The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

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.

Evolution is an ongoing thing
it's not origins of all life

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

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

Where are these no-God origins models? I'd love to see one. Could somebody name one for me?

BrianCalgary wrote:

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

Alright then, what is gravity? Since you observe it working.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

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.

I think you'll find that if you attempt to build a computer by trial and error, you will be there rather a long time - an argument I think you're familiar with.

The technology in computers is an application of science - and again you are confusing the two. The science involved in computing is exactly as you describe - examine evidence, build models, and extrapolate the findings to make predictions. Those predictions include "if we build such and such a structure, it should operate in such a way that we can do calculations with it". Actually building such a structure is a matter of technology and engineering, not science.

You cannot make scientific progress by build-test-rebuild-test. That is not science, but engineering, which is a different discipline. Even there, the initial build results from the application of theory. Tokamaks and colliders are not the result of happy coincidence - and nor is evolution.

It is increasingly clear that you see no difference between science and its application - science is theoretical: its application is practical, but is not science (hence "the science behind x"). All the images you use are drawn from technology or engineering - application, not theory.

BrianCalgary wrote:

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

No, again, this is based on some kind of misunderstanding. For a start, what does "methods of observation" actually mean? Do you think that observations are something different in geology from physics at anything more than a trivial level? If so, how? Can you explain to me how observing the structures in rock is different from observing bubble tracks in a collider?

BrianCalgary wrote:

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

No, you don't. You observe things falling, or staying put. You interpret that as "gravity" because that is the current explanation for "things falling, or staying put".

The definition you gave of science, by the way, is incomplete. It would not allow you to recreate the scientific method, because it's only a definition of the word, not an explanation of the method. We are not arguing about the word 'science', but about the scientific method.

cordially,
if a little wearily,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

Evolution....
it's not origins of all life

It has to be the method by which all life began if there is no higher intelligence.

Under the origins model, you had a big bang that started it all. You had lifeless rocks floating about. They all settled into an order because of gravity. Then a whole bunch of stuff came together on a rock, formed puddles. Out of these puddles formed all the building blocks of living organisms as the molecules all got together randomly.

From these puddles then began the evolutionary process. Which continues to this day.

Is the above acuurate, albeit simple?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

It has to be the method by which all life began if there is no higher intelligence.

Under the origins model, you had a big bang that started it all. You had lifeless rocks floating about. They all settled into an order because of gravity. Then a whole bunch of stuff came together on a rock, formed puddles. Out of these puddles formed all the building blocks of living organisms as the molecules all got together randomly.

From these puddles then began the evolutionary process. Which continues to this day.

Is the above acuurate, albeit simple?

For given values of 'stuff', 'puddles', 'building blocks', and 'randomly', yes, as far as we know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Out of these puddles formed all the building blocks of living organisms as the molecules all got together randomly.

Replace the underlined with "Got to together due to the laws of chemistry". To suggest that a complicated chemical process is simply just "randomness" is silly.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Replace the underlined with "Got to together due to the laws of chemistry".

Sorry, yes, quite true. I was thinking more of the actual molecule-molecule meetings, rather than the reactions between them. Although even there we have theories that the molecules were held in place in clay layers...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Although even there we have theories that the molecules were held in place in clay layers...

Really, very interesting. I'm not actually familiar with the mechanisms that brought molecules near for interaction. Must read up.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Really, very interesting. I'm not actually familiar with the mechanisms that brought molecules near for interaction. Must read up.

Not sure they're currently in favour, but yes, they're quite interesting. The pure and original form of the 'clay theory' is a bit nuts, mind you - although nothing compared to quantum physics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter

Scofflaw wrote:

No, you don't. You observe things falling, or staying put. You interpret that as "gravity" because that is the current explanation for "things falling, or staying put".

The definition you gave of science, by the way, is incomplete. It would not allow you to recreate the scientific method, because it's only a definition of the word, not an explanation of the method.

cordially,
if a little wearily,
Scofflaw

Could just as easily be intelligent falling?

bonkey

I'm glad someone spotted the reason I mentioned gravity

BC...just one more thought regarding your CSI episode which struck me whilst commuting home this evening.

