The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Yes, and JC does seem happy to keep this whole thread going, doesn't he? You are free to ridicule his ideas, but to compare him to a moneygrabbing medieval Pope is to imply a selfish motive that I don't see in JC.

No, the issue of him being "a good Christian" is neither here nor there, I would feel exactly the same if a Buddhist was being falsely accused of selfish motives.

I don't think anyone was impugning his motives.

PDN wrote:

Aah, I see where you're coming from. Creationists are hindering scientific progress because, presumably, if we could enforce a 100% belief in evolution then suddenly we'll start discovering all kinds of new cures for cancer or AIDS?

Er, no. It's not (quite) as direct as that, nor did I think I had suggested it was. Yours is an interesting interpretation, but is religious in nature, and incorrectly implies that orthodoxy is a requirement of science.

PDN wrote:

Your analogy only holds valid if you accept the premise that Creationists are somehow stopping vital research from taking place. I don't see it that way. Creationism and evolutionism argue about what happened many years ago. That may be interesting, but hardly vital to finding cures for diseases etc.

Hmm. PDN, again, I don't fault your honesty or sincerity, but I fear you understand little of modern science, and tend to interpret the issues here in over-simplistic terms (much, perhaps, as you feel we do in theology?).

Science will go on however vocal Creationists get - it's simply too useful not to. However, Creationists are well funded, vocal, and politically powerful in the US (would you like to argue the reverse?). They do have a deleterious effect on the teaching of science in schools, and that in turn does have an impact on the quality of science overall.

More importantly, science does not simply exist in a vacuum. It is an important part of public policy-making, and to have a well-funded group deliberately conflating science and pseudo-science, for whatever reason, is extremely damaging to the public (and political) perception of the reliability of science. I am not primarily referring to medical science here (although that is not negligible), but to climate change, and the millions of poor who will be affected by climate change.

Science is important - too important for the doctrinal variations of one religion to be allowed have such an impact on it. As a private belief, Creationism is as acceptable (and amusing) as any - as a public belief, it is pernicious in its impact on the public perception of the reliability of science. Your tolerance is misplaced, and results, I suspect, from your dismissal of the importance of science.

If belief in JC's interpretation of Genesis is not required for salvation, it should be repudiated for its potentially damaging effects in this life. No witch-hunt is required, but a sober recognition of the facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I was pointing out that on a discussion board there are such differences of opinion that many people will see others sincerely held viewpoints as lying. There are those who think that all Christians are spreading lies because there are posters who see Christian beliefs as being nothing but lies.

I know exactly what point you were making. You were attempting to deflect away from the actual issue of JC lying by muddying the waters with a little persecution rant (oh the humanity of it all!)

Bluewolf was not calling JC a liar because JC holds a strong opposite viewpoint to him. He was not calling him a liar because he is a Christian who believes in God, or even a Christian who is a Creationists.

He was calling him a liar because he lies, regularly and bluntly, in the classical sense of the word. He makes statements that he knows are incorrect or false for the purpose of misleading those who are listening to him

He lies about evolution, what evolution claims to say, what research has been done in the area, what Creationists have or have not been able to demonstrate and the extent of his knowledge in the area.

We have all seen him do this, many many times.

PDN

Ah well, it appears that the consensus of opinion is that JC's beliefs are so pernicious as to make it OK to use any stick to beat him with. JC himself seems to masochistically enjoy participating in this ritual, so I will bow out of this thread (again) and let you all get on with it.

It means I will have to suppress my natural inclination to stick up for the underdog, but I wouldn't want a mob at my door accusing me of supporting a campaign against modern science, would I?

I'm off to read some Ibsen.

robindch

PDN wrote:

Maybe because I am capable of recognising that both Christians and non-Christians have been guilty of these activities in the past.

As a christian in the glass-house of history, it would be wise not to throw stones.

PDN wrote:

I will have to suppress my natural inclination to stick up for the underdog

You'd perhaps have more sympathy for today's postings if you were less concerned with sticking up for co-religionist "underdogs", and more interested in a search for some kind of truth.

Enjoy your Ibsen -- "An Enemy of the People", I assume?

.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Ah well, it appears that the consensus of opinion is that JC's beliefs are so pernicious as to make it OK to use any stick to beat him with. JC himself seems to masochistically enjoy participating in this ritual, so I will bow out of this thread (again) and let you all get on with it.

