The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

IF ‘big picture’ Evolution (from Base Chemicals to Man) DIDN'T clash with logic and scientific observation….. most Creationists would probably be Theistic Evolutionists ......
......and indeed many Creationists WERE Evolutionists......until they discovered that 'big picture' Evolution clashed with logic and scientific observation!!!:eek::D

Scofflaw wrote: »

Vintage form JC, vintage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

.....and I admire you too, Scofflaw:D

J C

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

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 :-

A few scientists have reservations about it's validity. They haven't put forward better theories that explain the observations better than the current theories.

But like a moth to an open flame you quote them here as if this some how supports your form of Creationism. They in fact do the exact opposite.

Eric Lerner, the main person behind that "Open Letter" believes that his theories point to an infinitely old universe.

So if he is right you may jump around and clap for a bit because the Big Bang has been invalidated, but you have also invalidated any form of creation of the universe.

Which simply highlights the nonsense that is "Creation Science" and the fact that you actually don't understand what you are discussing.

You guys don't have theories of your own. You just spend a whole lot of time trying to convince people that current theories are wrong, as if that some how suddenly validates your idea of the universe, and idea that you have not bothered or have not been able, to turn into actual science.

Hivemind187

J C wrote: »

IF ‘big picture’ Evolution (from Base Chemicals to Man) DIDN'T clash with logic and scientific observation….. most Creationists would probably be Theistic Evolutionists ......
......and indeed many Creationists WERE Evolutionists......until they discovered that 'big picture' Evolution clashed with logic and scientific observation!!!:eek::D

um ... what? Do you actually understand a single step in how DNA and genetics work?

And I suppose that Adam & Eve makes more sense than gradual evolution in response to environmental factors? You actually like that idea that everyone is that badly inbred?

Oh ... and I take exception to you signature quote which is taken out of context.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

What you produced was an INTELLIGENTLY generated sentence that is different from the original but contains the same information as the original……..
However, you DIDN’T produce a RANDOMLY generated sentence ……

Yes I did.:rolleyes:

I can show you the source code if you like

J C wrote: »

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!!!!

Vindicated? Do you understand what that word means?

J C wrote: »

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

And once again you roll out this gross misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, despite the 100 or so times it has been explained to you that evolution does not model biomolecules arising randomly.

If anyone wants to they can read over the numerous times this ridiculous misrepresentation of evolutionary theory has been discussed and conclude themselves if JC should or should not know by now that the theory of evolution does not state that complex biomolecules like proteins formed randomly, and possibly make a make a guess as to why he continues to state this, thats up to them.

I couldn't possibly comment lest I run foul of the mods.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote: »

JC wrote:

IF ‘big picture’ Evolution (from Base Chemicals to Man) DIDN'T clash with logic and scientific observation….. most Creationists would probably be Theistic Evolutionists ......
......and indeed many Creationists WERE Evolutionists......until they discovered that 'big picture' Evolution clashed with logic and scientific observation!!!

um ... what? Do you actually understand a single step in how DNA and genetics work?

And I suppose that Adam & Eve makes more sense than gradual evolution in response to environmental factors? You actually like that idea that everyone is that badly inbred?

Actually, JC has missed a much larger point. There's no such thing as "big picture evolution" in any sense that can be disproved. It doesn't "clash with logic and scientific observation", because "big picture evolution" is not a scientific theory in its own right - it's the narrative formed by the various theories that go to make it up.

JC's claim is the clearest possible evidence that he neither understands the science behind evolution, nor how science works. It also demonstrates quite neatly the a priori rejection he is denying - because the only thing one narrative can clash with is another narrative. He rejects the narrative that results from scientific theories of evolution ("big picture evolution") because it clashes with the narrative of Genesis - and he therefore tries to pick holes in the science that underlies the narrative.

I've only been over this with him a couple of times now, mind you, so I don't really expect him to grasp just how clearly he's flying his flag.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Oh ... and I take exception to you signature quote which is taken out of context.