Would you say its an unfair comment that you and/or most creationists reject evolution first and foremost because it doesn't fit with your belief that the bible is a true account, evolution doesn't square with it, and must therefore be wrong?

Is this not a case where you are the CSI investigators, interpreting the evidence so it fits with your preconceived "correct" answer.

I suspect that you only even considered rejecting evolution because it is - from your perspective - anathema to your beliefs...to your pre-formed "correct answer".

So...chicken and egg time here. Did you question evolution because of your faith...or did you question evolution before you discovered your faith in the literal truth of the bible?

It seems to me that no matter which way you answer this (hence chicken and egg) you open yourself to the possibility that whichever occurred second is arguably corrupted by the preconceptions created by whatever came first.

Alternately we can both accept that the point you were making is moot. We can only reasonably apply claims of preconception once we have evidence to support same.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

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?

You are opposed to number 1, 2, 5 and one assumes 7

So, no I'm not lying BC.

J C

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

Yea, just like the African Elephant has ‘reptilian coolant’ EARS!!!!:D


Scofflaw
The burden of Jesus Christ may be light, but the burden of JC is heavy. You talk a lot more nonsense than He did

Could be true……because He is God and I am a fallible Human Being!!!!:)

.....but I find that being indwelt by His Holy Spirit helps me to cut out most of the nonesense that I would otherwise probably speak!!!

Wicknight
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

….something like Atheists arguing that while dead things DON'T spontaneously become alive ………dead muck DID spontaneously became alive….!!!!:D


Wicknight
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.

…..so WHAT does Evolution say we ultimately evolved from……if not primordial SLIME or ‘SOUP’ or some other such 'Goo'?

……and is it not also true that Evolution postulates that the 'Soup' subsequently evolved into aquatic single-celled life forms that approximate to today’s algae AKA Pondslime???

…….so not only are you in denial of God……but you are now in denial of what Evolution ACTUALLY postulates as well!!!!!:eek:

......and you're throwing around allegations of lying like 'drink at a wake'!!!!


Wicknight
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.

……so ARE you accepting after all, that God Created all life in one great act of His Divine Fiat Will?:D

……since you seem to accept that the alternative, of muck spontaneously bursting into life, is a ‘non runner’!!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
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.

I spent years trying to come up with a theory of Evolution that looked half reasonable……and I failed!!!!

If you have succeeded, where I have failed please share your breakthrough with us!!!:D


Galvasean
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.

Unfortunately, convergent Evolution doesn’t explain how large Mammals were present during the so-called 'Age of the Dinosaurs' about 100 million ‘Evolutionist Years’ ago……when Evolutionists claim that Mammals hadn’t yet evolved into anything much bigger than a MOUSE!!!!

Of course, the fact that preserved dinosaur flesh and blood has been found, indicates that both large Mammals and large Dinosaurs lived TOGETHER very recently indeed!!!!


Wicknight
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

This is your LUCKY DAY!!!!

The common design features supposedly caused by convergent evolution were ACTUALLY the product of a common DESIGNER!!!


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

The odds of Materialistic processes spontaneously designing one eye type is ZERO…..and as for 40 independent eyes …….forget about it!!!!

Of course God made independent eye designs because He wished to…….and to ensure that Evolutionist claims are even more ridiculous than they would otherwise be!!!!:D


Brian Calgary
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?

There is nothing in that definition that I’m against EITHER!!!!:D


Bonkey
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.

All experimentation and observation supports Creation and denies ‘chemicals to Man Evolution’.


Bonkey
The possibility exists that evolutionary theory is badly wrong.

At this stage I’d call it a CERTAINTY!!!:eek:


Bonkey
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".

Or you could just say that the DNA spontaneously evolved from Muck……and Muck committed the crime……..if you really wanted to hang your client!!!!


Son Goku
Where are these no-God origins models? I'd love to see one. Could somebody name one for me?

I don’t know……..you’re the Evolutionist……so could you tell me how life arose spontaneously without God????


Scofflaw
I think you'll find that if you attempt to build a computer by trial and error, you will be there rather a long time

…..and ditto for building life by ‘trial and error’ evolution!!!:D


Originally Posted by Brian Calgary
…..a whole bunch of stuff came together on a rock, formed puddles. Out of these puddles formed all the building blocks of living organisms as the molecules all got together randomly.

