The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

By which logic, you must conclude that either God is because God is, or because a Master Designer made God so.

Indeed. But the concept of God necessitates the former, whilst that of the material world the latter.

Quote:
From our experience of life, design seems to be the more probable explanation.

And so you should believe that God was designed...

However, here I'm willing to bet that you can find why your logic shouldn't apply....despite your inability to do so regarding the origins of the universe.

I'm also willing to bet that you can't actually form a solid argument which could explain why this reasoning doesn't apply to God without also allowing that it doesn't apply to the very thing you've just applied it to - the origins of the universe.

As I said above. The solid argument is the concept of God itself: the eternal, self-subsisting One. This is what the Bible claims of Him. This is the Ultimate Cause Christians argue brought the material universe into existence. There is no logical reason this God would have a cause.

Surely everything displays "His eternal power and Godhead" by your reasoning/ It all comes from the same designer, and is the result of the same design. The barely-detectable blinking of a stranger in the street standing 50m away from you is as much a display of God's eternal power and Godhead as an eclipse is, so why single one out for awe, rather than just saying we should be constantly aweful of everything?

It is all indeed God's handiwork, but it hardly needs saying that there is a vast difference in how our minds are impacted with the common-place/extraordinary; complex/simple; massively powerful/weakest. For example, a cloud/eclipse; flower/stone; erupting volcano/bubbles in a swamp.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:
You want to equate the cause 'god in the clouds makes it rain' with the ultimate cause of all things.

No, I'm equating the thinking "There must be a purpose to the rain" with the thinking "There must be a purpose to the universe"

You are saying that there must be an over all cause for everything, otherwise nothing make sense. That, as we have said, is Bronze Age thinking.

Its not really your fault, its the way human brains work. We, for some evolutionary reason, have a hard time visualising or imagining things happening without injecting purpose or meaning into what is happening.

So when it rains we instinctively wonder "Why is it raining on me now"

When we lose are car keys we get mad at the car keys for being lost.

Most modern people of course dismiss that thinking as silly. Bronze age man didn't, and invented complex reasons why they thought it was happening, for example raining on them, and what purpose that rain held.

It is think type of thinking that we are talking about. There is no reason why the universe requires a purpose, any more than there is a reason why your keys go missing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Bronze age man seems to have been less gullible than you.:D

Well when was the last time you gave out to your keys for losing themselves.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scientists who are Christians find it quite the reverse. The more one discovers, the more one is convinced it is the result of a Great Designer rather than time and chance. Even Theistic Evolutionists would agree with that.

I'm going to have to take very slight issue with that - the use of the term "Great Designer" in this context should not be taken to indicate that other Christians necessarily support Creationism.

wolfsbane wrote:

In the same way Big-Bangers dismiss alternative theories of cosmology, yet are not thought to be operating a double-standard. Evolution is one theory of the origins of today's biosphere; Intelligent Design is another. Scientists who hold to the latter find no double-standard.

I have no problem calling Evolution scientific, in that it advances scientific arguments in its favour, even though I find them wanting. I expect Creation Science to be accorded the same respect.

Which it is, unfortunately for itself.

wolfsbane wrote:

I do of course recognise the inherent prejudice that infects all men, including scientists, and inclines them to rubbish those who disagree. Creationists have touched a raw nerve in many scientists, since if it is correct not only will some scientific theories have to be abandoned but also it makes it possible that there is a God to whom all must give account. Very uncomfortable.:eek:

Huge numbers of scientific theories - we havebeen over this.

wolfsbane wrote:

To support my allegation of inherent bias, consider this:
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

wolfsbane wrote:

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Sound familiar?

It is, in certain ways, very similar to your own complaints. There are such problems from time to time in every field, where a model is excessively dominant. However, that does not make Creationism any more scientific a theory - it's identical to a criminal claiming that because people have been wrongfully accused, he is therefore being wrongfully accused.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

An eclipse is more awe-inspiring than any other object casting a shadow by virtue of what, exactly? Its rarity or, perhaps, its scale? In any case, it is no evidence of the existance of a deity, Christian or otherwise.

Incidently, anyone remember the solar eclipse in Ireland a couple of years ago? Entirely underwhelming. I certainly don't recall people being 'in awe' of it. I believe the headlines in the tabloids the next day were something along the lines of: "The Eclipse - Wasn't it Weird?"

Shadow puppets ftw.

You don't feel any difference between a shadow cast by a cloud and one by a total eclipse? Rarity, yes. Scale, yes. And it being up there. All rather attention-grabbing.

