The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

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.

I really don't know, which came first. We were taught evolution in school as a fact. That came before Bible.

Then I began to read the Bible when I was about 15.

Tried to reconcile the Creation with science over thenext few years, mainly on a philosophical basis as opposd to scientific basis. The science wasn't readily available back in those days.

Then about 15 years ago began to read on creation science a wee bit, and just can not accept the random (I know you don't like that, but if it walks quacks and flies like a duck....it's a duck) coming together of all the complexity of all life from one little organism. Nor can I accept that from non-living, developed lfe. Nor can I accept that out of nothing came, everything.

I'm now at the stage that when I get to Heaven, I can sit down with God, over a good pint and get the full look see at 'How it was done'. And I am prepared for whatever it was.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

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

So, no I'm not lying BC.

If you are stating that as fact, then you are lying.

If you are conjecturing based on your impressions on this board, then I will take this opportunity to correct your misguided impressions. I am in full agreement with the stated definition of science and all aspects of it.

And please consider this a warning regarding your all too frequent use of the word liar directed at other posters.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Then about 15 years ago began to read on creation science a wee bit, and just can not accept the random (I know you don't like that, but if it walks quacks and flies like a duck....it's a duck) coming together of all the complexity of all life from one little organism.

Hmm. The reason we don't like it is because it's not correct (otherwise we'd be promoting a falsehood). We agree that the formation of life was "directed", but we are saying it was directed only in the sense of having to follow natural laws, whereas you say that it was directed by an agent (God, in your case).

When you put a ball on a slope, it has an infinite number of directions in which it can potentially move - but we all know it's going to roll down the slope. Is this random? No, it's 'directed' in the sense of following a natural law - and no amount of JC doing Excel calculations to show that it's incredibly improbable alters that.

hope that helps,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

If you are stating that as fact, then you are lying.

If you are conjecturing based on your impressions on this board, then I will take this opportunity to correct your misguided impressions. I am in full agreement with the stated definition of science and all aspects of it.

Ok, well if you are now then you have changed your position from a few posts ago. And if that is the case I welcome this change.

I doubt that has actually happened though (judging by your follow on posts), and I would imagine your position towards science is the same as it was, that you are "skeptical" as you like to put it, of scientific models that appear to contradict your particular religious beliefs, or your interpretation of certain religions.

You say you have nothing against science, you enjoy the benefits of science but then claim to be "skeptical" of any scientific model that doesn't fit your religious beliefs. That, as has been pointed out many times already, seem to be confusing resulting technology with the methodology that formed the understand that created the technology.

What you are doing is rejecting science, the scientific principle, because the same methodology that allowed for the construction of your computer and car engine results in theories such as evolution.

Being "skeptical" of particular models and the methodology that formed them, while not being skeptical of others, is simply hypocritical nonsense.

If you like I can quote you back your posts if you feel this is misrepresenting your position.

BrianCalgary wrote:

And please consider this a warning regarding your all too frequent use of the word liar directed at other posters.

I direct these charges at only one poster and one poster only because so far he is the only poster that has ever been caught blatantly lying.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Then about 15 years ago began to read on creation science a wee bit, and just can not accept the random (I know you don't like that, but if it walks quacks and flies like a duck....it's a duck) coming together of all the complexity of all life from one little organism.

Evolution claims neither of those things. Life didn't develop randomly, nor did all the complexity of life develop from one little organism.

You would swear we haven't been discussing this for 6876 posts. What part of "Evolution is not a random process" is so difficult to get? :rolleyes:

Some times I think some posters here just want that to be what evolution claims so that they can find it easier to just out right reject it. Heck if evolution did claim that I would reject it. I can only suppose that they fear that if they studied what evolution actually claimed it might actually make a lot of sense and appear simple to them. And that would leave them in quite a pickle.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Nor can I accept that from non-living, developed lfe. Nor can I accept that out of nothing came, everything.

How un-scientific of you (see above post)

Ekancone

BrianCalgary wrote:

I really don't know, which came first. We were taught evolution in school as a fact. That came before Bible.

Then I began to read the Bible when I was about 15.

Tried to reconcile the Creation with science over thenext few years, mainly on a philosophical basis as opposd to scientific basis. The science wasn't readily available back in those days.