From these puddles then began the evolutionary process. Which continues to this day.

Is the above acuurate, albeit simple?

Scofflaw
For given values of 'stuff', 'puddles', 'building blocks', and 'randomly', yes, as far as we know.

I'm glad I'm no longer an Evolutionist!!!!!

.....I just couldn't take the embarrassment of it all!!:D


Scofflaw
I was thinking more of the actual molecule-molecule meetings, rather than the reactions between them. Although even there we have theories that the molecules were held in place in clay layers...

Clay layers, eh…..

I told you that Evolution postulates that muck spontaneously burst into life!!!!!

……and I was called a liar for saying so!!!!


Scofflaw
Not sure they're currently in favour, but yes, they're quite interesting. The pure and original form of the 'clay theory' is a bit nuts, mind you

….just like the rest of macro-Evolution ….I suppose!!!


The Mad Hatter
Could just as easily be intelligent falling?

…..or Gravity could have EVOLVED…..for all we know!!!!!

......but you would need to have the 'faith of an Evolutionist' to believe THAT!!!:D
.....or indeed to believe in 'Intelligent Falling'.......for that matter!!!

J C

bonkey wrote:

Would you say its an unfair comment that you and/or most creationists reject evolution first and foremost because it doesn't fit with your belief that the bible is a true account, evolution doesn't square with it, and must therefore be wrong?

In my case I ceased to believe in Evolution BEFORE I developed an interest in the Bible.

bonkey wrote:

So...chicken and egg time here. Did you question evolution because of your faith...or did you question evolution before you discovered your faith in the literal truth of the bible?

It seems to me that no matter which way you answer this (hence chicken and egg) you open yourself to the possibility that whichever occurred second is arguably corrupted by the preconceptions created by whatever came first.

You might have a point,.......were it not for the fact that Creation Science scientifically validates Genesis, !!!:D

Galvasen wrote:

Best knowledge indicates a boa constrictor is a snake and snakes are derived from a primitive monitor lizard.

......and I suppose my Cat is descended from a sophisticated Pigeon!!!!:D

.....or does he eat Pigeons???
........when I was an Evolutionist, I was never quite sure which way it was!!!:D

....you have me all confused now!!!!:D

Scofflaw

Hmm. I could swear something is gibbering in here...

cordially,
Scofflaw

MooseJam

J C wrote:

All experimentation and observation supports Creation and denies ‘chemicals to Man Evolution’.

I'd have to agree JC lies

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Yea, just like the African Elephant with the ‘reptilian coolant’ EARS!!!!:D

Hmm. Sometimes comments are too surreal to give a smartass response.

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. I could swear something is gibbering in here...

cordially,
Scofflaw

See a doctor ...... and get rid of it!!!:D

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Hmm. Sometimes comments are too surreal to give a smartass response.

The truth will set you free.......and sometimes it will also leave you 'gobsmacked'!!!:eek:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

See a doctor ...... and get rid of it!!!:D

Good advice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

MooseJam wrote:

I'd have to agree JC lies

Surprise.....surprise!!!:eek:

dan719

J C wrote:

[/B]
.



You might have a point,.......were it not for the fact that Creation Science scientifically validates Genesis, !!!:D

You know I still cannot find 'creation science' underneath any heading such as science, you know the like, the places where you usually find physics and chemistry, with a lot of biology thrown in too. How strange. And how come you have to call it creation science, surely if your 'evidence' made use of the scientific method you could call it science, true of heart and valient.:cool:

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

Also I have asked questions, which apparently are judged by others not to be the 'right' questions (shades of Galileo and the Inquisition here, I think).

Can I ask at what point in the thread did this happen?
I think there is a certain element of explaining mathematics and physics that I never quite seem to get right and I was wondering if this was to do with the population growth thing.
Basically I think it's hard to get across the mathematical concept of undefined to somebody unfamiliar with mathematics without sounding like you're dodging the question or criticising the other person's query.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

…..so WHAT does Evolution say we ultimately evolved from……if not primordial SLIME or ‘SOUP’ or some other such 'Goo'?

