The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Quote Scofflaw
The increase is very considerable. For example, the vault height of the plague skulls were 80mm, and the modern ones were 95mm - that's in the order of 20% bigger, which is really rather a lot."

He suggests that the increase in size may be due to an increase in mental capacity over the ages.

Might explain the growth in secularism

Might also explain why 85% of Americans are Creationists

Equally it might just be because of improved nutrition and health due to the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions!!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Quote Scofflaw
The increase is very considerable. For example, the vault height of the plague skulls were 80mm, and the modern ones were 95mm - that's in the order of 20% bigger, which is really rather a lot."

He suggests that the increase in size may be due to an increase in mental capacity over the ages.

Might explain the growth in secularism

Might also explain why 85% of Americans are Creationists

Equally it might just be because of improved nutrition and health due to the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions!!!

Alas, the measurements were done in the UK. And there's no link between cranial vault sizes and nutrition, I'm afraid. Otherwise, good comeback.

BrianCalgary

006 wrote:

What about priests?Do you think that they should be given the option to get married and have marital sex ?.Surely all priests should be given the choice whether to remain celibate or not.Should this be considered especially in the light of the the amount of sexual defiancy/abuse cases that have been come to public knowledege recently?

It is a humans most basic primal urge to be sexual,and to keep these urges pent up inside you cannot be the good for anyone?

I firmly believe that priests should be allowed to marry. If the RC church won't allow it, maybe it is up to the man to go minister in another church, as opposed to the Rc's changing their rules.

I agree we have urges, and God has given us a way to relieve those urges, within the marriage context.

Scofflaw

Charis wrote:

In this discussion I was wondering if anyone has mentioned some of the debate and new findings surrounding Mt. Saint Helens in the United States. I saw a very boring program a couple of years back with some interesting facts. Some of the findings would change how science dates and looks at things. For example the way the volcano cut through rock and the river going through it. Previously science would have stated this took thousands of years but after observing Mt. Saint Helens they know that to be incorrect. Also, previously when dating the earth and looking at the way there were levels of forests scientists might have stated there were 27 different forests. After Mt. Saint Helens they realized that the way the logs settled it could appear to be over large periods of time but they knew that wasn't accurate based on the observation of the erruption. Well here is a web site love to hear others' thoughts. http://www.ac18.org/research/Origins/MSH.htm

The author: Dr. Austin is Chairman of the Geology Department in the ICR Graduate School (the Institute for Creation Research).

Hmm. I'll tell you what I'll do - I'll see if I can find a non-Creationist source covering the Mount St. Helens eruption. Thin volcanic beds are not news, neither are rivers cutting down into soft sediments. Catastrophic sedimentation, as I've already said, is known in the record, which is partly how we know that most of the record does not consist of catastrophe sediments.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

I'm going to be a dickhead and ask you to show me a derivation of that mathematical impossibility.

I'm just going to laugh. I wonder if JC actually looked at the link, or read the text? I presume he thinks our transitional forms would have drowned (an 'argument' that most people dropped in the 1800's).

Charis

I agree with Brian. BTW the RC idenitifies Peter as the first Pope. If it all based on Peter there is one slight problem, he was married not celibate. Jesus healed his mother-in-law, you have to marry to have a mother-in-law, Matthew 8:14-17, Mark 1:30-31 and Luke 4:38-41. Correct me if I am wrong, but it reads as though Peter's wife was living. I know of some priests who have left the priesthood and married. Certainly we have the one currently in the news who left to be with his baby and the mum.

Scofflaw

JC,

I appreciate your responses to my examples. However, I did ask if you would offer me the Creationist/ID explanation for the same observations, which you have done, I think, in a couple of cases.

I'm afraid your dismissal of transitional human forms as 'diseased humans' and 'fakes' will not hold water, given the rather splendid collection of ancestral bones the anthropologists have collected over the years. Nor will your bold inclusion of Homo neanderthalis in H. sapiens sapiens, which certainly overturns all our understanding of what it means to be human. But then, what less could be expected of someone who doesn't see any cultural progress since Newgrange? Perhaps for you, it's true, but I can assure you I am living in the 21st Century!

Although I certainly don't expect an honest answer, might I ask anyway if you are genuinely sure that there are, say, only a few purported relics of earlier human forms, and that these really are diseased humans and fakes? That is, that you are genuinely unaware that you are not addressing the actual evidence?


amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Charis wrote:

I agree with Brian. BTW the RC idenitifies Peter as the first Pope. If it all based on Peter there is one slight problem, he was married not celibate. Jesus healed his mother-in-law, you have to marry to have a mother-in-law, Matthew 8:14-17, Mark 1:30-31 and Luke 4:38-41. Correct me if I am wrong, but it reads as though Peter's wife was living. I know of some priests who have left the priesthood and married. Certainly we have the one currently in the news who left to be with his baby and the mum.