We didn't get a total eclipse up here. Perhaps those of you who did and felt nothing feel the same about sunsets, Niagra Falls, a Monet, etc. Just light, water, paint. Scientific naturalism in its naked glory.:D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is no logical reason this God would have a cause.

If there is no logical reason why God requires a cause with purpose, then what is the logical reason that the universe requires a cause with purpose?

I mean its entirely possible that something caused the universe to form. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that that something was an intelligence that caused the universe to form for any purpose or reason.

The argument that there must have been a purpose being that cause doesn't hold precisely for the same reason that you can imagine a God just existing.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just light, water, paint. Scientific naturalism in its naked glory.:D

The "just" is important.

The idea that such beauty can form from natural, some one say simplistic, forces is far more impressive than the idea that God or some other all powerful being did it.

Considering that God can do anything at will what exactly are we supposed to be impressed at?

Its like reading a wonderful essay written by a 10 year old boy and then finding out that actually his dad wrote it and his dad is an English teacher. Instantly the level that someone is impressed by that drops significantly.

Things are more impressive when the systems that create them are themselves simple. When you start talking about beauty caused by natural processes, you are talking about truly impressive amazing things.

God is at the far opposite end of that scale.

Nothing God does is impressive in anyway because God can, by definition, do anything and everything he likes with no effort. How can anything God do be impressive?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perhaps those of you who did and felt nothing feel the same about sunsets, Niagra Falls, a Monet, etc. Just light, water, paint. Scientific naturalism in its naked glory.:D

Some appreciate beauty more than others. Therefore, God exists.

I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote: »

And rotational invariance is because...?

Think about it, I think you just made that response on automatic. That question actually makes no sense and not in some subtle way.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Note the 'also' before 'pictures of the partial judgements'. I was not saying they are only warnings of the coming Judgement. They convey something of God's majesty to the minds of the beholder - what that strikes there depends on one's conscience toward God.

Yeah, but still you don't really know if they have anything to do with judgements at all, even if God exists.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

This is such nonsense I don't know where to begin. First of all in Cosmology there is a certain amount of funding which goes into the field. Roughly 95% of this goes into observational equipment. 5% goes to the salary of theorists. The observational equipment will just observe what it observes and the theorists can theorize about what they want. So I can't really understand in what sense the "Big Bang" theory is funded. Some people just enjoy inventing conspiricies.

Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

This is nonsense as well. Unfortunatly I think the best way to illustrate this is a anecdotal story, apologies as it is not exactly a strong argument. I literally observed a PhD student talking about what she percieves as a weakness in the current cosmological model with a professor yesterday and there was none of this "remain silent" stuff. All this Ivory Tower crap is just that, made up crap.

The problem with any non Big Bang theory has been known for a long time. To explain gravity you have to explain the equivalence principle, which is the fact that locally gravity looks just like a generic acceleration. Any theory which accounts for this predicts that early on the universe expanded from a small region, i.e. a Big Bang.

If there is anybody attempting to make a theory of gravity which doesn't imply a Big Bang, you'd need to tell me how you work in the equivalence principle.

Zombrex

Son Goku wrote: »

Some people just enjoy inventing conspiricies.

Nail on head TBH.

As they like to say on the Internet -

“The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working”

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Think about it, I think you just made that response on automatic. That question actually makes no sense and not in some subtle way.

Let me simplify it for you then. The Laws of Science exist. Either they just do so, or they were caused. You seem to be arguing the former. The issue is what/Who is the utlimate cause.

Yeah, but still you don't really know if they have anything to do with judgements at all, even if God exists.

The Bible says one of the purposes of the heavenly bodies is as signs. Not necessarily always of judgement (star of Bethlehem, for example), but can be so:
Matthew 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is such nonsense I don't know where to begin. First of all in Cosmology there is a certain amount of funding which goes into the field. Roughly 95% of this goes into observational equipment. 5% goes to the salary of theorists. The observational equipment will just observe what it observes and the theorists can theorize about what they want. So I can't really understand in what sense the "Big Bang" theory is funded. Some people just enjoy inventing conspiricies.

Well, I don't want to enter a spate amongst evolutionists, be they Big-Bangers, Arpians, QSSers or otherwise. The New Scientist obviously thought it worthy of consideration rather than your dismissive contempt. You are exhibiting the exact behaviour the statement complains of.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me simplify it for you then. The Laws of Science exist. Either they just do so, or they were caused. You seem to be arguing the former. The issue is what/Who is the utlimate cause.

What logical reason is there to believe that the ultimate cause was intelligent and created the universe for a purpose?

And if there was a purpose what logical reason is there to believe that we are that purpose?