Complex self replicating molecules. There was no slime or goo. "Primordial soup" is a metaphor, it wasn't an actually soup JC :rolleyes:

For crying out loud, we have been over this how many times, and you continue to lie about it.

J C wrote:

……so ARE you accepting after all, that God Created all life in one great act of His Divine Fiat Will?:D

Yes JC, praise Jesus! :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

I spent years trying to come up with a theory of Evolution that looked half reasonable……and I failed!!!!

You tried to come up with a theory of evolution. Well that does explain quite a bit. Were you aware at the time that Darwin had already done this, about 150 years ago?

J C wrote:

Unfortunately, convergent Evolution doesn’t explain how large Mammals were present during the so-called 'Age of the Dinosaurs' about 100 million ‘Evolutionist Years’ ago……when Evolutionists claim that Mammals hadn’t yet evolved into anything much bigger than a MOUSE!!!!

Do you understand what convergent evolution is JC? Because it has nothing to do with that?

We will give you a minute to look it up on Wikipedia :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Of course, the fact that preserved dinosaur flesh and blood has been found, indicates that both large Mammals and large Dinosaurs lived TOGETHER very recently indeed!!!!

Lie, lie, lie. Please stop lying. The person who discovered this fossil has already said this is a lie, we have already told you this, please stop lying.

J C wrote:

The common design features supposedly caused by convergent evolution were ACTUALLY the product of a common DESIGNER!!!

That doesn't answer my question. :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Of course God made independent eye designs because He wished to…….and to ensure that Evolutionist claims are even more ridiculous than they would otherwise be!!!!:D

So God is did it to trick humans?

You seem to fall back on that one quite a bit JC. You really don't hold your own God in that high regard.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

[/B]

The truth will set you free.......and sometimes it will also leave you 'gobsmacked'!!!:eek:

ALL. LIFE. UNDER. THE. HEAVENS

Remember that one JC. Interesting how you never answered how life could survive if all life on Earth was wiped out except those in the Ark (fish, plants, bacteria, insects)

Since you are making a fuss about "truth" perhaps we should bring the discussion back to how you lie about what the Bible says ....

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

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 :-

Christianity itself is just one possible religion. What you are doing is proselytisation to a Muslim, or a Hindu, or an atheist. Although I know how it goes:

WE evangelise
YOU proselytise
THEY are religious fantatics

J C wrote:

…..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???

Now, are you welcoming "people who want to become Christians", or trying to persuade people to want to become Christians? I think it is very obvious that it is the latter, not the former - if for no other reason than that you are addressing atheists.

J C wrote:

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

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

Hmm. These are not what you might call standard textbooks, nor are they "standard evolutionist books" - the Origin of Species is of only historical interest, and the rest are coffee-table books. I haven't done more than dip into any of them.

J C wrote:

Equally, making allegations of lying .......and other participants claiming that Creation Science is somehow 'dangerous' ……..when many excellent conventional scientists are Creationists

...few conventional scientists, not many - we've been over this, repeatedly. The best that any creationist has been able to produce is a few hundred names, in the context of millions of scientists.

J C wrote:

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!!!!!

The US has lost edge in the sciences most directly affected by the politics of religion (stem cell research being the best example).

J C wrote:

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!!!!

Oh, sure, but there's a pretty good correlation.

J C wrote:

……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???

I'm not sure how you got there from what I said. Is this by analogy with "creation science" - in which case, the main difference would be that we have scientific, peer-reviewed, articles that debunk this or that aspect of eco-hysteria?

Certainly we are pretty much at "case closed" on the issue of whether humanity currently contributes most of the climate change drivers, but we certainly don't have enough information to "close the book".

As I say, I can't see what you're driving at here - would you care to elucidate?

J C wrote:

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?????

The damaging effects it has on the understanding of science - and thereby on public policy.

J C wrote:

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!!!

And you would be correct to do so. However, it is a falsehood to claim that this is what the Theory of Evolution states, or even that it is part of the Theory of Evolution at all - it's a falsehood, and we've gone well past the stage when you can claim ignorance.

Still, let's state it again, for the record: abiogenesis is not now, and never has been, either part of, or in any way necessary to, the Theory of Evolution. Any science textbook or biology course will confirm this - abiogenesis is the 'muck to early life' bit, and evolution the 'early life to man' bit. The two are separate areas of science.