It means I will have to suppress my natural inclination to stick up for the underdog, but I wouldn't want a mob at my door accusing me of supporting a campaign against modern science, would I?

Sigh. Feel free to put it in the "Persecuted Church" thread, too.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Ah well, it appears that the consensus of opinion is that JC's beliefs are so pernicious as to make it OK to use any stick to beat him with.

You are at it again :rolleyes:

I assure you PDN we are using the most reasonable and even handed stick we have at hand.

How many times on this forum have people attempted to explain to JC why his statements about say evolution are incorrect, even when most of us know he already knows this and is continuing to spread misinformation just for the fun of it.

If you or JC returned the favor this forum would be a lot more civilized.

Your insistence to cry persecution at every available turn rather than actually listen to what is being said is as ridiculous as it is tiresome. You attempt to deflect any criticism of you or JC away by claiming that any criticism is unreasonable, or not in proportion, or part of a wider witch hunt out to persecute Christians for being Christian.

Are you sure you don't work for George Bush?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

I know exactly what point you were making. You were attempting to deflect away from the actual issue of JC lying by muddying the waters with a little persecution rant (oh the humanity of it all!)

Bluewolf was not calling JC a liar because JC holds a strong opposite viewpoint to him. He was not calling him a liar because he is a Christian who believes in God, or even a Christian who is a Creationists.

He was calling him a liar because he lies, regularly and bluntly, in the classical sense of the word. He makes statements that he knows are incorrect or false for the purpose of misleading those who are listening to him

He lies about evolution, what evolution claims to say, what research has been done in the area, what Creationists have or have not been able to demonstrate and the extent of his knowledge in the area.

We have all seen him do this, many many times.

She >.>

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

She >.>

Thats right I keep forgetting you are one of these f-e-males I keep reading about on the internet ...

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Ah, and we are, by implication? Do bear in mind that JC comes here of his own free will to attempt to convert us. Certainly we ridicule him, but many of his ideas are, from a scientific point of view, utterly ridiculous - or some word meaning the same thing, but in spades.

I'd accept your point that he is sincere in what he believes, and to you, no doubt, that's what's important - at the end of the day, JC is a good Christian, if a little hung up on some odd ideas.

To others, the damaging effects that well-funded Creationist claims have on science are what's important - because the world has a number of urgent problems that can only be diagnosed and remedied through the application of science to public life.

An analogy might be a cancer patient being urged not to listen to "conventional" doctors, but to trust to faith alone. Your place in that analogy is to one side, smiling tolerantly and commending the sincerity of the believers, despite the harm they are urging - as it appears to be here.

I presume you don't see things that way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just chose your post scofflaw, it could have been wicknights, just as easily.

Creationists are NOT against science. Generally, never have been never will be, and the statement that you make is pretty shallow and all encompassing and if JC were to say something similar there are those who would label it a lie.

As a creationist, I have a great respect for scientific research being done in labs around the world that will improve mankinds lot. Especially with regards to medicine.

Research has produced my computer, TV, satellite, cell phone. It has given the doctors the knowledge they need to fix my sons heart (still awaiting a date for the operation).

It has produced all the comforts of life that I currently enjoy.

When it comes to the sciences that look at the origins of the universe and the reasons behind global warming, I am sceptical.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Creationists are NOT against science.

A claim only made by creationists, which does not pass peer-review.

The claim that they are not against all science, on the other hand, would probably do so.

Son Goku

Modern biology is based on evolution. Modern medicine is based strongly on modern biology. Even though you can find several medical advances that don't rely on evolution, the most recent ones certainly do. Particularly treatments for genetic illnesses and organ-specifc ailments that have come up in recent years.

Understanding of the Big Bang is related strongly to the technological development of GPS.

Now although JC is harmless and a nice lad all round, his wealthy analogues in the States are playing a very dangerous game with the way science is taught.

To put it plainly, if you stop education of evolution you put a strain on modern medicine, which is a bad thing. They are trying to stop education of evolution, hence they are doing a bad thing.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just chose your post scofflaw, it could have been wicknights, just as easily.