Again, Bronze Age thinking. It is the guy going outside to a job interview and cursing the rain for deciding to start just as he is walking outside.

robindch

Wolfsbane -

Out of interest, does everything have a meaning or an intention for you?

ie, when somebody bumps into you at the supermarket, or a tree falls down in your garden, or a dog runs out on the road in front of you, or a friend of yours falls sick, or you get promoted at work, or you feel the wind blowing (etc, etc, etc) that every event carries a special or significant message or a meaning of some kind?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me simplify it for you then. The Laws of Science exist. Either they just do so, or they were caused. You seem to be arguing the former. The issue is what/Who is the utlimate cause.

Right, the laws of science maybe, but what has that to do with rotational invariance?

Well, I don't want to enter a spate amongst evolutionists, be they Big-Bangers, Arpians, QSSers or otherwise. The New Scientist obviously thought it worthy of consideration rather than your dismissive contempt.

You should write period dramas given the amount of emotion you instill into things. Some how thinking a statement is "silly" is converted into "dismissive contempt". (I also have no ideawhat an Arpian is.)
I think the New Scienctist article is inaccurate because people discuss flaws in standard cosmology all the time and nobody cares or judges them. They aren't labelled as crackpots and many of them have professorships.

You are exhibiting the exact behaviour the statement complains of.

Really? Where? Quote a passage, where I display contempt for criticisms of the Big Bang. I don't think you actually read what I said.

Again:
The problem with any non Big Bang theory has been known for a long time. To explain gravity you have to explain the equivalence principle, which is the fact that locally gravity looks just like a generic acceleration. Any theory which accounts for this predicts that early on the universe expanded from a small region, i.e. a Big Bang.

If there is anybody attempting to make a theory of gravity which doesn't imply a Big Bang, you'd need to tell me how you work in the equivalence principle.


If people actually read what is written in textbooks and really did a study of the field instead of imagining that it's some kind of medieval priesthood for no reason, then maybe the could make a comment of some merit. Maybe I should give it a shot?

Let's see, I think all Christian churches are funded by the tobacco industry. My only evidence is my vehemence and outrage. Oh and vague implications, I find them really handy when my nemisis "the counter-argument" appears.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I'm going to have to take very slight issue with that - the use of the term "Great Designer" in this context should not be taken to indicate that other Christians necessarily support Creationism.

That's why I included Theistic Evolutionists. They do not suscribe to what is known as Creationism, but they most certainly believe the Universe originated with a Creator/Great Designer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I have no problem calling Evolution scientific, in that it advances scientific arguments in its favour, even though I find them wanting. I expect Creation Science to be accorded the same respect.

Which it is, unfortunately for itself.

Really? I thought the Evolutionary establishment refused to treat it as any sort of science, insisting it is religion (thus enabling them to gag any debate).

It is, in certain ways, very similar to your own complaints. There are such problems from time to time in every field, where a model is excessively dominant. However, that does not make Creationism any more scientific a theory - it's identical to a criminal claiming that because people have been wrongfully accused, he is therefore being wrongfully accused.

All I'm saying is the jury should be permitted to hear all the evidence, instead of the judge telling them this man can't be believed and his arguments don't hold water. Let the jury decide, not the establishment. Let the prosecutor ridicule the arguments and the defence defend them.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

No, I'm equating the thinking "There must be a purpose to the rain" with the thinking "There must be a purpose to the universe"

If there is no logical reason why God requires a cause with purpose, then what is the logical reason that the universe requires a cause with purpose?

Just to stop us talking at cross-purposes: I haven’t mentioned purpose. We are talking about cause.

You are saying that there must be an over all cause for everything, otherwise nothing make sense.

Yes.

That, as we have said, is Bronze Age thinking.

Really? Then have you changed your mind when you say in a later post, “I mean its entirely possible that something caused the universe to form“?

I mean its entirely possible that something caused the universe to form. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that that something was an intelligence that caused the universe to form for any purpose or reason.

Purpose, as distinct from cause is another matter. I don’t see how science can address purpose, whereas it strongly supports the idea that everything has a cause. Religion addresses the purpose issue.

The "just" is important.

The idea that such beauty can form from natural, some one say simplistic, forces is far more impressive than the idea that God or some other all powerful being did it.

The impressionable, simplistic mind may well think so, but the more rational mind would find that quite implausible.

Considering that God can do anything at will what exactly are we supposed to be impressed at?

It takes the special, unusual to bring home to us that such a God as you have described exists.