Then about 15 years ago began to read on creation science a wee bit, and just can not accept the random (I know you don't like that, but if it walks quacks and flies like a duck....it's a duck) coming together of all the complexity of all life from one little organism. Nor can I accept that from non-living, developed lfe. Nor can I accept that out of nothing came, everything.

I'm now at the stage that when I get to Heaven, I can sit down with God, over a good pint and get the full look see at 'How it was done'. And I am prepared for whatever it was.

Incredulity is not an argument.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. The reason we don't like it is because it's not correct (otherwise we'd be promoting a falsehood). We agree that the formation of life was "directed", but we are saying it was directed only in the sense of having to follow natural laws, whereas you say that it was directed by an agent (God, in your case).

When you put a ball on a slope, it has an infinite number of directions in which it can potentially move - but we all know it's going to roll down the slope. Is this random? No, it's 'directed' in the sense of following a natural law - and no amount of JC doing Excel calculations to show that it's incredibly improbable alters that.

hope that helps,
Scofflaw

You do as always, thanks.

BrianCalgary

daithifleming wrote:

Incredulity is not an argument.

It wasn't an argument, it was a position statement.

MooseJam

Wicknight wrote:

Evolution is not a random process

the changes in an organisms DNA are purely random though right, and then natural selection works it's wonders, I like the idea of random.

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

Evolution is not a random process

the changes in an organisms DNA are purely random though right, and then natural selection works it's wonders, I like the idea of random.

Yup. Mutation is totally random, as far as we know. It's the random input that natural selection shapes into evolution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MooseJam

Scofflaw wrote:

Yup. Mutation is totally random, as far as we know. It's the random input that natural selection shapes into evolution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't know why creations so abhor randomness, I find it the most wonderfull aspect of evolution that out of randomness came I

Galvasean

MooseJam wrote:

I don't know why creations so abhor randomness, I find it the most wonderfull aspect of evolution that out of randomness came I

I think its all about wanting to feel special.
Here are your choices:

1) A loving being of great wisdom created you in his own image. He made you exactly who you are for a reason.

2) You kind of got slapped together randomly. Ergo your existence is a fluke.

Which one is more comforting?

Ekancone

Before creationists get carried away with what you are saying we should clarify this.

Although mutation is random, natural selection means evolution is non-random. Simple as that.

MooseJam

Galvasean wrote:

I think its all about wanting to feel special.
Here are your choices:

1) A loving being of great wisdom created you in his own image. He made you exactly who you are for a reason.

2) You kind of got slapped together randomly. Ergo your existence is a fluke.

Which one is more comforting?

Yea I can see how people who read the bible at 15 would be attracted by option 1, personally I think option 2 deserves more wonder, there's nothing even out of the ordinary in being created by an omnipotent being, it takes more effort for me to make a sandwich.

J C

Son Goku
Except you aren't using the correct maths. Why do you think the logistic map exists?

Whatever about your logistic map, "two plus two always equals four"…….
........and, using a very conservative average fertility rate, that is only marginally above replacement rate would produce the current World population within less than 4,000 years, starting with only two people!!!:D

As to your previus logistic map 'exercise' .... it was obviously based on a population of people who believe that sex is something that you write on a job application form!!!!!!!:eek:


tritium
Since I'm a statistician,………

OK, as you’re a statistician, I’m sure that you then know what an average fertility rate of 2.5 children per woman means. You should equally know what an average generation length of 35 years also means……
……..put the two together and extrapolate them and tell me how many generations it would take to reach 6 billion people…..starting with two people......

……to avoid you taxing your brain cells too much, the answer is 98 generations or ONLY 3,430 years!!!:D


tritium
A useful graphical view of historical view of historical population growth worldwide can be found at
http://desip.igc.org/mapanim.html

…....it is actually a good animated approximation of the Babel Dispersal (with the dates a little 'off') !!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
Well, that's pretty much the same as the chances of getting any other hand, though - and once again you're doing entirely the wrong kind of maths, because evolution doesn't specify the outcome in advance.

Evolution may not specify the outcome……but it would be stopped dead in it’s tracks if it could not produce new FUNCTIONAL proteins when and where it ‘needed' them (to complete a biochemical cascade, for example).

Because we observe protein amino acid sequences to be tightly specified and surrounded by enormous amounts of ‘useless combinatorial space’…….the chances of producing new essential proteins with which to supposedly propel organisms from ‘muck to man’ are effectively ZERO!!!!:D


Scofflaw
I presumed there was such an arrangement in place in this forum, implicit or otherwise, although I may well be entirely wrong.