There's a shock, eh?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

JC's claim is the clearest possible evidence that he neither understands the science behind evolution, nor how science works. It also demonstrates quite neatly the a priori rejection he is denying - because the only thing one narrative can clash with is another narrative. He rejects the narrative that results from scientific theories of evolution ("big picture evolution") because it clashes with the narrative of Genesis - and he therefore tries to pick holes in the science that underlies the narrative.

Very good summary of the Creationist posters on this entire thread to be honest, JC and Wolfbane included.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw: LOL ... Oh that answer really tickled my funny bone.

komodosp

Just joining this thread now, and have to admit I haven't read through all of the last 370 pages (and someone said at the beginning that they wouldn't get a debate!)

but...

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 :-

But J C, while you posted this in response to Son Goku's question to give an alternative explanation, you have not actually answered his question. You just listed off a bunch of names of people who supposedly don't believe in the Big Bang!

I also read your list of questions about evolution on the first page, and would like to point out that just because you have questions about a theory does not mean
1) It is false
2) that the Intelligent Design theory is true.
What many ID-ers do is simply try to pick holes in evolutionary theory, without ever pointing to a simple scrap of evidence for ID.

One in particular attracted my attention

16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82?

I hope your not suggesting that evolution believers think that the human genome DNA sequence was just fabricated spontaneously out of nothing, are you? And also where did you get the figure of 1 in 10^1,800,000,000?

Again sorry if this has already been said but as I said there are many many pages there that I've yet to read...

Could I gently point out that Michael Behe is a believer in Intelligent Design i.e. the design of life by forces unknown over an undefined period of time.
He is therefore certainly neither a “creationist“ nor a Creation Scientist.

But Intelligent Design is in fact just a generic version of Creation, i.e. instead of "God", it's just "Some all-powerful being, whose name we don't know... let's call him 'God' "

Finally, I'd like to know, is the Intelligent Designer / God a simpler or a more complex life form than a human?

If He is more complex, or equally complex, then how can you possibly explain his creation? If the chances of spontaneously generating a human D.N.A. sequence are 1 in 10^1,800,000,000, then how big is the chances of spontaneously generating a God?

If He is simpler, how could He have the intelligence to put together something like the universe? In any case the simple-to-complex idea seems to lend credibility to the theory of evolution.

And some will say God has always existed and has no need of a creator. But this defies logic, how can you assert that the human race need a creator but God does not?

I have a feeling that if God weren't a hypothetical mysterious invisible force and in fact walked among us, chatted with us, lived in a castle on top of the Galtee mountains and went on about how He created all of us, and did all the magic tricks He is supposedly able to do, then people would believe that He did need a creator, that His magic tricks were just part of science and that His creator was even more powerful, and could do things that defy the laws of reality offered up by our public God, and was mysterious and invisible. People need creators for the things they can see, but the things they can't see they will accept without a question.

Son Goku

J C wrote: »

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,..........

Wow a load of names! Again here is your 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.

jonny72

I can't believe this thread is still going on..

Evolution is a theory, a strong theory, but never-the-less a theory that has been debated since its inception..

There are two types of people who debate it, normal people and religious fanatics..

Now the problem arises when these religious fanatics enter the debate, these people are different, they are not interested in discovering anything, they are on a mission, they have an agenda, and have proven so over the centuries..

These are people who take the bible literally..

The bible is a guide, a blueprint, love thy neighbour, do good unto others, etc.. its not supposed to be taken literally..

But they persist..

These people cling to an ancient belief, a belief of how everything came to be, how the earth was formed, etc.. a belief which is not compatible with the theory of evolution..

Therefore they attack it..

Which means they have to attack any dating techniques that place anything on this earth or in the universe at over 6000 years old..

aand the theory of plate tectonics..

aand Geology in general..

and Cosmology, and Astrology, and Paleontology, etc, etc, etc..

..huge, exhaustive, entire fields of study..

In fact anything at all which contradicts their belief (not theory) is fair game.. come up with a dating technique that only dates samples only up to 6000 years old? they will accept it wholeheartedly.. they wouldn't question it, they wouldn't examine it, why? because they have an agenda, a mission, they are not the slightest bit interested in examining, testing or discovering anything..

Only attacking that which can possibly contradict their belief.. or immediately accepting that which confirms their belief..