Creationists are NOT against science. Generally, never have been never will be, and the statement that you make is pretty shallow and all encompassing and if JC were to say something similar there are those who would label it a lie.

As a creationist, I have a great respect for scientific research being done in labs around the world that will improve mankind's lot. Especially with regards to medicine.

Research has produced my computer, TV, satellite, cell phone. It has given the doctors the knowledge they need to fix my sons heart (still awaiting a date for the operation).

It has produced all the comforts of life that I currently enjoy.

When it comes to the sciences that look at the origins of the universe and the reasons behind global warming, I am sceptical.

Hmm. I appreciate where you're coming from, but you are confusing science with "research" and "technology".

Science is a discipline, and a method. All scientific conclusions are reached according to that discipline and method. To simply ignore its conclusions when you feel they cannot be right is to disagree with the discipline and the method that produced those conclusions. To simultaneously claim that you "respect" what it otherwise produces does not argue a respect for science, but simply an ability to appreciate what is useful. It is akin to arguing that while 2 x 3 = 6, you simply don't accept that 3 x 4 = 12 - the same method, the same discipline produces the result.

You cannot accept modern medical theory on the one hand, and reject modern evolutionary theory on the other, any more than you can reject some branch of mathematics and not another - the conclusions are reached by the exact same methods in both cases. Science is not a la carte, any more than religion is - one of the few features they have in common. To argue otherwise is to say that science gets things right by luck, not by method, because you don't accept that the method works.

Finally, it totally fails to surprise me that you are also a climate change sceptic. It more or less proves my point about the deleterious effects of Creationism on the general acceptance of scientific reasoning.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote:

How many times on this forum have people attempted to explain to JC why his statements about say evolution are incorrect, even when most of us know he already knows this and is continuing to spread misinformation just for the fun of it.

Hate to beat a dead horse but Triceratops anyone?

My particular favorite case of J C telling porkies was when he changed the mathematical formula he was using to prove a point on population growth mid problem. Luckily another keen eyed poster called him on it.

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote:

Hate to beat a dead horse but Triceratops anyone?

My particular favorite case of J C telling porkies was when he changed the mathematical formula he was using to prove a point on population growth mid problem. Luckily another keen eyed poster called him on it.

*bows* I had enough other important things to do that it suddenly became a priority.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
"Lord Jesus, I want you to come in and take over my life right now. I am a sinner. I have been trusting in myself and my own good works, and in other things. But, now I place my trust in you. I want You as my own personal Saviour. I believe You died for me. I receive You as Lord and Master of my life. Help me to turn from my sins and follow You. I thank you for Your offer of the FREE gift of eternal life. I am not worthy of it, but I thank You for it. Amen."

2Scoops
**With the purchase of one eternal life of equal or greater value. Terms and conditions apply.

Jesus Christ offers UNCONDITIONAL love……so NO Terms or Conditions apply……but you DO have to freely accept His free offer of Salvation.


Scofflaw
Ooh...proselytisation...

I wasn’t favouring any particular Christian denomination…..so I wasn’t proselytising …..merely suggesting a possible prayer with which people can become Born Again…….which Jesus Christ confirms as the essential condition for BECOMING a Christian :-
Jn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

…..and IF we cannot welcome people who want to become Christians into the Kingdom of God on the Christianity Thread ……WHERE can we do so???


The Mad Hatter
I dislike extremism in all religions and atheism as well.

….and I also dislike extremism……..

Jesus Christ is a God of love and MODERATION …….and the Christian FAITH isn’t a religion…….:)


Scofflaw
it is the manifestations of religious extremism that make us militant, in the main.

Militant Atheism is a militant denial of the reality of God.

……and as I have already said, Jesus Christ is a God of love and MODERATION …….and the Christian FAITH isn’t a religion…….


daithifleming
people like JC and other creationists seem to take the word of Jesus and God in the Bible and manipulate it to suit their own arguments,

Creationists wish to understand EXACTLY what God revealed in His Word…..so they make a PLAIN reading of Scripture…..on the basis that God plainly says what He means and plainly means what He says.

As this thread proves, people may argue with Creationists ……..but a PLAIN reading of Scripture – interpreting it LITERALLY when the passages describe obvious literal or historical events and ALLEGORICALLY when metaphors are being clearly deployed……and within context when the context demands, will always provide the most defensible theological position !!!:D


Bluewolf
Except I specified that "I have read every single book on evolution", which JC did post, is clearly a lie. He subsequently admitted it was a lie when I called him on it.

