
Creationists, as both I and you (JC, though inadvertently) have shown, are monumentally ignorant about science, about the observable world and about reason itself.

Robin, you are obviously an intelligent man - but you are needlessly destroying your credibility in the eyes of objective observers on this thread by making such statements about eminently qualified Creation Scientists such as the people on my list above.

Please answer my 21 questions on the scientific invalidity of evolution and stop procrastinating!!!!.

Your refusal to answer ANY of these questions is an eloquent testimony to the intellectual bankruptcy of evolution.


Quote Robin
The "valid peer-review process" behind creationism is as comical as the rest of the whole sorry edifice, as Michael Behe's <cough> "peer-review" <cough> of his own book Darwin's Black Box rather pointedly indicated, though not that you would have guessed so from his aerobic exposition of his own excellence and honesty.

Robin, I have pointed this out to you before - Dr Michael Behe is an Intelligent Design proponent - and he is therefore NOT a Creation Scientist.

I have read his book entitled "Darwin's Black Box" and I found it to be a devestating critique of the current 'sorry state' of evolution.

Neither Dr Behe himself nor Creation Scientists claim that he is a Creation Scientist - so please accept the FACT that he isn't.

I can assure you that the peer-review processes that are used by Creation Scientists are both rigorous and valid.


Quote Robin
However, their inept witterings contribute nothing, and consequently their tomfoolery is not permitted to dirty the halls of honest science.

As I have said on a previous post, Creation Scientists are amongst the best-qualified scientists in the World.

Nearly ALL of them are former evolutionists who CONTINUE working at the top of their professions in conventional science and they regularly publish conventional science papers that ARE peer-reviewed by themselves and their evolutionist colleagues.
This also means that Creation Scientists working within the biological sciences actually peer-review evolutionists and their work – while evolutionists DON’T obviously peer-review the work of Creation Science.

This is a very satisfactory situation as far as Creation Scientists are concerned – they are in a position to question some of the more outrageous ‘flights of fancy’ of evolutionists – and when it comes to ‘the love that dare not speak its name’ AKA Creation Science, they can continue to make rapid progress without undue hindrance from evolutionists.

robindch

> > (quantum mechanics) stopped been speculative when it
> > gave us modern computers
>
> Could I gently point out that CPU’s and micro-chips are distinctly MACRO
> ATOMIC entities that certainly don’t rely on quarks for their operation.

While nothing currently uses quarks, semiconductors *do* rely on quantum-mechanical effects to work. The following excellent course explains this in some detail:

http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~schubert/Course-ECSE-6968%20Quantum%20mechanics/

With respect to almost all of the rest of your text, comprehensive answers and references have been provided in the past, all of which you've ignored, so there's not really much point in repeating them

> unfounded Ad Hominem stereotyping, of Creation

This is not ad hominem unpleasantness, but a simple statement of fact backed up by research which you are welcome to verify by checking my previous postings.

Finally, in the paragraph beginning with "In this" in your immediately preceding posting, you have dishonestly inserted the two words "scientists" and "creation" and into some text of mine, making it appear that this is what I have written. They are not my words and I'd like you to remove them.

Son Goku

JC wrote:

Could I again gently point out that amino acids are distinctly MACRO-ATOMIC entities made up of highly specified atomic structures that are statistically impossible to construct using undirected processes.

Eh,.....you have to use the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution if they are Macro-atomic.
Standard discrete probability doesn't apply, because:
You are not taking about a discrete Bernoulli trail, you're talking about a statistical mechanical system.

JC wrote:

Could I gently point out that CPU’s and micro-chips are distinctly MACRO-ATOMIC entities that certainly don’t rely on quarks for their operation.

Eh,.....microchips in modern computers do require quantum mechanics.
Quantum Mechanics doesn't begin with the quark or discuss the quark, it ends with the quark.
The quark marks the point where you have to switch over to Quantum Field Theory.
The nVidia corporation have coolents in their newest graphics cards to prevent heating from quantum tunneling.
Also when I say modern computers and electronics, I mean post 1995.
Even broadband cables operate through quantum mechanics.
So do Liquid crystal display screens.
Quantum Mechanics deals with anything smaller than a buckminsterfullerene directly and indirectly with anything up to very long protein chains.
And thats just for kinematics, for bonding it almost always applies.

JC wrote:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” – because it is altogether more logical and many repeatably observable phenomena attest to it’s credibility.

JC wrote:

The Big Bang therefore has no more scientific status than “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” because neither are repeatably observable.

Need I say anything?

I’m sorry, but I still don't see any practical difference between “Nothing”, “An Area Of Extreme Ricci Curvature” or indeed “A Unique Coordinate Set Defined On Spacetime”.