Its like reading a wonderful essay written by a 10 year old boy and then finding out that actually his dad wrote it and his dad is an English teacher. Instantly the level that someone is impressed by that drops significantly.

If the essay was truly so wonderful - and not just an adult quality found unexpectedly in a child’s writing - then one would want to know the brilliant author.

What logical reason is there to believe that the ultimate cause was intelligent…

Incredible complexity points to design, design to a Designer.

and created the universe for a purpose?

Most designers have a purpose for their creations. Logic suggests that is so for the universe also. But it is religion that addresses the issue, not science.

And if there was a purpose what logical reason is there to believe that we are that purpose?

Because we are the evident pinnacle of this universe. Again, this logical reason can only be confirmed by religion.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

All I'm saying is the jury should be permitted to hear all the evidence, instead of the judge telling them this man can't be believed and his arguments don't hold water. Let the jury decide, not the establishment. Let the prosecutor ridicule the arguments and the defence defend them.

Well science isn't a democracy.

Just because you, or 5 million evangelical Americans, decide one day that you don't like the theory of evolution, or the theory of the big bang, for religions reasons doesn't mean that you still therefore have an automatic right to have any "alternative" theories you guys come up with treated with the same level of respect in scientific communities.

At the end of the day the simple fact, that cannot be white washed by all this talk about censorship or oppression, is that Creationists do not have the science to back up their ideas. That is simply the way it is. You don't have to science to back up your religious ideas.

There is no actual getting around that, and all this talk about censorship or oppression is simply a smoke screen to shift the topic away from actually looking at the science, or lack of, behind Creationism.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Wolfsbane -

Out of interest, does everything have a meaning or an intention for you?

ie, when somebody bumps into you at the supermarket, or a tree falls down in your garden, or a dog runs out on the road in front of you, or a friend of yours falls sick, or you get promoted at work, or you feel the wind blowing (etc, etc, etc) that every event carries a special or significant message or a meaning of some kind?

Commonly, No. Exceptionally, Yes. For example, say I was in desperate need of £55.50 and a blue plastic bin-liner. I pray for God's help. Shortly after, a friend from another town calls by and gives me £55.50 wrapped in a blue bin-liner. That I would take to have meaning and intention beyond the normal.

So the common-place events do not carry that quality.

But again I must flag this up: EVERY event has meaning and intention, as all events have been predestined by God from eternity past. They all work out His plan. It is just that normally we are not to draw any significance from one more than the other.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

At the end of the day the simple fact, that cannot be white washed by all this talk about censorship or oppression, is that Creationists do not have the science to back up their ideas. That is simply the way it is. You don't have to science to back up your religious ideas.

Sounds exactly like the treatment accorded to the dissenting cosmologists, shown in the New scientist statement. Wouldn't it be more honest to accuse us of having faulty science, flawed arguments, etc., rather than insisting it is all religion and therefore refusing to scientifically debate it?

For the scientific arguments advanced by Creationism, you have plentiful resources, e.g:
http://trueorigin.org/
http://creationresearch.org/
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/
http://www.icr.org/

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Right, the laws of science maybe, but what has that to do with rotational invariance?

Isn't rotational invariance a property in quantum mechanics? It is not part of the laws of nature?

You should write period dramas given the amount of emotion you instill into things. Some how thinking a statement is "silly" is converted into "dismissive contempt".

This is such nonsense I don't know where to begin.
Some people just enjoy inventing conspiricies.
This is nonsense as well.
All this Ivory Tower crap is just that, made up crap.
Sounds dismissively contemptive to me. But if you tell me you weren't using dismissive contempt, I'll accept that. We obviously use language a bit differently.

(I also have no ideawhat an Arpian is.)

Someone who holds to Arp's concept of the universe; for example, that quasars are not vastly distant objects but are rather infant galaxies being ejected from parent galaxies.

I think the New Scienctist article is inaccurate because people discuss flaws in standard cosmology all the time and nobody cares or judges them. They aren't labelled as crackpots and many of them have professorships.

But that is true about evolution - they question various details, but do not question the total concept. When we do, we are labelled as crackpots. So too with these cosmological dissenters. They are questioning not just details about the Big Bang, but the Big Bang itself.

If people actually read what is written in textbooks and really did a study of the field instead of imagining that it's some kind of medieval priesthood for no reason, then maybe the could make a comment of some merit. Maybe I should give it a shot?

The scientists in the Creation organisations do exactly that.

Let's see, I think all Christian churches are funded by the tobacco industry. My only evidence is my vehemence and outrage. Oh and vague implications, I find them really handy when my nemisis "the counter-argument" appears.