Its nice to be nice……

……and its nice to see the various churches being nice to each other!!!!

……in any event, the saving work of the Holy Spirit proceeds apace one way or the other!!!!!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
JC, you have no more hope of converting me than you have of spontaneously turning into diamond.

I am NOT trying to convert anybody……I am merely placing God’s Word before anybody who asks …..and whether you decide to be saved or not is entirely a matter between yourself and God.:)

....and interstingly, your Final Judgement will also be a matter between yourself and Jesus Christ!!!


Scofflaw
Really? Showing people the way to Christ doesn't form part of trying to make them Christian? So, er, why do you do it then?

See my previous answer above!!:D


Scofflaw
If they defied the "known Laws of Science" (which I take to be a particularly florid 'Figure of Speech'), then I'm not sure exactly how observations would be scientifically possible.

……and that is WHY Abiogenesis or macro-Evolution has NEVER been observed!!!!:D


Scofflaw
Well, yes, JC, if that cartoon was real, as opposed to being, y'know, a cartoon.

Hmm. I think I'll say that again - cartoon.

It is the message that I am objecting to……the cartoon is merely the medium!!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
If they defied the "known Laws of Science" (which I take to be a particularly florid 'Figure of Speech'), then I'm not sure exactly how observations would be scientifically possible.

……and that is WHY neither Abiogenesis or macro-Evolution has ever been observed!!!!:D

Macro-evolution can't be observed because it's a made-up term by creationists. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a long period of time. It hasn't been observed because it takes a long time.

You seem to be expecting X-Men to happen; that someone, somewhere, will give birth to a blue baby.

Scofflaw
Well, yes, JC, if that cartoon was real, as opposed to being, y'know, a cartoon.

Hmm. I think I'll say that again - cartoon.

It is the message that I am objecting to……the cartoon is merely the medium!!!!

It's a work of satire. That is to say, not real. If you don't believe in evolution, then surely a treatment for the unevolved form of the ailment is adequate?

bonkey

daithifleming wrote:

Before creationists get carried away with what you are saying we should clarify this.

Although mutation is random, natural selection means evolution is non-random. Simple as that.

I'm not sure that you're either clarifying anything, nor that its as simple as that.

Returning to Scofflaw's example of a ball on a hill, we scientific types can agree that the ball will in general roll downhill. It may hit some rocks and bounce back uphill momentarily, its velocity may change...but we can agree that it will roll downhill. This doesn't mean its motion isn't random...merely that we can say that its motion will exhibit certain trends.

Natural selection is a cause. Evolution is an effect. It will have tendencies, but that does not make it non-random.

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Macro-evolution can't be observed because it's a made-up term by creationists. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a long period of time. It hasn't been observed because it takes a long time.

Macro-evolution - even as a makyuppy term that Creationists love - has been observed. It has been indirectly observed, just as much of science is. The problem is that when it has been observed, the Creationist will decry the lack of micro evolution.

We can show that the ball used to be much further uphill. We can show that the ball typically moves slightly downhill between observations. We can explain that on occasion the ball hits a rock and bounces momentarily uphill. We still rely on the individual being willing and able to join the dots and accept that if generall but not universallyy moves incrementally downhill, and that there is evidence that at various points over the past 1,000,000,000 increments it was somewhere progressively back up the hill that these sets of data complement each other and we can conclude that, yes, the ball is indeed subject to the forces of gravity.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

I'm not sure that you're either clarifying anything, nor that its as simple as that.

Returning to Scofflaw's example of a ball on a hill, we scientific types can agree that the ball will in general roll downhill. It may hit some rocks and bounce back uphill momentarily, its velocity may change...but we can agree that it will roll downhill. This doesn't mean its motion isn't random...merely that we can say that its motion will exhibit certain trends.

Natural selection is a cause. Evolution is an effect. It will have tendencies, but that does not make it non-random.

Or, to put it yet another way, each step is random, but the overall effect often has identifiable trends - like a drunk walking across a landscape - tending to go downslope on hills (the 'landscape' here is fitness, each step is a mutation, and the drunkard is any organism).

However, these trends in themselves are the results of fluctuations in the fitness landscape, some caused by the random walks of every other organism - so we'll make that a rubbery landscape in an earthquake...