To state otherwise is to either accidentally or deliberately conflate two separate areas of science - the well-understood and highly provable Theory of Evolution with the very uncertain and speculative hypotheses of abiogenesis.

Continued conflation of the two in the face of repeated explanations and clear statements of the truth, as above, admits of relatively few explanations:

a. that one is unable to understand a statement such as the one above
b. that one doesn't believe the statement given above
c. that one is pretending a or b - the implication being that one has some ulterior motive for so pretending

Now, I believe that you are capable of understanding such a statement. It's not any different from the statement that apples are not oranges.

So, I am left with the conclusion that either you are lying, or that you believe that we are. Either way, you are not in a position to claim to be an injured party, since the most honest possibility open to you is essentially a claim that we are liars.

J C wrote:

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?????!!!!!!

Too low-tech. Anyway, I don't think either of you need worry, since no such science-motivated mob has ever been recorded, that I'm aware of. I'm open to correction, of course, although I hope you can avoid the obvious canard of conflating communism and atheism.

J C wrote:

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 !!!!!:)

Because, as explained above, you're either lying, or think we are. That is at the foundation of the difficulty here - you simply don't think we're telling the truth about science. Unfortunately for you, it is extremely easy to test the truth of our claims - any decent biology textbook will do the job.

J C wrote:

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:

Er, no, since one is a question of method, the other of theory.

J C wrote:

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 !!!!

Sigh. Unkind though it may be to say so, most modern doctors are technical specialists ('technicians' seems a bit too harsh, although it's not inaccurate), not scientists. As long as he or she is capable of accurate diagnosis and correct prescription, a doctor can believe that their remedies are powered b y little green men for all the difference it makes.

J C wrote:

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????

I'd also argue that you can get lucky in a game of cards - and that would have just as much relevance as the comment you have produced above.

J C wrote:

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.

I believe you. I replicated your calculations, and it's very easy to wind up with such an error in such a long series of cells.

J C wrote:

.....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

Indeed - and the most recent Lotto numbers were made up of the ages of several people I know, so I can presumably predict any other set by picking the right ages from my friends!

The problem is not the calculations, but that the calculations bear no relation to the reality. All the calculations prove is that the figure in a spreadsheet cell can be made larger than six billion in a matter of less than 4000 cells - nothing more. It's beermat maths.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

J C wrote:

[/B]
......and I suppose my Cat is descended from a sophisticated Pigeon!!!!:D

.....or does he eat Pigeons???
........when I was an Evolutionist, I was never quite sure which way it was!!!:D

....you have me all confused now!!!!:D

No wonder you stopped studying evolution. It helps if you don't hold the text book upside down as you read.
By the way, where did you find info on the preserved dinosaur flesh? I'd love to see said 'article'. Interesting that I never heard of it. I would imagine it would be big news.

J C

dan719 wrote:

You know I still cannot find 'creation science' underneath any heading such as science, you know the like, the places where you usually find physics and chemistry, with a lot of biology thrown in too. How strange. And how come you have to call it creation science, surely if your 'evidence' made use of the scientific method you could call it science, true of heart and valient.:cool:

Science is the general term for ALL Science......which is divided into various specialist disciplines.
Creation Science scientifically studies Creation........just like Botanical Science studies plants, Geological Science studies rock formations, Medical Science studies medecine, etc., etc.:D

......simple really!!!:cool:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Science is the general term for ALL Science......which is divided into various specialist disciplines.
Creation Science scientifically studies Creation........just like Botanical Science studies plants, Geological Science studies rock formations, Medical Science studies medecine, etc., etc.:D

......simple really!!!:cool:

Hmm. In your haste to bamboozle away the second part of the comment you seem to have confirmed the first part.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ciaran500

J C wrote:

Science is the general term for ALL Science......which is divided into various specialist disciplines.
Creation Science scientifically studies Creation........just like Botanical Science studies plants, Geological Science studies rock formations, Medical Science studies medecine, etc., etc.:D

......simple really!!!:cool:

Except all those other sciences go through the scientific method. Creation science can not since creation science is right no matter what evidence you find.