If you produced the accounts of these churches and of the tobacco industry and found a lot of co-relation between deposits and withdrawals, you might suggest it more than an appearance of design, but definitely designed to fund puppet regimes.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote: »

Isn't rotational invariance a property in quantum mechanics? It is not part of the laws of nature?

It's like saying that God designed a circle not to be a square. I'm not sure what it means to say that.

This is such nonsense I don't know where to begin.
Some people just enjoy inventing conspiricies.
This is nonsense as well.
All this Ivory Tower crap is just that, made up crap.
Sounds dismissively contemptive to me. But if you tell me you weren't using dismissive contempt, I'll accept that. We obviously use language a bit differently.

Yes, I think the idea that this happens is ludicrous, because there is loads of evidence to the contrary. (I don't hold contempt for it, contempt is a very extreme emotion.) That's what I'm dismissing, the silly making up of conspiracies. That isn't the attitude the article is discussing, it's discussing prejudice against non-Big Bang ideas and I have not displayed that. Unless you can point out where I have?

When we do, we are labelled as crackpots. So too with these cosmological dissenters. They are questioning not just details about the Big Bang, but the Big Bang itself.

Yes, but:
The problem with any non Big Bang theory has been known for a long time. To explain gravity you have to explain the equivalence principle, which is the fact that locally gravity looks just like a generic acceleration. Any theory which accounts for this predicts that early on the universe expanded from a small region, i.e. a Big Bang.

If there is anybody attempting to make a theory of gravity which doesn't imply a Big Bang, you'd need to tell me how you work in the equivalence principle.

Whenever these theories make numerical predictions they turn out wrong. They've been wrong for years. Yet the proponents just ignore this and claim there is a conspiracy against them.
This is the age old problem. Nobody particularly liked the Big Bang or favoured it to begin with. However, it is now the only theory which still matches the evidence. People from completely different backgrounds and different faiths have all confirmed this. It isn't a bias, that's just it. This is what I can't stand about conspiracy theories, they are never wrong. No matter how weak the "underdog's" argument is, it is always taken that the underdog is infact correct and the establishment is out to opress him.

The scientists in the Creation organisations do exactly that.

I have never seen a Creation Scientist indicate they know the first thing about the Big Bang or General Relativity.
Here is a challenge:
Two of the main pieces of evidence for the Big Bang are quadratic corrections to Hubble's Law and Aniostropies in the CMBR. Find me a single Creationist paper that discusses them and gives an alternative explanation, because I've searched and never found one. I've asked JC for one and never recieved one. If these are pillars of the Big Bang model then surely a knowledgable Creationist somewhere will have discussed them.

If you produced the accounts of these churches and of the tobacco industry and found a lot of co-relation between deposits and withdrawals, you might suggest it more than an appearance of design, but definitely designed to fund puppet regimes.

How can I produce the accounts when the tobacco industry has them? More Tobbocist Christianist dogma. To all objective parties it would appear that I'm raving about something with no evidence. This proves that they're biased and I'm right. The only alternative is I'm wrong and that's impossible.

(Why do I have a winky guy at the top of this message?)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Sounds exactly like the treatment accorded to the dissenting cosmologists, shown in the New scientist statement. Wouldn't it be more honest to accuse us of having faulty science, flawed arguments, etc.,

Well thats exactly what I mean, having faulting science is "not having the science" to back up your theory.

Creationists can certain dress their theories up in what they claim is "science", but as I said its not a democracy. Just because a Creationists claims to have done the science to support his theory doesn't mean he actually has, or that his unsupported theory should be taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community.

wolfsbane wrote: »

rather than insisting it is all religion and therefore refusing to scientifically debate it?

Its nothing to do with being a religion, its to do with being bad science.

The religion bit only comes in when one starts to examine why someone would hold on to this is it is such bad science.

And the vast majority of the time it turns out that the reason the scientist is pushing a particular Creationist theory is because of religious reasons. Which explains why someone would push bad science.

Show me an atheist creationist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

For the scientific arguments advanced by Creationism, you have plentiful resources, e.g:

Please pick out the scientific models from those websites.

We have already asked JC and yourself to do this any you haven't been able.

Myself, Son, bonkey, Scofflaw have regularly asked to see a scientific model of how Creationists claim the universe was created and operates, we have been asking this pretty much constantly throughout this entire thread.

All we ever seem to get is papers attacking evolution :rolleyes:, as if demonstrating evolution is wrong would some how validate or even create a Creationist model of the universe.

I want to know the theories that attempt to explain what happened where in the universe. Scientific models attempt this, with theories such as the Big Bang, that attempt to explain various properties of the universe, such as the fact it is expanding.