I thought it was generally accepted that the RC church introduced priestly celibacy in the 11th century to prevent the inheritance of church lands by priests? I don't think it ever had much justification outside the interests of the church corporate.


cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Cool! I got the 500'th post, and less than two weeks later, up comes the 700'th -- we must be getting somewhere, if we're going at this speed, mustn't we? Should reach 1,000 by JC's first boards.ie birthday.

> [JC] I also took Geology as a subject in my NUI degree course.

Specializing in flat earth, I hope! Something confirmed by the worthy Isaiah when he said the earth is a circle!

> [Son Goku] I'm going to be a dickhead and ask you to show me a derivation of that mathematical impossibility.

I'll save JC the hassle of pulling some figures out of a horse's fundament and point you towards any of these fine postings from around a year ago:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2420720#post2420720
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2434736&postcount=78
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2438807&postcount=95
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2456105&postcount=183

Note that the only difference between JC then and JC now is that his caps-lock key is now broken -- presumably from overuse.

Morbert

To pass the time as I wait for a response to my post on page 32, I might as well correct the misconceptions you have laid out here.

J C wrote:

The ‘flood sediments’ that you speak of, from the end of the Ice Age are just that. The Ice Age came directly after Noah’s Flood because of a ‘Nuclear Winter’ type effect due to the enormous quantities of dust and steam released by the Flood Event itself.

Nope. Again you're omitting important facts to portray an illusion of sound geological studies. Any heat absorbed by steam from the flood would be quickly released back into the atmosphere when the vast quantity of steam, a the quantity needed to cool the earth, condensed. Steam is simply not capable of carrying away such a vast amount of resultant heat. And why isn't such a rapid process actually refelcted in the ice-core samples (in the form of thermal stress fractures, air bubbles etc.) Why do oxygen isotope ratio variations in ocean floor sediments mirror Milankovitch cycles (i.e. Why do the sediments reflect multiple iceages at times exactly predicted by the Milankovich model of the earth's orbit?

J C wrote:

Commercial Limestone is indeed very pure and the ‘eroded fissures’ where the ‘fountains’ of subterranean waters emerged are indeed still there – buried underneath many Limestone formations and coming to the surface in limestone caves.
Many Limestone caverns run deep underground and they show that enormous quantities of water once issued forth through these chambers. The typical small streams currently running through many enormous caverns are clearly not capable of creating such structures. The smooth walls of many caves also show water pressure patterns that indicate that they were formed by the rapid passage of huge quantities of water – rather than by the slow erosion of ‘trickling streams’.

What? Ignoring stability issues (which are extremely important nevertheless), where would all the massive volumes of carbonic acid needed for such rapid erosions come from? There's nowhere near enough on earth. No matter how fast the water is travelling, you'd need ridiculous amounts of Carbonic acid.

And we still run into the problem of where all the heat goes.

J C wrote:

The age of Limestone Caves have also been grossly over-estimated by using stalactite lengths as a guide. I was amazed to once be told by a Geologist that the 10 cm stalactites in the roof of a particular cave took hundreds of thousands of years to form.
I asked him to explain why stalactites in excess of 10 cm can be freely observed on 19th Century limestone railway bridges if it actually takes hundreds of thousands of years to form such structures.
He didn’t provide any answer!!!

The chemical reaction is completely different, as stalactite formation from artificial structures like railway bridges involves calcium hydroxide (as opposed to calcite), which produces much faster stalactite formation. This is due to the heating processes used to make the cement/mortar.That's why you find such rapid formations on bridges etc, but not in dug out tunnels. And again, analysis of Oxygen isotopes in such stalactites reflects predicted iceages.

JC wrote:

The Human Brain and a Water Melon are both 95% water – but that extra 5% makes ALL the difference!!!
So too with Chimp and Human DNA.

Slime Mould contains a protein that has gene sequences that are almost identical with Human Haemoglobin – does this mean that we are closely related to slime moulds – or would you think that a Slime Mould ‘transfusion’ would be a good idea?

I think you're missing the point. Namely:

But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.

If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.

"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted

J C wrote:

I can confirm that Whales CONTINUE to be a puzzle that evolution is unable to explain.

Whales are a good example of enormous Irreducible Complexity (versus land animals). There are a multitude of fundamentally different physical and physiological systems required by any land based animal who would “return to the sea” as postulated by evolution. The production of even ONE of these systems using undirected processes is mathematically impossible – it would be like trying to ‘solve’ a Rubik Cube while blindfolded – only a lot worse!!.

You say you can confirm it, and then you go on to do everything but confirm it. Please provide references to the mathematics.

J C wrote:

The so-called Human ‘missing links’ have been variously found to be diseased Humans, apes or, in the case of Nebraska Man, an extinct pig and in the case of Piltdown Man, a hoax!!