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter

bonkey wrote:

Macro-evolution - even as a makyuppy term that Creationists love - has been observed. It has been indirectly observed, just as much of science is. The problem is that when it has been observed, the Creationist will decry the lack of micro evolution.

Ah, I stand corrected.

I assume that you mean that we've seen and can see how one species eventually becomes several, but we've never seen a pig give birth to a dog. Am I in the right ballpark?

J C

Scofflaw
Snelling is certainly a liar. A liar, a fool, and a man who believes that others are as foolish as he is. As an example of a "Creation Scientist" he is a good demonstration of why "CS" papers constantly fail peer review.

Dr Snelling is an honourable man and a competent scientist!!!!
Your abusive comments about both myself and Dr Snelling indicates that your case for Evolution is so hopeless .......that all you can do is make increasingly shrill and ridiculous personal remarks.........

challenge the facts.....IF you can .........be robust in your defence of Evolution ...IFyou can......
.......but stop the unfounded personal remarks!!!

Every man has a right to his good name and the Christianity Thread should be the last place where such unfounded abusive behaviour should be tolerated!!!!


Scofflaw
When you put a ball on a slope, it has an infinite number of directions in which it can potentially move - but we all know it's going to roll down the slope.

……What does a ball obeying a simple law of Physics on a slope, have to do with the origins of LIFE???

Could I remind you that it doesn’t matter where the ball actually ends up……and it is always a ball at the end of the process…..
………..whereas ALL living processes are tightly specified with chemical cascades of hundreds of exact sequential and split second complex interactions at a molecular level.:eek: :cool:


Moosejam
the changes in an organisms DNA are purely random though right, and then natural selection works it's wonders, I like the idea of random.

……Natural Selection wouldn’t just be working ‘WONDERS’ if it produced ANY improvements from selecting between mutations…….it would be working ‘MIRACLES’!!!!:eek:

.....and I always thought that Atheists didn't believe in miracles....but I guess they MUST!!:D

Scofflaw
Mutation is totally random, as far as we know. It's the random input that natural selection shapes into evolution.

…Mutation ‘rubbishes’ information …….and then NS selects from the ‘rubbished’ information……..sounds like a great system to ‘shape’ muck into man alright !!!:D ......do you also believe that you can spin Gold from straw as well, perhaps????:D


The Mad Hatter
If you don't believe in evolution, then surely a treatment for the unevolved form of the ailment is adequate?
…..but I DO accept that the Natural Selection of pre-existing genetic information occurs …..and therefore improved antibiotic therapies ARE required to cure antibiotic resistant varieties of TB!!!


Originally Posted by J C
You see, Humans have this habit of preserving their dead by generally burying them…..indeed respect for the dead is one of the things that makes us Human…….
………and these projections clearly show that you would be literally tripping over graves and skeletons across the face of the Earth IF Humans were around for the millions of years that Evolutionists claim.

Scofflaw
Except that preservation is both rare and quirky. Again, this is rather well-known. Really, JC, this has to be one of the weakest arguments in the creationist armoury. We know that bodies can be preserved from the Celtic Iron Age, but we're not tripping over them either.

Not only do Humans respect their dead by generally burying them……they also generally respect the burial sites as well……so let’s look at the approximate scale of Human burial that would have occurred IF Evolutionists are correct that Humans have been on Earth for the past 4 million or so years…….

If we assume an average generation interval of 35 years then 114,286 generations of Mankind would have come and gone over 4 million years.

…..and if we assume a reasonable worldwide population of Hunter-Gatherers of 100 million people per generation this would mean that a grand total of 11.5 Million Million people would have lived and died over the past 4 million years.

……and they would be buried in 11.5 million million graves, each measuring about 2 square metres. The total area under graves would therefore be 23 million million square metres or roughly TWICE the area of the European landmass!!!

As burial sites occupy an infinitesimally small fraction of the total land area of Europe, we can safely conclude that Mankind has been around for an equally infinitesimally small percentage of 4 million years…..probably less than 10,000 years actually!!! :cool:

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Ah, I stand corrected.

I assume that you mean that we've seen and can see how one species eventually becomes several, but we've never seen a pig give birth to a dog. Am I in the right ballpark?

The really critical question is have you EVER seen a pig give birth to ANYTHING other than a PIG????:eek:

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

The really critical question is have you EVER seen a pig give birth to ANYTHING other than a PIG????:eek:

No, of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

The theory of evolution never suggested that a pig could give birth to something other than a pig. This is where that whole 'gradual' thing about evolution that you seem to find so hard to comprehend is important. I'm not going to bother explaining the theory to you again, it's been restated dozens if not hundreds of times on this thread already.