Either Creationism doesn't do this, or you guys haven't been able to find who is doing this. Either way I'm not impressed.

As I said, just because someone dresses up their theories doesn't mean it is good science.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

But that is true about evolution - they question various details, but do not question the total concept. When we do, we are labelled as crackpots. So too with these cosmological dissenters. They are questioning not just details about the Big Bang, but the Big Bang itself.

"Questioning the whole concept" is exactly what Creationists do. There are two main problems with this approach:

1. it is clear that the concept is being a priori rejected as clashing with Genesis.

2. to disprove the "whole concept" of evolution you need to show that it has no explanatory force - that is, cannot be falsified, and/or explains nothing in any material way. The same for the Big Bang.

Mere rejection does not disprove anything.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

But again I must flag this up: EVERY event has meaning and intention

Thanks. I ask because I'm beginning to conclude that every religious person assumes intention to a greater or lesser degree when interpreting what's happening around them. The idea that there is, or even that there could be, a non-intentional, physical reality out there, Son Goku's eclipses for example, is discarded in favor of intention. It seems that the universe is believed to be a meaning-pump for the benefit of the observer.

In the context of this thread, you'll therefore be unable to accept that genetic information is passed essentially in a random way (details omitted!) from parents to children. Hence, the basis for evolution -- differential reproductive success based upon random variation -- is impossible, simply because of the (incorrect) axiom that you start out with.

Sad to say it, but as long as you continue to assert the primacy of intention, it seems unlikely that you'll understand much outside human politics.

Parsley

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because we are the evident pinnacle of this universe. Again, this logical reason can only be confirmed by religion.

We are the evident pinnacle of this universe?! Why...?

Scofflaw

robindch wrote: »

Thanks. I ask because I'm beginning to conclude that every religious person assumes intention to a greater or lesser degree when interpreting what's happening around them. The idea that there is, or even that there could be, a non-intentional, physical reality out there, Son Goku's eclipses for example, is discarded in favor of intention. It seems that the universe is believed to be a meaning-pump for the benefit of the observer.

In the context of this thread, you'll therefore be unable to accept that genetic information is passed essentially in a random way (details omitted!) from parents to children. Hence, the basis for evolution -- differential reproductive success based upon random variation -- is impossible, simply because of the (incorrect) axiom that you start out with.

Sad to say it, but as long as you continue to assert the primacy of intention, it seems unlikely that you'll understand much outside human politics.

...fallacies of teleology and agency....

what, this hobby horse?
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Parsley wrote: »

We are the evident pinnacle of this universe?! Why...?

For comparison, look at JC's claim that the difference between life and non-life is "intuitively obvious" and "requires no explanation". These are the roots of the tree of Creationism.

A vast number of arguments in law, morality, religion, and science can after very brief examination be found to contain the implicit claim that we are the best thing ever. You can also adjust the value of 'we' there to be more or less exclusive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Wicknight
I have already copied something, nonintelligently, with error, and produced a sentence that contains exactly the same information as the original.

Let me demonstrate again -

after school I walked home

school after I walked home

home school walked I after

I after home school walked

home walked I after school

I school after home walked

I walked home after school

There, finished. A randomly generated sentence that is different from the original (a copy error) that contains the same information as the original.

What you produced was an INTELLIGENTLY generated sentence that is different from the original but contains the same information as the original……..something like what happens throughout living systems actually……and which science (correctly) labels as ‘bio-diversity’!!!:D

However, you DIDN’T produce a RANDOMLY generated sentence ……and if you doubt me, please use this ‘Random Mutation Generator’ to find out what your sentence would look like IF you HAD produced a randomly generated sentence!!!

http://www.randommutation.com/index.php:eek:


daithifleming
It must take a huge effort to ignore the evidence there is to support the view that there may not be a God. I mean every single step forward in science is a step backwards for the big man himself. Is there ever going to be a stage where theists look at the mountain of evidence before them and just think: 'Ok, the jig is up'. How do you do it? How do you allow yourself to conviently ignore a certain selection of science (such as evolution) while obviously believing in others, such as the medicine we have all taken at times in our life. How is it possible to live in such a double standard?

The quantity and quality of biological information systems are such, that an agent of inordinate intelligence and power must have produced them…….and the more science finds out about living systems, the greater is the accumulated evidence in favour of a divine origin for life!!

……and I also have to seriously question what possible relationship could exist between a belief that people are directly descended from Pondslime…….. and current medical practice?