What? Are you serious? Are you trying to dismiss the vast amount of evidence as mistakes and hoaxes? Would you like me to point out various cases which don't fit your dismissal.

This is an example of “Lousy” Micro-evolution in action – i.e. the Natural SELECTION of different PRE-EXISTING Louse genetic information to produce different VARIETIES of Lice.

It's been well established that Macro-Evolution and Micro-Evolution use the same mechanism. You've tried to argue that a mechanism is lacking in Macroevolution, but I've told you that mutations are perfectly capable of (and have been observed to) adding benificial information to a species. (See my post to you on page 32)

JC wrote:

Advances in our understanding of embryology means that recapitulation is now regarded as totally invalid (even by evolutionary scientists).

The Whale Lice WOULD show similar lineages to Whale lineages as described by you – but the REASON is that they have been ‘Naturally Selected’ in parallel with the Whales over the past 6,000 years – and NOT because of any Macro evolutionary processes.

You're right about recapitulation, but you've still simply described evolution and dubbed it "Microevolution".

J C wrote:

We know that all Human Beings are fully Human and descended from ONE original man and woman – so there is NO scientific basis for the assertion that ‘Island Dwarfs’ or any other aboriginal people are not fully Human.

Equally, Neanderthal Man is also now known to be a ‘fully paid up member’ of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

I told you that all humans *alive today* are descended from one human woman. This statement does not include dead people*, so neither Neanderthal Man, nor Homo florensis fit into that statement. And regarding aboriginal people, yeah, they belong to our species, though I'm not sure Scofflaw was claiming they don't.

So regarding Neanderthal Man and being a "fully paid up member of the species". No study that I know of reflects this assertion. If you have references to such a study I'd be very interested.

*Note: I'm using the term "people" to include all hominids

J C wrote:

And there are quite a number of equally qualified palaeontologists who KNOW that ALL birds had BIRD ancestors!!!

Claiming that Archaeopteryx is a ‘Feathered Dinosaur’ has just about as much scientific validity as claiming that an Ostrich is a ‘Feathered Camel’.

Archaeopteryx was a BIRD – and not a ‘feathered Dinosaur’.

There were actually FLYING Dinosaurs, such as the Pteranodon – but they were no more like Birds than a Bat is.

Our "digital" labelling system is to blame, as we find it hard to categorise transition species. But the fact remains that it is a transition fossil and the labelling of it is unimportant and is nothing more than a word game in taxonomy. And anyway, there is a string of transitional fossils between birds/reptiles out there, such as Protarchaeopteryx and Sinovenator.

J C wrote:

Creation Science predicts that an elegant, orderly genetic mechanism would be used by a Common Creator across all of life – and this is in fact the case, as you have confirmed.

On the other hand, Macro evolution (as an undirected information generating system) would predict a wide divergence in genetic mechanisms paralleling the divergence in phenotype mechanisms observed in different life forms – but this ISN’T the case.

Why does creation science make such a prediction? Surely a creator would be free to use as many methods as he likes. Some might appear orderly to us, some might appear ungainly etc. Why is a creator obliged to build life in a manner that we consider elegant?

And your Evolution prediction is hilarious, and shows a complete lack of understanding of even basic genetics. (Misunderstandings I am completely willing to "iron out" if you care to listen).

Scofflaw

Clarifications:

1. "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" has indeed been abandoned. However, generally, if a structure pre-dates another structure in evolutionary terms, then it also appears earlier than the other in the embryo. Species which have an evolutionary relationship typically share the early stages of embryonal development and differ in later stages.

2. I wasn't for a second claiming that any known living people are not H. sapiens - nor do I see how such a construction could possibly be placed on my remarks!

2a. JC is actually claiming descent from Adam and Eve.

3. To clarify on the stalactites - under railway bridges these are normally derived from the mortar, not the limestone.

4. At least the prediction that "an elegant, orderly genetic mechanism would be used by a Common Creator across all of life" is a prediction. Possibly it could be applied in a general sense - that God's work will be elegant and orderly?


cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Quote Scofflaw
Alas, the measurements were done in the UK. And there's no link between cranial vault sizes and nutrition,

There is actually no link between intelligence across a wide range of cranial vault sizes.

Even though my original comments were somewhat ‘tongue in cheek’, there are many other issues ‘in play’ as well as NS when you are comparing the physical characteristics of a plague-infested half-starved Medieval population with today’s over-fed and under-worked specimens.


Quote Scofflaw
I'll see if I can find a non-Creationist source covering the Mount St. Helens eruption

No doubt you will – but the evidence from Mount St Helens is overwhelming and it completely contradicts most of the assumptions upon which ‘long ages’ Geology rests.


Quote Scofflaw
Thin volcanic beds are not news, neither are rivers cutting down into soft sediments

Do you therefore accept that overspill waters cutting through soft sediments before their petrification formed the Grand Canyon?