They reject and attack anything that might contradict their 2,000 year old belief..

They accept and endorse anything that might support their 2,000 year old belief..

Then how on earth can these people be taken seriously when they attack the theory of evolution?

They will defend their belief to the bitter end.. just like the flat-earthers did until someone sailed around the damn globe..

I mean my Muslim friend steadfastly believes the moon was cracked in half and glued back together by God, how can you logically debate anything related with someone who has a preconceived belief such as that? its impossible..

Absolutely impossible and unending..

I think deep down they must know something is seriously wrong, and perhaps the only reason they carry on is faith, because, well, if they gave in, then that would make them non-believers..

Asiaprod

Honey has left to distribute biscuits elsewhere.
Asia

Hivemind187

jonny72 wrote: »

I can't believe this thread is still going on..

Evolution is a theory, a strong theory, but never-the-less a theory that has been debated since its inception..

Neither can I, nor can I believe that people still misunderstand the usage of the term theory.

Evolution is not a theory in the vague, nebulous, pondering "just might be" way most people perceive it to be.

I wont bother pointing out why because it has been done a dozen times in this thread alone. check out the meaning of the term "theory" in a scientific sense on wikipeadia.

bonkey

Son Goku wrote: »

Wow a load of names! Again here is your challenge:
Two of the main pieces of evidence for the Big Bang are quadratic corrections to Hubble's Law and Aniostropies in the CMBR.

What???? No electroweak symmetry breaking???

I'm crushed.

Son Goku

bonkey wrote: »

What???? No electroweak symmetry breaking???

I'm crushed.

................and I want a creationist paper dealing with electroweak symmetry break. In fact all papers from now on should contain references to it. I mean if electroweak symmetry breaking isn't there is it even a scientific paper?

Abdus Salam would be proud.

BrianCalgary

jonny72 wrote: »

I can't believe this thread is still going on..

Evolution is a theory, a strong theory, but never-the-less a theory that has been debated since its inception..

There are two types of people who debate it, normal people and religious fanatics..

Now the problem arises when these religious fanatics enter the debate, these people are different, they are not interested in discovering anything, they are on a mission, they have an agenda, and have proven so over the centuries..

These are people who take the bible literally..

The bible is a guide, a blueprint, love thy neighbour, do good unto others, etc.. its not supposed to be taken literally..

But they persist..

These people cling to an ancient belief, a belief of how everything came to be, how the earth was formed, etc.. a belief which is not compatible with the theory of evolution..

Therefore they attack it..

Which means they have to attack any dating techniques that place anything on this earth or in the universe at over 6000 years old..

aand the theory of plate tectonics..

aand Geology in general..

and Cosmology, and Astrology, and Paleontology, etc, etc, etc..

..huge, exhaustive, entire fields of study..

In fact anything at all which contradicts their belief (not theory) is fair game.. come up with a dating technique that only dates samples only up to 6000 years old? they will accept it wholeheartedly.. they wouldn't question it, they wouldn't examine it, why? because they have an agenda, a mission, they are not the slightest bit interested in examining, testing or discovering anything..

Only attacking that which can possibly contradict their belief.. or immediately accepting that which confirms their belief..

They reject and attack anything that might contradict their 2,000 year old belief..

They accept and endorse anything that might support their 2,000 year old belief..

Then how on earth can these people be taken seriously when they attack the theory of evolution?

They will defend their belief to the bitter end.. just like the flat-earthers did until someone sailed around the damn globe..

I mean my Muslim friend steadfastly believes the moon was cracked in half and glued back together by God, how can you logically debate anything related with someone who has a preconceived belief such as that? its impossible..

Absolutely impossible and unending..

I think deep down they must know something is seriously wrong, and perhaps the only reason they carry on is faith, because, well, if they gave in, then that would make them non-believers..

Ah but jonny debate is good. Continue to question in order to discover more.

I really came to study my faith in Christ as a result of an atheist asking questions. In the same way, science can benefit by the questions of the skeptics.

PS. Not all Bible literalists accept the 6,000 year age. In face i had never heard of 6,000 years until this thread. Everything I had read was 12,000 years. And th ebooks are at home, not here. Otherwise I would list them.