Scofflaw
We've heard of plenty of theists of all religion who have been unable to square scientific discoveries with the claims of their religion - and the more fundamentalist/literalist the religion, the more common such a phenomenon is. The more fundamentalist Baptist churches in the US, for example, grow only because they recruit faster than they lose people - but the rate of loss is, as far as I remember, something like 18% annually.

Creation Scientist ARE able to square every valid scientific discovery so far, with their faith…….
…….and the Bible-believing Churches are expanding exponentially both here in Ireland and in the US.

Evolutionists are the ones ‘on the run’ when the ‘origins’ issue is openly debated……and this thread is no exception…….

…….with one Creation Scientist having scientifically demolished every argument against Direct Divine Creation put up by over 100 Evolutionist Scientists!!!:D


Scofflaw
In addition, a large number of adherents to any given church are probably paying only lip-service to the more fundamental ideas and doctrines of their churches, while allowing a good deal more credit than one might suppose to the discoveries of science.

Most ACTIVE church members are fully committed to their church’s doctrine……otherwise they would probably cease to be active members.

….and all genuine scientific discoveries are fully in line with the Christian Faith.


Scofflaw
Those who are both fundamental in their outlook, and unpersuadable of the value of scientific evidence as opposed to the tenets of their faith, like JC and wolfsbane, are actually very rare.

I look objectively at the World around me…….I am totally persuaded of the value of objective scientific observation and it’s transparent reportage…….and I value the application of scientific rigour and logic to all issues in relation the physical World.

……and IF that makes me ‘rare’…….well so be it!!!:eek:

…….you see, what REALLY scares Atheistic Evolutionists, is the fact that SCIENCE has proven the existence of a Creator God ……and that is why they are so anxious to label Creationism (and Evolutionist Intelligent Design AS WELL) as a ‘religion’.


Wicknight
At the end of the day the simple fact, that cannot be white washed by all this talk about censorship or oppression, is that Creationists do not have the science to back up their ideas. That is simply the way it is. You don't have to science to back up your religious ideas.

Creationists have been vindicated by all recent scientific discoveries……from the mapping of the Human Genome, with it’s enormous levels of Complex Specified Information to the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam!!!!

They have equally been vindicated by the scientifically calculated odds of even simple biomolecules arising spontaneously coming out as statistical impossibilities!!!

The ‘Emperor’ without the scientific clothes, is ACTUALLY the idea that Pondslime spontaneously evolved into Man!!!:D


Scofflaw
Questioning the whole concept" is exactly what Creationists do. There are two main problems with this approach:

1. it is clear that the concept is being a priori rejected as clashing with Genesis.

2. to disprove the "whole concept" of evolution you need to show that it has no explanatory force - that is, cannot be falsified, and/or explains nothing in any material way. The same for the Big Bang.

Creation Scientists DON’T question the “whole concept” of Evolution.
THEY FULLY ACCEPT that Evolution and Natural Selection occurs……..using pre-existing genetic diversity and within Kinds!!!:D

What Creation Scientists ACTUALLY reject is ‘big picture’ Evolution (from Base Chemicals to Man) because it clashes with logic and scientific observations!!!!
…..Creationists would probably be Theistic Evolutionists otherwise!!!!:)

J C

Son Goku
Here is a challenge:
Two of the main pieces of evidence for the Big Bang are quadratic corrections to Hubble's Law and Aniostropies in the CMBR. Find me a single Creationist paper that discusses them and gives an alternative explanation, because I've searched and never found one. I've asked JC for one and never recieved one. If these are pillars of the Big Bang model then surely a knowledgable Creationist somewhere will have discussed them

Most Creation Scientists have always believed the Big Bang Theory to be invalid……

…….but the really devastating news for the Big Bang Theory (from an Evolutionist perspective) is that many NON-CREATIONISTS also have serious scientific reservations about it's validity ……..and you can read all about it here :-
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

....and here is a list of some of them:-
(Institutions for identification only)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)J
ayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)
Jorge Marao Universidade Estadual de Londrina Brazil
Martin John Baker, Loretto School Musselburgh, UK
Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK
Roger Y. Gouin, Ecole Superieure d'Electricite, France
John Murray, Sunyata Composite Ltd, UKJ
onathan Chambers, University of Sheffield, UK
Michel A. Duguay, Laval University, Canada
Qi Pan, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK
Fred Rost, University of NSW (Emeritus), Australia
Louis Hissink, Consulting Geologist, Australia
Hetu Sheth, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
Lassi Hyvärinen, IBM(Ret), France
Max Whisson, University of Melbourne, Australia
R.S.Griffiths, CADAS, UKAdolf Muenker, Brane Industries, USA
Emre Isik Akdeniz University Turkey
Felipe de Oliveira Alves, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud, Service d'Astrophysique, CEA, France
Kim George, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, USA
Doneley Watson, IBM (ret.), USA
Fred Alan Wolf, Have Brains / Will Travel, USA
Robert Wood, IEEE, Canada
D. W. Harris, L-3 Communications, USA
Eugene Sittampalam, Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka
Joseph.B. Krieger, Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA
Pablo Vasquez, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
Peter F. Richiuso, NASA, KSC, USA
Roger A. Rydin, University of Virginia (Emeritus), USA
Stefan Rydstrom, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
......and many many more!!!