Quote Scofflaw
Catastrophic sedimentation, as I've already said, is known in the record,

Qualifies as the ‘under-statement of the century’ – given the fact that most sedimentary rock was formed by the distinctly CATASTROPHIC Noah’s Flood!!!


Quote Scofflaw
I wonder if JC actually looked at the link, or read the text? I presume he thinks our transitional forms would have drowned

I saw no evidence of any transitional CONTINUUM on the link – merely four land animals and seven whales!!!

Actually a seal is a better ‘intermediate’ animal than Ambulocetus – but nobody is suggesting that seals are intermediate between Whales and land animals

In summary, Ambulocetus was Amulocetus, Seals are Seals and Whales are Whales – and none of them has the potential to EVER be anything else!!!
And NO, I don’t think that transitional forms would have drowned – they simply could never have arisen by undirected means, in the first place.


Quote Scofflaw
Hopefully you've seen this: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html.

An interesting and thought-provoking paper (Journal of Religion & Society Vol 7 2005)

I would draw particular attention to the following statements in this paper:

”Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions.”
In other words definitive conclusions CANNOT be made between religion and social conditions because of the complexity of the causal factors of societal function.

“The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science.”
This indicates that societies CANNOT combine high rates of religion with a belief in evolution. Theistic Evolutionists may wish to take note of this conclusion as a possible contributory factor to the rapid decline that is currently underway in their churches.

The following statement from this paper is also self-evident to both Creationists and Secular Evolutionists, but may have escaped the attention of Theistic Evolutionists:-
“By removing the need for a creator, evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter.
Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favour of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly.”

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

...And most important of all, humans have a long and proven history of becoming idiots when things turn religious.

I agree. The whole thing seemed as phoney to me as those Morris Cerullo miracle crusades.

No, should it? This is common practice in Tibetan monasteries. The purpose of this world to a Buddhist is Bodhisattva, a Buddha cannot exist on this earth (see my post in Buddhism Forum re Nirvana) The very act of becoming a Buddha cuts the ties to this world.

I was just wondering about the material aspect of it - if one is able to survive without food and water for months (I take it that is what is claimed for the Buddha), then that is either an advance on previous abilities of man, or just a rarely tapped intrinsic ability in homo sapiens. I am ignorant of the 'theology' of Buddhism, so pardon my ramblings. I am aware of the New Age concept of the Omega Point for mankind, so thought it might have Buddhist roots.

J C

Is it my computer - or what has happened many of the postings on pages 34 and 35?

robindch

In case any thread readers are still alive at this point, Horizon is doing a special on Creationism this evening at 2100h on BBC2. Dawkins and Attenborough are included, so I think it's probably safe to say that our fundamentalist colleagues are going to get a good roasting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/programme.shtml?day=today&service_id=4224&filename=20060126/20060126_2100_4224_19494_50

.

Morbert

J C wrote:

Is it my computer - or what has happened many of the postings on pages 34 and 35?

I assume you can see mine.

Right?

Scofflaw

JC,

you have still not posted your Creationist/ID explanation of the points I raised, or stated any predictions that it would make that could be tested.

J C wrote:

There is actually no link between intelligence across a wide range of cranial vault sizes.

You are of course correct (at least as far as I am aware). My original comment is also not serious!

JC wrote:

...the evidence from Mount St Helens is overwhelming and it completely contradicts most of the assumptions upon which ‘long ages’ Geology rests.

It isn't, you know. It's not like geologists are somehow surprised by the idea that volcanoes deposit sediments rapidly!

JC wrote:

Quote Scofflaw
Thin volcanic beds are not news, neither are rivers cutting down into soft sediments

Do you therefore accept that overspill waters cutting through soft sediments before their petrification formed the Grand Canyon?

No, because they aren't examples of that process - they're examples of a river cutting down through an uplift of solid rock. Honestly, just because the Grand Canyon is so steep, it really seems to confuse people...

JC wrote:

Quote Scofflaw
Catastrophic sedimentation, as I've already said, is known in the record,

Qualifies as the ‘under-statement of the century’ – given the fact that most sedimentary rock was formed by the distinctly CATASTROPHIC Noah’s Flood!!!

If you believe that load of horse-tripe, I have a bridge I can sell you...

JC wrote:

I saw no evidence of any transitional CONTINUUM on the link – merely four land animals and seven whales!!!

And NO, I don’t think that transitional forms would have drowned – they simply could never have arisen by undirected means, in the first place.

Begging the question again. Do stop assuming that what you want to prove is correct. It is clearly impossible for you to look at evidence for evolution - you actually cannot see it, because you are so strongly held by your a priori position that the world is Created.

That pretty much sums up the debate on this thread - it is not possible for science to persuade you, because you do not believe in it. You assume that the same is true of scientists (that we hold 'evolutionism' as a faith), because you cannot conceive of how anyone can turn away from what is clearly (to you) the Truth except by adherence to another (incorrect) faith.