………….I have NOT posted the above statement ……

I think that the following exchange between myself and Wicknight, may be what you are referring to above:-

Wicknight
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read up on evolution JC, because you still aren't getting it. This is getting so frustrating. You seem to view evolution in the way a child views something like the weather

Response Posted by J C
You forget that, as a former Evolutionist, I have read (and believed at one stage) ALL the books!!!!

My reference to having read “ALL the books” was a CLEAR 'figure of speech' that indicated that I had read all of the standard Evolutionist books such as the Origin of Species, The Naked Ape, The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion, etc

……and BTW when I also said that “I too was that soldier” I wasn’t lying about my military prowess…….I was only claiming to be a (former) Evolutionist ……who had believed in all of the usual Evolutionist stuff!!!:D


Bluewolf
Just because we are in a debate partly concerning beliefs, does not mean every single post, claim, and statement is a matter solely of belief and unchallengeable.

Of course, you may challenge any and all of my well founded statements……but please grant me the same right to challenge all of the unfounded beliefs which Evolutionists promulgate!!!!

Equally, making allegations of lying .......and other participants claiming that Creation Science is somehow 'dangerous' ……..when many excellent conventional scientists are Creationists, doesn’t help whatever case you may wish to make for Evolution………it is simply ‘crying wolf’……...
.......and NO I am not accusing you of howling like a wolf……although, come to think of it, with a username like ‘Bluewolf’………. you never know!!!!!


Scofflaw
Science will go on however vocal Creationists get - it's simply too useful not to. However, Creationists are well funded, vocal, and politically powerful in the US (would you like to argue the reverse?). They do have a deleterious effect on the teaching of science in schools, and that in turn does have an impact on the quality of science overall.

Of course science will 'go on'!!!

You seem to be forgetting that Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists…..many of whom are working within the very conventional science that you are so worried will somehow ‘autodestruct’!!!

Could I remind you that America is one of the leading scientific nations on Earth …….and Ken Ham’s lectures in Dublin didn’t have any adverse effects on Irish Science!!!!!


Scofflaw
science does not simply exist in a vacuum. It is an important part of public policy-making, and to have a well-funded group deliberately conflating science and pseudo-science, for whatever reason, is extremely damaging to the public (and political) perception of the reliability of science. I am not primarily referring to medical science here (although that is not negligible), but to climate change, and the millions of poor who will be affected by climate change.

I know many Atheists who believe that Climate Change is driven by natural causes …….and some Creationists who believe that Mankind is primarily responsible …..and visa versa!!!!

……are you therefore suggesting that no debate should be permitted within science on the CAUSES of climate change.....or do you claim that we know enough to 'close the book' on any further research into the phenomenon???


Scofflaw
Science is important - too important for the doctrinal variations of one religion to be allowed have such an impact on it.

The unfounded doctrinaire belief of Evolutionists that muck spontaneously evolved into Man doesn’t seem very ‘scientific’ to me ........but I wouldn’t propose that they should be academically neutered or otherwise discriminated against, for believing in it!!!!!!


Scofflaw
If belief in JC's interpretation of Genesis is not required for salvation, it should be repudiated for its potentially damaging effects in this life.

What damaging effects?????


Wicknight
Bluewolf was not calling JC a liar because JC holds a strong opposite viewpoint to him. He was not calling him a liar because he is a Christian who believes in God, or even a Christian who is a Creationists.

He was calling him a liar because he lies, regularly and bluntly, in the classical sense of the word. He makes statements that he knows are incorrect or false for the purpose of misleading those who are listening to him

He lies about evolution, what evolution claims to say, what research has been done in the area, what Creationists have or have not been able to demonstrate and the extent of his knowledge in the area.

What you mean is that you don’t like what I am saying about your unfounded faith in your supposed pond slime ancestry ……..and so I must be lying when I say that dead muck could NEVER ‘lift itself up by its own bootstraps’ to spontaneously evolve into Man.

I would call that a difference of opinion…..and NOT lying, on EITHER of our parts!!!