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

...fallacies of teleology and agency...., what, this hobby horse?

Whose horses, wolfie's or mine?

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

We've heard of plenty of theists of all religion who have been unable to square scientific discoveries with the claims of their religion - and the more fundamentalist/literalist the religion, the more common such a phenomenon is. The more fundamentalist Baptist churches in the US, for example, grow only because they recruit faster than they lose people - but the rate of loss is, as far as I remember, something like 18% annually.

Creation Scientist ARE able to square every valid scientific discovery so far, with their faith…….
…….and the Bible-believing Churches are expanding exponentially both here in Ireland and in the US.

Evolutionists are the ones ‘on the run’ everywhere the ‘origins’ issue is openly debated……and this thread is no exception…….

…….with one Creation Scientist having scientifically demolished every argument against Direct Divine Creation put up by over 100 Evolutionist Scientists!!!:D

I do wish he wouldn't say things that make me feel like I'm actually mocking the afflicted, but there doesn't seem any way to stop him.

J C wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

In addition, a large number of adherents to any given church are probably paying only lip-service to the more fundamental ideas and doctrines of their churches, while allowing a good deal more credit than one might suppose to the discoveries of science.

Most active church members are fully committed to their church’s doctrine……otherwise they would probably cease to be active members.

….and all genuine scientific discoveries are fully in line with the Christian Faith.

And now we have another amusing claim - that most of the world's billion Christians are "fully committed to their church's doctrine". Ah me, ah well, there's no helping some folk.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Those who are both fundamental in their outlook, and unpersuadable of the value of scientific evidence as opposed to the tenets of their faith, like JC and wolfsbane, are actually very rare.

I look objectively at the World around me…….I am totally persuaded of the value of objective scientific observation and it’s transparent reportage…….and I value the application of scientific rigour and logic to all issues in relation the physical World.

……and IF that makes me ‘rare’…….well so be it!!!:eek:

You need not worry. It is certainly not that that makes you rare.

JC wrote:

…….you see, what REALLY scares Atheistic Evolutionists, is the fact that SCIENCE has proven the existence of a Creator God ……and that is why they are so anxious to label Creationism (and Evolutionist Intelligent Design AS WELL) as a ‘religion’.

Well, more the fact that it is. Heck, legally even.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
At the end of the day the simple fact, that cannot be white washed by all this talk about censorship or oppression, is that Creationists do not have the science to back up their ideas. That is simply the way it is. You don't have to science to back up your religious ideas.

Creationists have been vindicated by all recent scientific discoveries……from the mapping of the Human Genome, with it’s enormous levels of Complex Specified Information to the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam!!!!

Who lived tens of thousands of years apart...

JC wrote:

They have equally been vindicated by the scientifically calculated odds of even simple biomolecules arising spontaneously coming out as statistical impossibilities!!!

Except that modern biomolecules (the ones JC likes to do his calculations on) don't arise that way, and no-one knows what the simplest biomolecules were, or under what conditions they formed.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Questioning the whole concept" is exactly what Creationists do. There are two main problems with this approach:

1. it is clear that the concept is being a priori rejected as clashing with Genesis.

2. to disprove the "whole concept" of evolution you need to show that it has no explanatory force - that is, cannot be falsified, and/or explains nothing in any material way. The same for the Big Bang.

Creation Scientists DON’T question the “whole concept” of Evolution.
THEY FULLY ACCEPT that Evolution and Natural Selection occurs……..using pre-existing genetic diversity and within Kinds!!!:D

What Creation Scientists ACTUALLY reject is ‘big picture’ Evolution (from Base Chemicals to Man) because it clashes with logic and scientific observations!!!!
…..Creationists would probably be Theistic Evolutionists otherwise!!!!:)

Well, you are slowly coming to accept more of the truth, but you still have no choice but to reject the story of evolution a priori, because it clashes with your reading of Genesis.

Vintage form JC, vintage.

cordially,
Scofflaw