My friend, you do in fact live in a created world, but I think you have created it yourself!

JC wrote:

In other words definitive conclusions CANNOT be made between religion and social conditions because of the complexity of the causal factors of societal function.

Yes - I did say at the time I posted that the statistical correlation is not a causal link. I think you're going a bit further than that, and attempting to deny that there is such a correlation, which there clearly is. Again, you must learn the terminology!

JC wrote:

This indicates that societies CANNOT combine high rates of religion with a belief in evolution. Theistic Evolutionists may wish to take note of this conclusion as a possible contributory factor to the rapid decline that is currently underway in their churches.

I would take issue with your apparent conclusion that a belief in evolution is responsible for a decline in attendance. Allow me to quote from a local source: "In other words definitive conclusions CANNOT be made between religion and social conditions because of the complexity of the causal factors of societal function."

JC wrote:

The following statement from this paper is also self-evident to both Creationists and Secular Evolutionists, but may have escaped the attention of Theistic Evolutionists:-
“By removing the need for a creator, evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter.
Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favour of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly.”

And this is essentially what the argument is about, isn't it? You argue against evolution because you would like to turn the tide of public opinion. I argue against Creationism because I do not wish to see the light of secularism go out.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

In case any thread readers are still alive at this point, Horizon is doing a special on Cretinism this evening at 2100h on BBC2. Dawkins and Attenborough are included, so I think it's probably safe to say that our fundamentalist colleagues are going to get a good roasting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/programme.shtml?day=today&service_id=4224&filename=20060126/20060126_2100_4224_19494_50

.

Is that a typo?

Charis

Scofflaw wrote:

I thought it was generally accepted that the RC church introduced priestly celibacy in the 11th century to prevent the inheritance of church lands by priests? I don't think it ever had much justification outside the interests of the church corporate.


cordially,
Scofflaw

My apologies. I have learned something new! I often wondered about the celibacy thing because of things I heard about the early popes and kids. Thanks, I stand better educated.

Respectfully,
Charis

Asiaprod

JC,
Here is an interesting bit that appeared on CNN web site today. I would draw your attention to the two points. I am sure you will have an answer re the age issue, but how about the statement that it evolved more than once. I am puzzled by this. How do you account for it? Am actually interested in your answer as I have never heard of double evolution, and creationism does not mention it.
Fossil hunters make rare find in basement

Thursday, January 26, 2006 Posted: 2002 GMT (0402 HKT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A toothless, two-legged crocodile ancestor that walked upright and had a beak instead of teeth was discovered in the basement of New York's American Museum of Natural History, according to a report published on Wednesday.
The 210 million-year-old fossil had sat in storage at the museum for nearly 60 years and was found only by accident, the paleontologists said.The animal is interesting because it closely resembles a completely unrelated dinosaur called an ostrich dinosaur that lived 80 million years later, they report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a British science journal. "A lot of people, from seeing (the film) Jurassic Park know what an ostrich dinosaur looked like," said museum curator Mark Norell. "This is a case of convergence with the ostrich dinosaur. It evolved more than once." The six-foot-long (2 meter) fossil is an archosaur, an extinct type of animal that includes the ancestors of dinosaurs, crocodilians and birds. It lived in what is now New Mexico, in the southwestern United States.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/01/26/fossil.archosaur.reut/index.html

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

I was just wondering about the material aspect of it - if one is able to survive without food and water for months (I take it that is what is claimed for the Buddha), then that is either an advance on previous abilities of man, or just a rarely tapped intrinsic ability in homo sapiens.

I honestly think wolfsbane that all these stories from all the belief systems get exagerated over time. Was it Jesus on John the B who fasted for 40 days in the desert? I think we have to give all these claims a little slack. I mean, I know that the body requires food and water to survive. If it did not, dieting would be easy and I could loose a few pounds. I also know that a little sustinence can go a long way. I also know that Yoga is very powerfull in the hands of an expert and Ram is accredited as being hot stuff in this department. Your point on rarely tapped intrinsic ability in homo sapiens is a very interesting point indeed, and if true, could also be used to explain this. For me the telling points are as mentioned he is occasionaly coverd from view with a blanket and they will not let any medicel examination to take place.

I would, as a Bddhist, love it if it were true. I am not holding my breath though. IMHO its a scam, probably we will find out that it was initiated by his mum. India has more religiouse scams going on there than in the whole rest of the world. I believe that it has to do with the poverty and desperation resulting from their cast system. And religion, as we all know too well, is just the fertile arena in which to operate scams, right? Deperate people grasping at any straw to better their lot here or in their next existence.

I am ignorant of the 'theology' of Buddhism, so pardon my ramblings. I am aware of the New Age concept of the Omega Point for mankind, so thought it might have Buddhist roots.