PDN
It means I will have to suppress my natural inclination to stick up for the underdog, but I wouldn't want a mob at my door accusing me of supporting a campaign against modern science, would I?

………and would the mob come complete with pitchforks and torches, I wonder?????!!!!!!


Scofflaw
Feel free to put it in the "Persecuted Church" thread, too.

I think that I may have to move to that thread myself, if it gets any 'hotter' here!!!:eek:


Wicknight
I assure you PDN we are using the most reasonable and even handed stick we have at hand.

Why do you have a need to 'beat me' with ANY stick ………..just debate the facts and challenge the opinions ………and love me like I love you all !!!!!:)


Bonkey
A claim only made by creationists, which does not pass peer-review.

The claim that they are not against all science, on the other hand, would probably do so.

…..it would seem to depend on WHO was doing the peer review!!!!!:D


Son Goku
To put it plainly, if you stop education of evolution you put a strain on modern medicine, which is a bad thing. They are trying to stop education of evolution, hence they are doing a bad thing.

How does a belief that we are NOT spontaneously evolved from Pondslime put a strain on anything…….except perhaps the credulity of those who believe that they ARE mutated Pondslime?????

…..and BTW most Creationists AREN’T trying to stop the teaching of evolution…….indeed they believe in micro-evolution (or NS)……..they only wish to also present the alternative scientific explanation for our origins to people who wish to know!!!


Scofflaw
It is akin to arguing that while 2 x 3 = 6, you simply don't accept that 3 x 4 = 12 - the same method, the same discipline produces the result.

Would that also be like arguing that while dead things DON'T spontaneously become alive again………dead muck DID spontaneously became alive?????:eek:


Scofflaw
You cannot accept modern medical theory on the one hand, and reject modern evolutionary theory on the other,

I know some Creationists who are leading medical specialists ……..but I don’t choose my doctor on whether or not they believe in the 'generative powers' of muck or their kinship with an Ape !!!!


Scofflaw
Science is not a la carte, any more than religion is - one of the few features they have in common. To argue otherwise is to say that science gets things right by luck,

So you (correctly) argue that science CAN’T get things right by luck………but then you go and claim that a series of 'lucky breaks' WILL spontaneously turn Pondslime into Man????


Galvasean
My particular favorite case of J C telling porkies was when he changed the mathematical formula he was using to prove a point on population growth mid problem. Luckily another keen eyed poster called him on it.

Obviously the word ‘error’ must mean ‘lie’ in your lexicon!!!!

Could I point out that there was a SIMPLE COPYING ERROR in the population projection to which you refer…..and I immediately corrected the error when it was brought to my attention.

.....and could I also point out that BOTH the incorrect AND the corrected population projections PROVED that two people could produce in excess of six billion people in less than 4,000 years using very conservative assumptions!!!!:D

Scofflaw

Groan. Such a lot of drivel, and me tired. Maybe later.

wearily,
Scofflaw

J C

Galvasean wrote:

Hate to beat a dead horse but Triceratops anyone?

Do you mean the horny headed, warm blooded, quadruped, that looked like a Rhino, walked like a Rhino, had the physiognomy of a Rhino and ate like a Rhino.......but which Evolutionists believe to be a REPTILE??????

What do you guys call a Boa Constrictor, then ......... a Cat with a very long tail, perhaps?????

.......here, here Kitty, Kitty........some milk, kitty, kitty ............ooouch.....arrrgh.......argh.....ggghh.....cruuncch!!!!:D

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Groan. Such a lot of drivel, and me tired. Maybe later.
wearily,
Scofflaw

The following verses of Scripture seem appropriate
Mt 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Do you mean the horny headed, warm blooded, quadraped, that looked like a Rhino, walked like a Rhino and ate like a Rhino.......but which Evolutionists believe to be a REPTILE??????

Yes, that would be the Rhino with three horns and the reptilian cranial coolant ridge.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

The following verses of Scripture seem appropriate
Mt 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

The burden of Jesus Christ may be light, but the burden of JC is heavy. You talk a lot more nonsense than He did - or possibly He just had better editors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

To argue otherwise is to say that science gets things right by luck, not by method, because you don't accept that the method works.

That is a brilliant way of putting it, and sums up nicely why Creationists such as BC are in fact anti-science (though in fairness unknowingly anti-science).