How could you not see any difference, they are totally different.
They have completely different definitions and different effects, so I don't no how you can say there isn't any practical difference.
Instead of me explaining why they are different(again), why don't you explain how they are the same.

Sapien

Son Goku old man, spare the skin on your fingertips - this is painful to watch.

Infra dignitatem.

Asiaprod

This is all getting a little to scientific for my taste, and I am sure others will agree, Quantum theory, though it is a fascinating field, is not everyone's cup of tea. Although this topic may validly belong here, to be frank, it is getting a tad tedious. Its always the same when ID rears its head, we get inundated with scientific proof for this and that. Proof which has in fact never actually been proven and has certainly not been accepted as mainstream. It may very well in the future be accepted as such, but right now. it is still highly speculative at best.

I don`t see any conclusion coming from this thread in the foreseeable future.
IMHO, why don`t we all agree to differ and move on to debate other stuff that does not require an advanced physics degree, something most of us do not posses.

J C

Quote Robin
Finally, in the paragraph beginning with "In this" in your immediately preceding posting, you have dishonestly inserted the two words "scientists" and "creation" and into some text of mine, making it appear that this is what I have written. They are not my words and I'd like you to remove them.

I extracted the quote concerned from a much longer statement on your part and I used the well known convention of inserting bracketed words into quotations to assist in clarifying what was being discussed by the original author.
As Creation Scientists ARE scientists in good standing you have absolutely no basis for asking me to remove these words and I certainly will not do so.

Sadly, for you Robin (but luckily for the rest of us) you do not possess the power to make the World or indeed other scientists into your own (evolutionary) 'image and likeness'!!!

Gordon

My apologies for butting in here, I see you're having an interesting debate. I just wanted to say that the word buckminsterfullerene is the most hilarious word I've ever seen probably. Cheers Son Goku, you cheered me up! Sorry to interrupt.

Wibbs

Just passing through and thought I'd jump in. Apologies for lateness, but the dog ate my homework...

J C wrote:

Could I gently point out that CPU’s and micro-chips are distinctly MACRO-ATOMIC entities that certainly don’t rely on quarks for their operation.

As was pointed out they do. I'm surprised that you didn't realise that.

Could I again gently point out that amino acids are distinctly MACRO-ATOMIC entities made up of highly specified atomic structures that are statistically impossible to construct using undirected processes.

I agree that it's very hard to concieve that such processes took place(it's a major issue I have with evolution as it stands, as a theory). It is however, possible that it may be a far simpler process than we know at the moment. It could be a chaos based emergent behaviour, whereby simple (unobserved, possibly quantum) processes give rise to more apparently complicated structures. The most we can say is that it happened. If we find that it happened elsewhere(mars etc) then it may be less complicated than we realise.

The Big Bang therefore has no more scientific status than “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” because neither are repeatably observable.

While the direct process may not be repeatedly observable, it's effects are. Background radiation, expansion and all that guff.

I’m sorry, but I still don't see any practical difference between “Nothing”, “An Area Of Extreme Ricci Curvature” or indeed “A Unique Coordinate Set Defined On Spacetime”.

Well I can spell "nothing" a lot easier for a start....:D

It IS correct to use the phrase “before the Universe was created” – because the Universe had a beginning i.e. the creation of the temporal time/space continuum by God – and God as a transcendant entity therefore existed “before the Universe was created”.

How can anything exist before, when the very concept of "before" itself couldn't exist without spacetime?

Please answer my 21 questions on the scientific invalidity of evolution and stop procrastinating!!!!.

Your refusal to answer ANY of these questions is an eloquent testimony to the intellectual bankruptcy of evolution.

TBH, While I am not by any stretch a creationist, I do tend to agree with many of your points raised with regard to evolution. While it is the current theory(some would say dogma) and has much going for it, especially in the case of adaptation within species, I do find serious scientific issues with it as a global theory. Full species emergence for a start. Many of your other points against it would also be valid IMHO. There are a lot of holes in the theory(that go beyond holes in the evidence). Holes that many evolutionists ignore or worse refuse to acknowledge. In fact, why evolve at all? Bacteria make up the vast majority of life on earth. In every environment and niche we find them. They are by far the most successful lifeform we know of, so why evolve "higher" more complicated life at all? I'm not suggesting a "purpose" here, I'm merely saying if survival of the fittest is the be all and end all of life why not stay unchanged as a bacteria. Whatever environment "higher" lifeforms have expanded into, the bugs were there long before them.

I also agree that it seems difficult if not impossible to posit any other theories without ridicule or being lumped in with creationists. Some scientists have been slow to put forward opposing scientific theories for fear of being associated with the religious fringe. In many ways some scientists, especially evolutionary theorists can be accused of being as closed minded as many religious types.