Haha, dont worry, I am too. Consider yourself pardoned. Thanks to Boards i.e. I seem to be making some progres though. Amazing where inspiration springs from. I know very little about the Omega Point, I always thought it was a phrase used to describe the aim towards which consciousness evolves; that evolution was a process converging toward a final unity. Is this what you are refering? Does sound somewhat Buddist, but I have never come across it. Maybe I know it under a different name.

J C

Quote Morbert
The chemical reaction is completely different, as stalactite formation from artificial structures like railway bridges involves calcium hydroxide (as opposed to calcite), which produces much faster stalactite formation. This is due to the heating processes used to make the cement/mortar.That's why you find such rapid formations on bridges etc, but not in dug out tunnels.

Calcite is actually Calcium Carbonate and it is found in stalactites formed from BOTH Limestone and Mortar Cement.

The availability of Calcite is sometimes greater in Mortar than in Limestone rock – and therefore the rate of formation of stalactites can be greater under railway bridges than in tunnels.

I fully accept that stalactite formation in caves has taken about 5,000 years, while their formation under 19th century bridges has obviously taken less than 150 years.

Different stalactites in caves also have different rates of formation depending on local Calcium Carbonate availability and water seepage patterns. Cave stalactites vary from 10 cm straw-like structures to 10 metre formations that resemble small trees – but they are ALL roughly 5,000 years old. Stalactite size or length therefore has no correlation with their age.

.

Quote Morbert
It's been well established that Macro-Evolution and Micro-Evolution use the same mechanism.

It certainly HASN’T!!!

Could I use an analogy from Robotics.

It is observed that the construction of Robots is ultimately due to the applied intelligence of Human Beings – this is analagous to the Creation of life by God – and if Macro-evolution were true it would be analogous to a box of screws and a blob of plastic spontaneously forming a robot.

ONCE sophisticated self-programming robots ARE CREATED by Humans they are potentially capable of making new robots (reproduction) and indeed developing different applications (genetic diversity) due to their sophisticated PRE-PROGRAMMED software. They are even capable of learning and perfecting their reactions in response to environmental stimuli. This aspect is analogous to Micro-evolution.

Human i.e. EXTERNAL INTELLIGENT input is required to produce the FIRST robots. However, once produced the really sophisticated ones may be capable of leading an autonomous existence, without any further direct input by Humans

Similarly with life – sophisticated living organisms required an EXTERNAL INTELLIGENT input at their creation.
Once produced they are obviously capable of leading an autonomous existence without any further physical external intelligent input.


Quote Scofflaw
Do stop assuming that what you want to prove is correct. It is clearly impossible for you to look at evidence for evolution - you actually cannot see it, because you are so strongly held by your a priori position that the world is Created.

Unlike evolutionists I DON’T have any a priori SCIENTIFIC position – I merely examine the overwhelming EVIDENCE for Creation and I note the complete absence of evidence (and indeed even plausible theoretical mechanisms) for Macro evolution.



Quote Scofflaw
I would take issue with your apparent conclusion that a belief in evolution is responsible for a decline in (church) attendance.

I did say that it was a CONTRIBUTORY factor – obviously there are significant other reasons that are also contributing to the decline.


Quote Scofflaw
And this is essentially what the argument is about, isn't it? You argue against evolution because you would like to turn the tide of public opinion. I argue against Creationism because I do not wish to see the light of secularism go out.

Essentially that is what it seems to becoming for evolutionists.

However, I do think that secularism is a somewhat broader philosophy than a narrow belief in evolution.
I therefore don’t think that secularism will disappear if evolution is found to be invalid.


Quote Asiaprod
A toothless, two-legged crocodile….

A toothless crocodile !!!

I’m not surprised that this particular mutant didn’t survive the rigours of NS!!!!


Quote Morbert

Original Quote by JC

The production of even ONE of these systems using undirected processes is mathematically impossible – it would be like trying to ‘solve’ a Rubik Cube while blindfolded – only a lot worse!!.
You say you can confirm it, and then you go on to do everything but confirm it. Please provide references to the mathematics.

Could I answer you by reviewing Prof Dawkins concept of ‘Mount Improbable’ which attempts to explain the ORIGIN of living systems.

Prof Dawkins freely accepts that the complexity of basic living systems, such as proteins, means that they cannot be produced by undirected processes in ‘one step’ so to speak. He likens this to a sheer cliff face on one side of ‘Mount Improbable’ which he accepts as impossible to ‘scale’ in one ‘jump'.

Prof Dawkins then claims that what is actually impossible in one large ‘jump’ can be achieved by many small incremental 'steps' that he likens to a gradual slope around the back of ‘Mount Improbable’.

The basic underlying idea of ‘Mount Improbable’ (evolution by small incremental steps) is not new – in fact, it is the main mechanism of Darwinian Evolution as proposed by Darwin himself.

Unfortunately for Prof Dawkins and Darwin, I have bad news for them.
The discovery of Critical Amino Acid Sequences by Molecular Biology has ruled out the ‘scaling’ of ‘Mount Improbable’ by gradual incremental steps.