Ciaran500

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Ah but jonny debate is good. Continue to question in order to discover more.

But you have to admit this has gone past anything you could call a debate. Any point that is disproven is either completely ignored by J C or just recycled again with answering any of his critics.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

PS. Not all Bible literalists accept the 6,000 year age. In face i had never heard of 6,000 years until this thread. Everything I had read was 12,000 years. And th ebooks are at home, not here. Otherwise I would list them.

Still way off the estimates of about 4,570,000,000 years old and requires to ignore alot of evidence to believe the earth is only 12,000 years old.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

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.

Well, these dissenting scientists are not Creationists but evolutionists like yourself. They can't be accused of being driven by a religious agenda. It suggests to me your certainties are not so certain after all. So when Creationist scientists offer similiar dissenting arguments, they are in respectable territory. It is those who wish to gag them that are behaving disreputably.

I have never seen a Creation Scientist indicate they know the first thing about the Big Bang or General Relativity.

See an intro: THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/

Two main ones I know of: Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_humphreys/

Some of his arguments can be found in: http://www.icr.org/article/3003/

Dr John Hartnett, Physics, Cosmology: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_hartnett.asp
I've almost finished his book, Dismantling the Big Bang: https://shop.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUK.storefront/en/product/10-2-188

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.

I'm not sure of where to find a detailed technical article- maybe Humphreys' book includes one - but from Hartnett I gather the Anistrophies are also expected in his creationist model. In fact, the WMAP that displays them also displays contra-indications to the Big Bang: the octopole and quadrupole components, which produce a perfect pattern of cosmic north and south poles and a cosmic equator. Just what one would expect if the Earth is at or near the centre of the universe!

The only alternative is I'm wrong and that's impossible.

What you attribute here to religion is what evolutionists are themselves practising.

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

It evolved?
You designed your post so?
Surprise me!

komodosp

Evolution is a theory, a strong theory, but never-the-less a theory that has been debated since its inception..

Of course you have to acknowledge the difference between a theory and a hypothesis... In fact many creationists try to bring down the theory of evolution by saying, "It's just a theory".

A hypothesis is like a proposal of the solution to a problem. A theory has been tested rigourously and no one is able to find a fault with it. The hypothesis was used to make predictions, experiments were done to test the predictions, and the predictions were confirmed. Evolution is, as you said, a very strong theory and as such is pretty much true. Tests have been done for the last 200 years (or however long ago Darwin lived) Now there are still exact things we don't know about evolution but it did happen.

And as someone said all you need to disprove the theory of evolution is to find one fossil from a creature from before its time, like a primate from the Jurassic period. Despite all the fossils found this has never been done.
We still call it a theory because the exactitudes of it are still not completely nailed down, just like the theory of special relativity. But to the question, "Does life come from evolution?" the answer is pretty much "Yes", not "well, that's one possibility".

This might seem pretty arogant on my part and sorry if I've come across that way. But it's the only hypothesis that has been rigourously tested for so long and passed every test, and there are no other hypotheses other than "Intelligent Design" (i.e. "Creation") or "Alien Seeding", and no evidence has ever been discovered for either of those.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, these dissenting scientists are not Creationists but evolutionists like yourself. They can't be accused of being driven by a religious agenda. It suggests to me your certainties are not so certain after all. So when Creationist scientists offer similiar dissenting arguments, they are in respectable territory. It is those who wish to gag them that are behaving disreputably.

Sigh. Where does one start? First, our "certainties" are not certain at all - that's the nature of science. Second, Creationist scientists do not offer "similar dissenting arguments" - they offer dissenting arguments based on religious conviction, the vast majority of which are without scientific merit, and many of which are fundamentally dishonest. They are not gagged, they are simply unable to come up with arguments that qualify for entry to debate.

For example, you have chosen to draw a parallel between Creationism's "suppression" and the lamentations of physicists who are interested in non-standard models of physics. While their complaint is forcefully expressed, the real problem is that no-one is interested in funding non-standard models because the general consensus is that you'll spend a lot of money for nothing. This simply does not apply to Creation "science", since entirely different funding streams are available.

