The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Asiaprod

J C wrote:

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?

Thanks JC, I shall remember never to ask you an honest question again.

In answer to
No 1, have no idea what you are trying to ask.
No 2, the Ostrich Dinosaurs' demise can probably be put down to the early development of Sage and Onion stuffing.:D
No 3, Sound like the original person responsible for creation screwed up and had to redo it all again, and again, and again.

Re our gummy crocodile, teeth were not the issue, the ankle bones were. IMHO, as a scientist, you really should read the article before you shoot your mouth off.

Son Goku

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

Right JC, answer the following.
How does creationism account for the above? What is the creationist theory that could succesfully have predicted the amount malignant DNA?

Please provide a paper which gives an exact number and no deflecting the question. Answer this if you honestly have a scientific theory of creationism.

Then I will accept Creationism as a Science.

J C

Quote Asiaprod
Thanks JC, I shall remember never to ask you an honest question again.

Creationists are Human too!!

I was only adding a little 'light relief' to what can be a very 'heavy' subject.

I promise that I will answer your questions seriously in the future - but I really couldn't help myself - the improbable combination of an 'Ostrich Dinosaur' and a 'Toothless Crocodile' - roll on The Gondolas!!!

robindch

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

From what I have come to understsand, from here and elsewhere, of the way in which creationists understand and evaluate "facts", I think you're wrong here.

The basic psychological point around which all of this seems to turn is the existence of two opposing human understandings of what constitutes a "fact" -- to me, Scofflaw, Son Goku, Sapien and others, in simple terms, a fact is something that we agree has happened, and which we then have to understand and perhaps explain.

To a creationist, just like a politician, facts aren't as simple as that, because each fact is believed to contain an implicit "bias" someway or other, which then allows them (circularly) to deny the fact concerned, because of this "bias". This "bias" can be something like ignoring the physical close-matching of chimp DNA to human DNA (because it implies close-relationship). Alternatively, and here's where it's identical to political bias, "bias" can also derive from the simple fact that an opponent in an argument produces a fact which undermines one's own argument (the internal reasoning apparently going something like "well, of course you'd say that; you're against me, so you are politically motivated to produce this fact which I don't believe because you are politically motivated").

If you extend this once-off misunderstanding of a fact to a series of facts covering a wide topic, then you can grant yourself the luxury of seeing only those facts which describe the world as you sincerely wish it to be. Hence, sentences like wolfsbane's "I read the scientists whom I respect as brothers in Christ" can be read in the context within which they're written, and they begin to make sense.

To summarize the above more succinctly, some people see the world as it is and adjust their mental model to suit, while others assume that their mental model is correct, and discard whatever doesn't fit.

To hear a couple of good examples of how these thinking-rules work in practice, listen to this program from Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scienceblacklist.shtml

...where facts produced by scientists working for the Bush Administration are actively supressed and distorted because the "bias" of the facts is wrong (ie, they disagree with "moral" positions adopted by Bush).

ps - good analysis in an excellent post, Scofflaw.

J C

Quote Robin
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.

There was actually ONE peer-reviewed ID paper published – but the evolutionary scientist (Prof Richard Steinberg) who published it was severely reprimanded as a result.

Prof Richard Steinberg is a research assistant at the Smithsonian Institute with two Ph.Ds, one in molecular biology and the other in theoretical biology.

I’m not aware of any more ID papers that have been published.

I can however, tell you that there are HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed Creation Science papers published, to say nothing of the writings of practically all of the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal who were all Creationists.


Quote Robin
there was that very nice chap from the Discovery [sic] 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!

Indeed he actually is a very nice chap, but I saw no roasting – and his fingers were perfectly intact the last time that I saw him!!!

Great to see the Roman Catholic Church, at the highest levels, endorsing the validity of Intelligent Design!!

Even better to see a ‘prince of the Church’ taking advice directly from the leading authority on ID and endorsing it by publishing it himself.


Quote Scofflaw
He (JC) cannot see transitional forms, whereas I (and 99.9% of other scientists) do………..