The only way that this ‘baby’ can be ‘climbed’ is ‘the hard way’ by a full frontal assault on the sheer cliff face – i.e. by the appliance of massive intelligence and creative power aka Special Divine Creation.

Let me explain by way of example:-
We observe that complex life forms use various proteins to perform very specific functions and these proteins are observed to be, in turn tightly specified themselves. In fact, the discovery of Critical Amino Acid Sequences proves that whole sections of the amino acid chains that form particular proteins have to be in the EXACT sequences observed, for the protein to have ANY useful effect.

This means that NS cannot blindly ‘work up’ to the ‘correct’ sequence to produces a desired important effect – it is all or nothing – like the cliff face.

For example, if a putative primitive life form had succeeded in producing 10 ‘correct’ amino acids in a chain for a particular 100 chain protein that it needed to perform a particular useful function – this wouldn’t result in 10 % functionality – it would be ZERO. Even if it had 99 ‘correct’ amino acids it would still be totally useless – it would require the full 100 to ‘hit the jackpot’ of functionality.

In order for NS to select ‘improvements’ these must be expressed phenotypically – i.e. 10 amino acids giving 10% functionality, 11 giving 11%, 12 giving 12%, etc. IF this were the case NS MIGHT be able to progress ‘upwards and onwards’ to the 100 amino acids required for full functionality – but this is NOT the case.

The ‘gradual slope’ at the back of ‘Mount Improbable’ DOESN’T EXIST – and therefore ‘Mount Improbable’ is actually ‘Mount Impossible’!!!

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

It does not lay out the resultant postulates which are to be tested. How can we test that some irreducible system can only arise from intelligent design? (Especially when we have perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanations)

By showing how evolutionary means would account for such complexity. You say you have those: Iders say you do not.

And evolution is not random chance. I suggest you double check your sources.

Excuse my brevity. Random chance operating on natural forces any better? Or are you saying the radiation and chemical changes in the supposed primal soup were being directed?

They're wrong. That's how the scientific community has accounted for them. They have been reduced to repeating the same refuted arguments in the hope that people sympathetic to their cause will ignore the fact that they have been refuted and conflate the whole thing to give the image of controversy and debate where there is none. This is not just opinion, it has been demonstrated that they are wrong by the scientific community.

Now this is where the stark truth emerges. By your argument these Creationist scientists cannot just be wrong, ie. mistaken in their understanding of the scientific facts. They know they are wrong - having been shown their error by the 'scientific community', yet they continue to make their claims. They are liars, deceivers.

Are you listening, my Theistic Evolutionist brethren? These brethren are either telling you what they sincerely believe to be the scientific facts, or they are lying to you. If the former, then the scientific debate is not over, Creationism is a valid scientific argument. If the latter, then these men are not brothers at all, but liars on their way to hell. How say you?

Well then it seems you have no platform left to stand on. If you are not willing to recognise the failure of ID and its followers then that's your own problem. The bottom line is neither you, nor any IDer, from Behe to Dembski, has presented a testable scientific theory of ID. Nor has any IDer presented an objection to evolution (i.e. The irreducible complexity argument) which still stands.

They say it stands; you say it doesn't.

So to boil it all down, the only argument you have left is that ID must be valid because some people say it is (Which of course is no argument at all).

You don't seem to be willing to investigate it further. You claim it is a matter of opinion, yet when people try to show you why it isn't a matter of opinion you shrug and say: "Hey, I'm just a lay person, there are those who disagree with you." which is a meaningless stance.

I'm not saying it is merely a matter of opinion and should not be tested. Quite the reverse. The 'some people' are as qualified to make their judgement as their opponents. You assert the IDers have been refuted. They say they have not. You want all of us to accept your assessment of the scientific arguments: but these other scientists want us to accept their's. My point is that neither you nor I can insist that the case is beyond debate when scientists oppose one another on it. Yet that is what you wish to do.

So here's my advice to you. Go out, learn about the postulates and tenets of evolution, learn about Intelligent design, and learn about the reasons behind the methodology of science. Because if you aren't willing to roll up your sleeves and learn about the issue, then you have no place defending it.

I have no intention of becoming a scientist - life is too short, I have more important things to do, and I don't have the brain-power. I have learnt enough to realise when I'm being taken for a ride by scientism, science with an ideological agenda. Therefore I am entitled to speak up when I see others trying to shut down the debate.

I read the scientists whom I respect as brothers in Christ, and am not going to call them liars and trust the word of unbelieving scientists who have many pressures on them to assume the current consensus, or ignore the facts, or even to plainly lie about them.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Specializing in flat earth, I hope! Something confirmed by the worthy Isaiah when he said the earth is a circle!

You didn't consider 'circle' might be the same as saying 'circumference'?