Creationists appear reluctant to spend money on "Creations science" research, preferring to spend it on PR and campaigns complaining about the scientific community's suppression of their truth. If Creation science were, as JC claims (and you accept) the correct model of the world, a fraction of Creationist PR and legal spending should suffice to demonstrate it beyond contradiction. Somehow, this never happens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Ciaran500 wrote: »

But you have to admit this has gone past anything you could call a debate. Any point that is disproven is either completely ignored by J C or just recycled again with answering any of his critics.
.

Supply and demand economics. They are still at it.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Supply and demand economics. They are still at it.

Even we don't know why we do it, although it has the beneficial side-effect of keeping my scientific knowledge from growing entirely rusty.

In my youth, said the sage...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

The current row over Dr James Watson's racist remarks should serve as a salutary reminder that scientists often have unscientific personal opinions (yes, JC, I know what you're going to say). Like Creationist scientists, what makes Watson's claim unscientific is that the claim doesn't arise from scientific evidence, but from Watson's personal convictions, which he claims science supports.

In a delicious bit of irony, of course, this will also be seen by some Creationists as confirmation of where acceptance of evolution "logically" leads. For them, let's just remember that the Bible has also been used to justify racism and slavery.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

The current row over Dr James Watson's racist remarks should serve as a salutary reminder that scientists often have unscientific personal opinions (yes, JC, I know what you're going to say). Like Creationist scientists, what makes Watson's claim unscientific is that the claim doesn't arise from scientific evidence, but from Watson's personal convictions, which he claims science supports.

In a delicious bit of irony, of course, this will also be seen by some Creationists as confirmation of where acceptance of evolution "logically" leads. For them, let's just remember that the Bible has also been used to justify racism and slavery.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Him and Prince Phillip should get together. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that conversation:D

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

The current row over Dr James Watson's racist remarks should serve as a salutary reminder that scientists often have unscientific personal opinions (yes, JC, I know what you're going to say). Like Creationist scientists, what makes Watson's claim unscientific is that the claim doesn't arise from scientific evidence, but from Watson's personal convictions, which he claims science supports.

In a delicious bit of irony, of course, this will also be seen by some Creationists as confirmation of where acceptance of evolution "logically" leads. For them, let's just remember that the Bible has also been used to justify racism and slavery.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kinda shows the problem with the cult of the scientist, something that proper science tries very hard to move away from with things like peer review and repeatability, where as Creationists run to and embrace (probably because they have nothing else)

The opinions of an individual scientist hold little sway in the world of science. All that matters is the science itself.

Which is why listing scientists who disagree with the Big Bang model isn't going to impress Son. He wants to know the science they have, not who they are.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, these dissenting scientists are not Creationists but evolutionists like yourself.

And?

wolfsbane wrote: »

They can't be accused of being driven by a religious agenda.

Obviously.

It suggests to me your certainties are not so certain after all.

Why? You're saying because they're non-religous critics I can't be so certain after all. Non-religous critics are far more common and just because they exist doesn't somehow imply the Big Bang is faulty.

Whenever their theories make numerical predictions they turn out wrong. No conspiracy, no supression, they just can't match the evidence. Is it so hard to believe that they are simply incorrect and that is why nobody uses their theories? Science has no problem using theories that work, but might disagree with current thought, for instance Brans-Dicke theory in the 1960s. Why do you feel the need to invent a fairyland inhabited by shady scientists bent on surpressing knowledge.

See an intro: THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/

Two main ones I know of: Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_humphreys/

Some of his arguments can be found in: http://www.icr.org/article/3003/

Dr John Hartnett, Physics, Cosmology: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...j_hartnett.asp
I've almost finished his book, Dismantling the Big Bang: https://shop.gospelcom.net/epages/AI...oduct/10-2-188

I can't see how Humphrey's could be called somebody who understands GR since he commonly makes a mistake that undergrads are taught to look out for.
Hartnett I don't understand. He insists that Dark Matter doesn't exist, which is a bit unusual considering Dark Matter has been found and studied. We even know its temperature.