To accept the method when it is exploring electromagnetism or something but to reject the method off hand in any branch of science where understanding conflicts with religious teaching is to reject the method completely

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I was only claiming to be a (former) Evolutionist ……who had believed in all of the usual Evolutionist stuff!!!:D

JC you don't understand (or are even aware of) what evolution say (pond slim, randomly forming proteins, none of this is in the theory of evolution) so the only reasonable conclusion that this is a lie, said for effect (I once was blinded by now I see :rolleyes).

J C wrote:

What you mean is that you don’t like what I am saying about your unfounded faith in your supposed pond slime ancestry

No, I don't like you saying that evolution says life evolved from "pond slime", because that is incorrect. Evolution has never said this, not even close.

Your repeated (and bewildering) insistence on stating this over and over is simply a demonstration of your willingness to lie and lie and lie over and over in this discussion.

J C wrote:

……..and so I must be lying when I say that dead muck could NEVER ‘lift itself up by its own bootstraps’ to spontaneously evolve into Man.

Again, evolution nor abiogenesis has ever claimed that muck developed into life. You are aware of this (remember, you have read all the books on evolution), so once again the question remains of why you insist on constantly lying about this over and over.

J C wrote:

Why do you have a need to 'beat me' with ANY stick ………..just debate the facts and challenge the opinions ………and love me like I love you all !!!!!:)

Because you constantly and consistently lie about what evolution and modern science claim in an effort to make the theories appear ridiculous, probably because you have by now realised that if you simply stated the theory of evolution truthfully it would appear quite reasonable.

J C wrote:

Obviously the word ‘error’ must mean ‘lie’ in your lexicon!!!!

It does when you repeat the "error" over and over in an effort to mislead JC :rolleyes:

Galvasean

J C wrote:

Do you mean the horny headed, warm blooded, quadraped, that looked like a Rhino, walked like a Rhino, had the physiognomy of a Rhino and ate like a Rhino.......but which Evolutionists believe to be a REPTILE??????

What do you guys call a Boa Constrictor, then ......... a Cat with a very long (fat) tail, perhaps?????

.......here, here Kitty, Kitty........some milk, kitty, kitty............ooouch.....arrrgh.......argh.....ggghh!!!!:D

Best knowledge indicates a boa constrictor is a snake and snakes are derived from a primitive monitor lizard.
Oh, and have you heard of convergent evolution (I know you arent fond of that word but it may be an entertaining read for you)? It may explain to you why a Triceratops and rhino seem so alike.

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

Theres the Wiki. Its not as in depth as it could be but gives you a simple run down of the basics.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote:

Best knowledge indicates a boa constrictor is a snake and snakes are derived from a primitive monitor lizard.
Oh, and have you heard of convergent evolution (I know you arent fond of that word but it may be an entertaining read for you)? It may explain to you why a Triceratops and rhino seem so alike.

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

Theres the Wiki. Its not as in depth as it could be but gives you a simple run down of the basics.

Good luck waiting for JC to respond to convergent evolution. It is something that Intelligent Design simple cannot explain, why so many different "designs" that do the same thing

I'm still waiting to hear him explain why a super intelligent designer would feel the need to design the eye 40 independent times.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

That is a brilliant way of putting it, and sums up nicely why Creationists such as BC are in fact anti-science (though in fairness unknowingly anti-science).

To accept the method when it is exploring electromagnetism or something but to reject the method off hand in any branch of science where understanding conflicts with religious teaching is to reject the method completely

sci·ence –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


Nothing in that definition that I'm against. Are you lying wicknight?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Nothing in that definition that I'm against.

And on what basis do you claim that this definition is an accurate representation of science?

You'll notice it makes no reference to the scientific method, nor to the concept of falsifiability.

Is it your assertion that these are not intgral parts of science - they being the parts that your stance would be at odds with?

As an aside, I would assert that strictly speaking, you most certainly do have a problem with point 2 of that definition. Observation and experimentation are exactly what underpin evolution.

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

And on what basis do you claim that this definition is an accurate representation of science?

You'll notice it makes no reference to the scientific method, nor to the concept of falsifiability.

Is it your assertion that these are not intgral parts of science - they being the parts that your stance would be at odds with?

As an aside, I would assert that strictly speaking, you most certainly do have a problem with point 2 of that definition. Observation and experimentation are exactly what underpin evolution.