J C

Quote Asiaprod
A lot of people, from seeing (the film) Jurassic Park know what an ostrich dinosaur looked like," said museum curator Mark Norell. "This is a case of convergence with the ostrich dinosaur. It evolved more than once

Some questions come to mind:-

1. Is this a case of ‘Art imitating Life’ or is it the other way around?

2. Did ‘Ostrich Dinosaurs’ die out because they spent too much time with their heads stuck in the sand - thereby needlessly exposing their loins to the 'tender mercies' of 'Lion Dinosaurs'?

3. If you evolve more than once does this make you a Creationist?


Quote Robin
Horizon is doing a special on Creationism this evening at 2100h on BBC2. Dawkins and Attenborough are included, so I think it's probably safe to say that our fundamentalist colleagues are going to get a good roasting.

Excellent program, nobody got roasted – all in all a fair and reasonable presentation of the facts by both sides of the debate.

robindch

> You didn't consider 'circle' might be the same as saying 'circumference'?

Hardly worth it, because he said "circle" and not "circumference". A bit like when he said elsewhere that the earth is a flat square. Who knows? Perhaps modern geography just wasn't his thing, just like modern biology was a bit of a mystery to the guy who nicked the story of Genesis from the Sumerians and called it his own?

> these Creationist scientists cannot just be wrong, ie. mistaken in their understanding
> of the scientific facts. They know they are wrong - having been shown their error by
> the 'scientific community', yet they continue to make their claims. They are liars, deceivers.

Indeed -- and Judge John Jones said exactly this in his written judgement:

Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses [...] testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible [...] ID proponents distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument. [...] the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy [...] who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

I'm glad to see that you understand how you're being lied to.

.

robindch

> Excellent program, nobody got roasted

Except for the creationists of course! Don't forget everything said by the two pseudo-scientists who lead the "intellectual" wing of the ID movement was shown to be nonsense, as helpfully pointed out by the same Mr Behe a couple of months ago, when asked about how much evidence he has to support his position:

There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.

And of course, there was that very nice chap from the Discovery I]sic[/I Institute, Mr Meyer, whose sticky little fingers were publicly roasted when his PR company was discovered to have fed Cardinal Schönborn his article for the New York Times! Even the Vatican's man said that he was disgusted at that deception!

All in all, I must say that the creationists didn't come out looking like the moral übermenschen they pay so much money to look like!

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

You didn't consider 'circle' might be the same as saying 'circumference'?

No, I think you have to read it literally.


cordialy,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

However, I do think that secularism is a somewhat broader philosophy than a narrow belief in evolution.
I therefore don’t think that secularism will disappear if evolution is found to be invalid.

True enough. On the other hand, if you take the Bible literally, and use it as a basis for society or science, you won't have much of secularism left. From that point of view, ID (Creationism's Trojan Horse) is a Trojan Horse itself. Sort of a Trojan Russian Doll Horse thing, or whatsit.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Are you listening, my Theistic Evolutionist brethren? These brethren are either telling you what they sincerely believe to be the scientific facts, or they are lying to you. If the former, then the scientific debate is not over, Creationism is a valid scientific argument. If the latter, then these men are not brothers at all, but liars on their way to hell. How say you?

It's a little obscure who you're referring to here. From the context I take it that you are putting up a stark choice (or claiming that Morbert is) - that those who argue for Creationism are either liars or right?

Once again, all the complexity of human life, thought, and frailty reduces to a black-and-white choice in your simplified universe. Have you considered this range of options:

1. some Creationists are lying consciously
2. some are unable to understand the science
3. some are unable to understand the evidence
4. some are consciously lying to themselves, and unconsciously to others
5. some are unconsciously lying to themselves, and unconsciously to others
6. some sincerely believe the facts to be other than they are
7. some Creationists are right

For example, I believe JC to be entirely sincere, and totally misguided. He cannot see transitional forms, whereas I (and 99.9% of other scientists) do. This is not because he is lying, it is a feature of his world-view. To JC, a whale is a whale is a whale - either something is a whale, or it is not. It is not therefore possible for JC to see something that it is in transition, because, to JC, everything is in a finished form. This is 'paradigm blindness' (which I think is one of the things that Zen enlightenment cures you of), and it's normal.

You, on the other hand, are at least in category 5, but your claims of being in category 2 make me suspect a category 4 error. I think you have the mental flexibility to understand both the evidence and the science, but choose not to look because it would require abandoning your belief in the Bible (although other people have survived the transition).

The worst thing is that even here, you have assumed your argument again! It is quite possible for Creationists to be "telling you what they sincerely believe to be the scientific facts", and for them still to be wrong (category 6). There still isn't a scientific argument about Creationism, even if the handful of scientists who hold to it sincerely believe that they are dealing with the facts, because they are not.

Faith may move mountains, but it does not make a mistake a fact.

regards,
Scofflaw