I'm not sure of where to find a detailed technical article- maybe Humphreys' book includes one - but from Hartnett I gather the Anistrophies are also expected in his creationist model. In fact, the WMAP that displays them also displays contra-indications to the Big Bang: the octopole and quadrupole components, which produce a perfect pattern of cosmic north and south poles and a cosmic equator. Just what one would expect if the Earth is at or near the centre of the universe!

This is so muddled it would take an eternity to correct. General Relativistic quadrapole moments being used to say the Earth is at the centre of the universe. General Relativity being a theory which requires no unique frame. It's like taking a reading of the dipole moment of a magnet to conclude electromagnetism doesn't exist. It actually makes my head hurt.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Even we don't know why we do it, (take part in the debate on this thread) although it has the beneficial side-effect of keeping my scientific knowledge from growing entirely rusty.

In my youth, said the sage...

cordially,
Scofflaw

You do it because God has placed the desire in every man's heart to know the truth .......and the truth is in the Word of God ....and the truth will set you free!!:D:)

......and your exposure to cutting edge Creation Science on this thread WILL have the beneficial side-effect of broadening your scientific knowledge as well!!!!:D

With Christian love

J C

J C

Scofflaw
The current row over Dr James Watson's racist remarks should serve as a salutary reminder that scientists often have unscientific personal opinions (yes, JC, I know what you're going to say).

I haven't read Dr Watson's full remarks.

......but I would remind people that all Humans are 'one blood' because we are all descended from Noah and his family......and so we all belong to ONE race...the Human Race!!!:D:)

With Christian love

J C:D

PS I recently saw a very interesting exhibition on Dr Watson's life and work in Trinity College Library.
I would disagree with some of his views......but I admire his pioneering research work on describing the DNA molecule.

jonny72

They just dug up what they think is a new species of dinosaur in Argentina, however many millions of years old. Its on most world news sites. I don't see any mention of Noah, floods, it only being a few thousand years old. In fact I never do. Never on TV, not in documentaries, not in films.

There are people who believe and argue against the fact that the Earth orbits around the Sun. I am sure there is another fringe who believe the Earth is flat.

I'm an intelligent person and I never ever remember one single debate about creationism as I grew up, or went to college or drank in the pub, not one, never, to hear that there was actually a debate in the States absolutely astounded me. Then to read this thread and see there are actually crackpots who argue for and believe in it, its just incredible.

Sure plenty of people have stupid beliefs that don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.. I know people who believe in ghosts, or believe doing whatever gives you bad luck.. but they don't have a big hardcore 9000 page debate about it, they just admit its a hunch, the way they feel.. Jesus Christ!

2Scoops

jonny72 wrote: »

I don't see any mention of Noah, floods, it only being a few thousand years old. In fact I never do. Never on TV, not in documentaries, not in films.

The fact that there is no open debate just goes to show how creationist opinions are being oppressed and marginalized by the New World Order. Don't you see that this actually strengthens the Creationist position because it proves that 'they' are trying to silence dissenters to the orthodox position? You are just a mindless drone product of the system that wants you to turn away from Christ.

Disclaimer: This is a satirical post.

BrianCalgary

jonny72 wrote: »

They just dug up what they think is a new species of dinosaur in Argentina, however many millions of years old. Its on most world news sites. I don't see any mention of Noah, floods, it only being a few thousand years old. In fact I never do. Never on TV, not in documentaries, not in films.

There are people who believe and argue against the fact that the Earth orbits around the Sun. I am sure there is another fringe who believe the Earth is flat.

I'm an intelligent person and I never ever remember one single debate about creationism as I grew up, or went to college or drank in the pub, not one, never, to hear that there was actually a debate in the States absolutely astounded me. Then to read this thread and see there are actually crackpots who argue for and believe in it, its just incredible.

Sure plenty of people have stupid beliefs that don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.. I know people who believe in ghosts, or believe doing whatever gives you bad luck.. but they don't have a big hardcore 9000 page debate about it, they just admit its a hunch, the way they feel.. Jesus Christ!

Careful jonny. Since your new I'm going to give you a break.

To call fellow posters crackpots - not good.
It appears as though the Jesus Christ is a curse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Next time banning.