This is 'paradigm blindness' (which I think is one of the things that Zen enlightenment cures you of), and it's normal

This is actually called being indwelt by The Holy Spirit of God – and I will ‘pass’ on the Zen enlightenment ‘cure’ – thank you very much!!!

You’ll be telling me next that I will have to ‘open my Third Eye’ to see evolution – I thought that evolution DIDN’T require any religious belief?


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

Certainly true in the case of Macro evolution.


Quote Asiaprod
Re our gummy crocodile, teeth were not the issue, the ankle bones were. IMHO, as a scientist, you really should read the article before you shoot your mouth off.

Teeth WOULD BE a significant issue when this mutant’s survival was at stake!!

Perhaps this gummy, two legged Crocodilian will be the next ‘early Hominid’ missing link – you never know. We’ve has pigs in the past – why not two legged Crocodiles?!!

At lease it had only TWO legs – which is always a good idea for Hominid candidates!!!


BTW has anybody worked out how we could hike up 'Mountain Impossible' without 'splashing out' on an expensive set of rock climbing equipment and putting the local Mountain Rescue Helicopter on notice as we dangle precariously on one of it's many cliff faces?

Wibbs

J C wrote:

I can also tell you that there are HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed Creation Science papers published,

Reviewed by whom? Other creation scientists. Preaching to the choir really.

to say nothing of the writings of practically all of the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal who were all Creationists.

Ehhhh, isn't that list somewhat out of date? I mean every single one of those great minds got at least something wrong. Not surprising really.

This is called being indwelt by The Holy Spirit of God – and I will ‘pass’ on the Zen enlightenment ‘cure’ – thank you very much!!!

So refusal to budge, even when there is evidence something is wrong is being indwelt by the holy spirit? So one must have a closed mind to be a Christian. Riiiight. If there had been more people with minds that closed to other opinions back when Jesus was knocking about, I suspect we'd have far far fewer christians about these days. Indwelt cool word BTW.

You’ll be telling me next that I will have to ‘open my Third Eye’ to see evolution – I thought that evolution DIDN’T require any religious belief?

Buddhism doesn't require any religious belief AFAIK

Son Goku

JC, what's the Creationist estimate of malignant DNA strands in chimpanzees?
How is this number derived?

All you have to do is show me what your science predicts and no deflecting.

J C

Quote Son Goku
What is the creationist theory that could succesfully have predicted the amount malignant DNA?

Very simple, the ‘Fall’ of all of Creation from it’s original perfect state.

Analogous regression calculations have been performed on Mitochondrial DNA by both Evolutionary and Creation Scientists.

The Evolutionists claim we are all descended from a few Women who lived over 80,000 years ago – Creation Scientists have established that it was one woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago.


Quote Scofflaw
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.

Is a ‘Trojan Russian Doll Horse thing” evidence of evolution or transgenic engineering?

What IS a “whatsit” ?


Quote Wibbs
So refusal to budge, even when there is evidence something is wrong is being indwelt by the holy spirit?

No, just the ability to know the TRUTH and discern spirits!!


Quote Wibbs
So one must have a closed mind to be a Christian. Riiiight.

Quite the reverse – accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour is the greatest mind-liberating experience any Human Being can have.


Quote Wibbs
Original quote by JC
practically all of the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal who were all Creationists.

Ehhhh, isn't that list somewhat out of date? I mean every single one of those great minds got at least something wrong. Not surprising really.

This list is certainly not out of date.

The scientific knowledge that all these people got right, vastly outweighs anything that they may have gotten wrong – there is a veritable string of Scientific Laws named after them – and ALL of these Laws continue to remain scientifically valid to this very day.


Quote Wibbs
Originally Posted by J C
I can also tell you that there are HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed Creation Science papers published

Reviewed by whom? Other creation scientists. Preaching to the choir really.

Reviewed by highly qualified conventional scientists – and so these papers are all properly peer-reviewed. They are also in the public domain and available to all scientists for further study and evaluation.

BTW I’m never again going to go ‘hill walking’ with Evolutionists!!
I agreed to accompany an evolutionist friend on what he told me would be a leisurely afternoon stroll along the grassy slopes of ‘Mount Improbable’.