As to 'Dr Snelling is an honourable man and a competent scientist', well, you're almost 50% correct.

Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter wrote:

bonkey wrote:

Macro-evolution - even as a makyuppy term that Creationists love - has been observed. It has been indirectly observed, just as much of science is. The problem is that when it has been observed, the Creationist will decry the lack of micro evolution.

I assume that you mean that we've seen and can see how one species eventually becomes several, but we've never seen a pig give birth to a dog. Am I in the right ballpark?

That's pretty much it. The problem is that 'kind' has never been defined in any objectively applicable way, so the "Creation Scientist" is free to shift the boundaries of "macro" and "micro" evolution as they like.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote:

The theory of evolution never suggested that a pig could give birth to something other than a pig. This is where that whole 'gradual' thing about evolution that you seem to find so hard to comprehend is important.

A change so GRADUAL that it cannot be seen .....how very convenient .....'a pig in a poke' ....if ever I saw one !!!:eek:

......and how may I ask, did a pig evolve from pondslime IF "the theory of evolution never suggested that a pig could give birth to something other than a pig"????..... :eek:

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote:

As to 'Dr Snelling is an honourable man and a competent scientist', well, you're almost 50% correct.

Dr Snelling doesn't need your mealy-mouthed half-baked endorsement.......just stick to debating Evolution......and keep the personal remarks to yourself!!!!:(

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

A change so GRADUAL that it cannot be seen .....how very convenient .....'a pig in a poke' ....if ever I saw one !!!

......and how may I ask, did a pig evolve from pondslime IF "the theory of evolution never suggested that a pig could give birth to something other than a pig"????.....

Scofflaw wrote:

That's pretty much it. The problem is that 'kind' has never been defined in any objectively applicable way, so the "Creation Scientist" is free to shift the boundaries of "macro" and "micro" evolution as they like.

In the light of JC's response, I amend the above to "part of the problem" - perhaps even to "a minor part of the problem compared to intellectual ineptitude".

editorially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Dr Snelling doesn't need your mealy-mouthed half-baked endorsement.......just stick to debating Evolution......and keep the personal remarks to yourself!!!!:(

Why? Snelling's duplicity is (a) provable, and (b) relevant. If he is a liar (and it's provable he is from only the two cases I have cited, both of which are in turn referenced earlier in this thread), then your citation of him in defence of your position is meaningless, since he is known to lie about the very kind of things you cite him on.

As to the actual charges - lying is hardly honourable, and it is certain that Snelling is not a competent scientist, since the use of spoil-heap material for dating purposes is either extremely incompetent or deliberate fraud, neither of which allow for the interpretation "competent scientist". Scarily, he isn't even a very competent fraud, because his deceptions can be seen immediately on reading the references he claims to be 'debunking'. I will allow, of course, the presumption of his sex.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

Dr Snelling doesn't need your mealy-mouthed half-baked endorsement.......just stick to debating Evolution......and keep the personal remarks to yourself!!!!:(

Hardly mealy-mouthed, I only used eight words aside from the quote, and none of them were over two syllables. Not exactly half-baked either: I chose my words very carefully.

As to the actual problem, Scofflaw's answered it quite nicely.

BrianCalgary

OK gang. Lets keep the personal insults down. Including insulting those that aren't even here.

It is rather unbecoming of an educated group. Thanks.

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Snelling is not a competent scientist, since the use of spoil-heap material for dating purposes is either extremely incompetent or deliberate fraud, neither of which allow for the interpretation "competent scientist". Scarily, he isn't even a very competent fraud, because his deceptions can be seen immediately on reading the references he claims to be 'debunking'. I will allow, of course, the presumption of his sex.

Snelling's real 'crime' was sending in rocks of KNOWN young age and getting old radiometric ages back from the labs!!!

Your idea that ALL Creationists are liars AND frauds would appear to be an amazing situation ..........surely several thousand people of different religious backgrounds wouldn't ALL be liars and frauds?????......while simultaneously ALL Evolutionists are 'sqeaky clean' upstanding citizens ......

go 'pull the other one'.........and debate the facts and the conclusions and keep the personal remarks to yourself!!:(