That would be my problem with this debate. The sides are so polarised that some scientific knowledge may be missed by both. If science refuses to acknowledge dissent then it's not good science in my book. One example was a group of sth American fully qualified archaeoligists, that found very good evidence that man was in the Americas for far longer than previously supposed(60,000 yrs plus). Because it doesn't fit with accepted theories it has been largely rejected by the mainstream. It should have been examined further, but it wasn't. Human origin theory is full of that. There are many other examples of this too, where evidence has been made, or ignored to fit theory rather than the other way around. This is what many scientists accuse the creationist lobby of doing. Just my two cents.

Son Goku

Asiaprod wrote:

what he said.

I was planning on stopping there, I just wanted to see what would happen if I used actual technical physics in an ID debate.
I agree though that it has probably gone off course so I'll leave it there.

I don`t see any conclusion coming from this thread in the foreseeable future.

When do conclusions ever come from forum threads?

we get inundated with scientific proof for this and that. Proof which has in fact never actually been proven and has certainly not been accepted as mainstream. It may very well in the future be accepted as such, but right now. it is still highly speculative at best.

Just out of interest, proof for ID or proof for things like the Big Bang and QM?

Asiaprod

Son Goku wrote:

When do conclusions ever come from forum threads?

One can but hope.

Just out of interest, proof for ID or proof for things like the Big Bang and QM?

I am sorry, I lost track there for a moment:o . I have accepted proof for things like the Big Bang and QM. I have NOT accepted any of the proof of ID. I find it an interesting diversion, for a little while, and then it gives me a headache. Besides, I have an affinity with Quarks;)

robindch

Wibbs -

> The sides are so polarised that some scientific knowledge
> may be missed by both.

This is unlikely, as there's only one side actually doing any science; you'll search in vain for creationists doing anything that could be called 'science' by even the most generous stretching of the term. The reason for this is fairly straightforward, namely that creationism is not science, it's religion which occasionally uses some of the same words that scientists use.

Don't be mislead by religious fundamentalists telling you what biology is -- listen to biologists instead!

> Full species emergence for a start.

It's been observed in nature and in the lab. BTW, you can breed something as simple as a radish and a cabbage together to produce a new species (in that the resulting, er, 'radage' can breed with others of its kind, but not with either of its parents).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

...has plenty of other examples of speciation.

> some scientists, especially evolutionary theorists can be accused
> of being as closed minded as many religious types. [...] Holes that
> many evolutionists ignore or worse refuse to acknowledge.

Can you substantiate these fairly serious claims on the honesty of biologists?

A good site which shows that the opposite is actually the case is the previous one, http://www.talkorigins.org, particularly its creationist Q+A section at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

which goes through in fairly good detail, the answers to questions which creationists continually ask, but block their ears to the answers.

Wibbs

robindch wrote:

This is unlikely, as there's only one side actually doing any science;..../...
Don't be mislead by religious fundamentalists telling you what biology is -- listen to biologists instead!

Apologies, I put that wrong. What I meant to say was that there is a tendency for certain scientists to react badly to any dissention against evolution as a theory. Naturally the religious opponents are in the main in this and many scientists rightly dismiss their wilder claims. There are however serious scientific gaps in the theory as it stands and many scientists working in the field are reluctant to voice some of thes issues for fear of ridicule. When any scientific theory becomes a "sacred cow" the way evolution has become, science may suffer as a result. While it is a good theory in parts for the origins and growth of life, it is just a theory as far as we know at the moment.

It's been observed in nature and in the lab. BTW, you can breed something as simple as a radish and a cabbage together to produce a new species (in that the resulting, er, 'radage' can breed with others of its kind, but not with either of its parents).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

...has plenty of other examples of speciation.

TBH, fruitflies or veggies manupulated in the lab does not a proof make. It might show how speciation may occur, it does not however prove that this is how it worked or works "in the wild".

Can you substantiate these fairly serious claims on the honesty of biologists?

It's not so emotive as reflecting on their individual honesty. It's more to do with blind acceptance of a theory, any theory that does not adhere rigidly to the accepted one. If you take the standpoint of evolution as fact, you're in trouble from the start.

which goes through in fairly good detail, the answers to questions which creationists continually ask, but block their ears to the answers.

While I personally feel creationists are barking up the wrong tree, I do think blocking of ears is not exclusively to be found among their number. Look at the out of Africa human origin debate versus all other theories. The Out of Africa opinion has become the accepted theory with all other(equally valid or at least worthy of further study) theories being relegated to the sidelines. I suspect another sacred cow is afoot.

I would expand on this further now, but as I have to fly, I wont. Also as this is probably more suited to the biology forumit feels strange to debate it here. I may get time later though(oh oh:D ).