I should have known that there was something wrong, when he turned up with two Sherpa Guides – and now we are all hopelessly lost in the outer reaches of the Himalayas on ‘Mountain Impossible’, where we are hanging on by our finger nails on the edge of a rocky crevasse that makes Everest look like a billiards table!!!

Morbert

Hey... Sorry, my phoneline was destroyed by a tractor yesterday (I'm in a cafe at the moment) so I might not be able to reply to JC and wolfsbane until monday.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Hardly worth it, because he said "circle" and not "circumference". A bit like when he said elsewhere that the earth is a flat square.

Scofflaw said:

No, I think you have to read it literally.

Oh, I see, and nearly all of us today believe the earth is static and the sun moves up and down, for we speak of 'sunrise' and 'sunset'. The term 'circle' would of course mean the earth was not even a flat disc, but a ring. So poor Isaiah moved in his understanding from a ring to a square.

Let me suggest the error lies with you in insisting on either an entirely literal or entirely metaphorical use of language in the Bible. That is incredibly poor scholarship, or worse.

robindch

> Let me suggest the error lies with you in insisting on either an
> entirely literal or entirely metaphorical use of language in the Bible.

In all honesty, wolfsbane, last week you wrote this:

the Bible has not changed. When the current ideas of science differ with the Bible's teachings, Christians should know which is the imagination of men.

So, am I right in thinking that your post above telling us that we're wrong to take the bible at its word is a joke, right?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

So, am I right in thinking that your post above telling us that we're wrong to take the bible at its word is a joke, right?

No, you are absolutely wrong. To 'take the bible at its word' is not to take it all literally or all metaphorically, just as it would be idiotic to do so for any other communication. Taking the Bible at its word means taking the narrative as such (it may use both literal and figurative language, but is basically literal), and the figurative as such (it may use both figurative and literal language, but is basically figurative). The histories of mankind, and Israel in particular, in the OT and the histories of Christ and the church in the NT are examples of narrative. The visions of the OT prophets and of the Revelation in the NT are examples of the metaphoric.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Oh, I see, and nearly all of us today believe the earth is static and the sun moves up and down, for we speak of 'sunrise' and 'sunset'. The term 'circle' would of course mean the earth was not even a flat disc, but a ring. So poor Isaiah moved in his understanding from a ring to a square.

Let me suggest the error lies with you in insisting on either an entirely literal or entirely metaphorical use of language in the Bible. That is incredibly poor scholarship, or worse.

I'm sorry? Did you really say that? But how magnificent!

Is it even worth pointing out to you the discrepancy between what you are saying in this post, and what you have said elsewhere?

Did I ever say you could only read the Bible entirely literally or entirely metaphorically? Why no, I don't believe I did! In fact, I don't believe you've ever asked me how I read the Bible at all!

I think much of the Bible is history (and as accurate as recorded history usually is, which is to say, somewhat, which for me explains the discrepancies between accounts). Some of it is recorded communication (Epistles etc), and some of it is allegory.

You, on the other hand, if you read back through your posts, will find that you have insisted on the literal truth of Genesis and the Flood (two of the most difficult parts of the Bible to read literally), because otherwise we need not read the Bible literally at all, and might begin to doubt Christ's divinity, or the Virgin Birth.

I'm terribly sorry if your own position comes as news to you. You'll excuse my thinking it hilarious, though, I pray. Particularly the crack about it being 'incredibly poor scholarship, or worse'. Mmmmm.

cheerfully,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

It's a little obscure who you're referring to here.

True Christians who think they can consistently hold to evolution and to Christianity.

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?

Correct.

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

I would never think that all who claim to be Christian are really so. But I am speaking of the generality - so, I do not accept the mass of Creationist scientists are liars.

2. some are unable to understand the science

I would not expect that of either Creationist or Evolutionist scientists.

3. some are unable to understand the evidence

Ditto as for 2.

4. some are consciously lying to themselves, and unconsciously to others

I don't see how that could work - they must be conscious of the fact that they are lying, if the first part of this point is true.

5. some are unconsciously lying to themselves, and unconsciously to others

Again, I can't see how such a device could stand the scrutiny of honest minds.