The defintion came off dictionary.com.

I don't have a problem at all with number 2. It is a neccesary step in the scientific process of testing observations.

The problem with studying origins is that you have no way of observing the world as it esupposedly existed all those billions of years ago. Scientific study of origins involves forensic sciences that with no witness to the events. It reminds me of a CSI investigation where evidence is misinterpreted to fit a preconceived conclusion.

In building my computer, scientific testing was done on electronics, errors were made, observations were seen, tweaking was done, more testing until voila, a computer, science at work.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

The problem with studying origins is that you have no way of observing the world as it esupposedly existed all those billions of years ago.

No, you don't. But then again, there's a huge amount of science where you've no way of directly observing things.

YOu can't observe the forces that make electronics work, for example, but you've no problem with the concept that:

In building my computer, scientific testing was done on electronics, errors were made, observations were seen, tweaking was done, more testing until voila, a computer, science at work.

Indirect observations, leading to models predicting behaviour, repeated falsifiably tested, led to a computer.

Indirect observations, leading to models predicting behaviour, repeatedly falsifiably tested led to the theory of evolution.

You cite one as an example of science at work, and the other as an example of...well...something thats reasonable to reject because we can't make direct observations.

Does that make the problem clearer?

If not, the consider gravity. You can't directly observe gravity. You can't create gravity. All you can do is work with it second-hand - dealing with the effects.

Why then, do you not reject science's modelling of gravity, as it has all the problems that the theory of evolution has?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

It reminds me of a CSI investigation where evidence is misinterpreted to fit a preconceived conclusion.

But by your line of reasoning, because this is possible it means that any CSI conclusion can be reasonably discarded because the evidence might be misinterpreted.

I would argue that while the possibility exists a CSI conclusion is wrong, this means only that care needs to be taken in the examination, and that a conclusion which has repeatedly stood up to re-test after re-test should be considered trustworthy until there is reason to believe otherwise.

The possibility exists that evolutionary theory is badly wrong. Its a remote possibility, but it exists. Test after test after test fails to show it, though. When those tests are carried out by skeptics or downright unbelievers, the only situations where they come up with conclusions which appear to cast doubt are without exception demonstrably flawed as tests.

If nothing else, what this tells us is that our evolutionary theory - our CSI testing - has been looked at by multitudes of independant researchers, with varying aims and goals, and without exception they cannot find significant fault without abandonding scientific rigour to do so.

But you still think its reasonable to discard this - to stand up in court and say "yes your honour, I know that the DNA test these forensic experts carried out shows conclusively that this is my client's blood. I know that its been retested a dozen times, but its possible that its not my client's blood...and no matter how remote that possibility, this makes rejection of these findings perfectly reasonable".

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

No, you don't. But then again, there's a huge amount of science where you've no way of directly observing things.

YOu can't observe the forces that make electronics work, for example, but you've no problem with the concept that:



Indirect observations, leading to models predicting behaviour, repeated falsifiably tested, led to a computer.

Indirect observations, leading to models predicting behaviour, repeatedly falsifiably tested led to the theory of evolution.?

I don't think it is that simple. In the computer example, my goal is to build a computer. I build; test; rebuld; test etc, until it works.

In origins, I can not rebuild a world, test; rebuild; etc. I can only examine evidence as it sits in the world, build models with what seem resonable assumptions then extrapolate the findings to come up with aniother model that seems reasonable and then we have it. That is my take on what I see happening.

bonkey wrote:

You cite one as an example of science at work, and the other as an example of...well...something thats reasonable to reject because we can't make direct observations.

Does that make the problem clearer??

I see where you are coming from, but you are dealing with very different disciplines of science requiring different methods of observations.

It's like: Ice hockey vs Football

Put an object in a net more times than an opponent then you win, therefore they are the same sport.

bonkey wrote:

If not, the consider gravity. You can't directly observe gravity. You can't create gravity. All you can do is work with it second-hand - dealing with the effects.

Why then, do you not reject science's modelling of gravity, as it has all the problems that the theory of evolution has?

No because as I sit here, gravity is at work. I can observe it happening now.

Where as I can't observe the no-God origins model.

Also as I sit here, it is because the work of a living God that I am.