6. some sincerely believe the facts to be other than they are

Yes, I believe that explains most of what we see. I hold it is true for the Evolutionists. But if it were true for the Creationists, then the debate would be alive, as it is the basis of all genuine scientific disagreement.

7. some Creationists are right

That is the best explanation, only I would put it, 'Creationism is 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.

Yes, read that with the roles and blind-spots applying to you. See how it works?

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).

Again, apply that to yourself. See how it fits?

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.

So that rules out any concept of scientific debate: one side at least must be believing something other than the facts, so their arguments are 'non-science'. An interesting concept. Not one shared by the 'scientific community' I suspect - except when it comes to Creationism.

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

Creationists and Evolutionists can completely agree on that.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

You, on the other hand, if you read back through your posts, will find that you have insisted on the literal truth of Genesis and the Flood (two of the most difficult parts of the Bible to read literally), because otherwise we need not read the Bible literally at all, and might begin to doubt Christ's divinity, or the Virgin Birth.

I'm terribly sorry if your own position comes as news to you. You'll excuse my thinking it hilarious, though, I pray. Particularly the crack about it being 'incredibly poor scholarship, or worse'. Mmmmm.

Where did I ever suggest we take all of the Bible literally? I specifically said the opposite. I, with the historic Church, take Genesis as a literal account because that is how it presents itself and how it is taken by Christ and the NT writers. You say it is the most difficult to take literally, but that is because you don't want to accept it. The same of course could then be said of all the miracles of the OT and NT, and especially of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ (Are you still istening, my Theistic Evolutionist brethren?). It is not what one finds difficult to accept that determines if a thing is metaphoric or not, but how it is presented.

People still take the virgin birth seriously? I thought it was generally acknowledged that it was a mistranslations.

J C

Quote Bluewolf
People still take the virgin birth seriously? I thought it was generally acknowledged that it was a mistranslations.

The Word of God is very clear that Jesus Christ was true God and true Man conceived by a virgin named Mary by the direct action of the Holy Spirit.

This is totally a matter confined to the realm of FAITH – and it is obviously inaccessible to science.

It is a fundamental tenant of the Christian Faith – and if you are NOT a Christian you are obviously free to believe it or reject it.


Quote Bluewolf
Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?
I don't know so it must be god!

You can rule out God for a start, as He is sinless and therefore wouldn’t break the Eighth Commandment.

Could I also point out that the question of who created the Universe and all life therein is a fundamentally DIFFERENT question to who stole cookies from a cookie jar – and it comes down to the following:-

1. There are MANY intelligent agents (both Human and animal) CAPABLE of stealing the cookies from a cookie jar – and a quick look around will usually reveal the culprit – or at least a number of ‘prime suspects’.

2. There is only ONE intelligent agent CAPABLE of creating all life – and indeed only ONE God who SAID that He did it – therefore the ONLY ‘prime suspect’ for this action is God.

3. The alternative of evolution is analogous to believing that the cookies got up and walked out of the cookie jar all by themselves.

If somebody proffered explanation number 3 above to you in relation to cookies, I don’t think that you would believe them – yet amazingly many people believe essentially the same story 'dressed up' as evolution!!!

Scofflaw

A couple of quick points:

1. I had of course overlooked the fact that you know which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and which aren't (Revelations, obviously!). I am uncertain of your exact authority in the matter - no doubt you can quote Jesus as saying "the Book of Genesis is literally true"?

2. I think you'll find that the majority of Christians accept the Virgin Birth and the miracles, but do not accept a literal reading of Genesis. Your position is in essence a literary quibble about whether a particular Book should be read literally or allegorically, with you on the minority side.

3. I accept that 'paradigm blindness' is by no means restricted to Creationists. However, you are asking me to accept that the overwhelming majority of scientists (and Christians) suffer from paradigm blindness, and you don't. That would be more likely if it were not that you are using an outdated paradigm, which most of us start with as children and then abandon.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I believe that explains most of what we see. I hold it is true for the Evolutionists. But if it were true for the Creationists, then the debate would be alive, as it is the basis of all genuine scientific disagreement.

No, it wouldn't. It's explained in the post. If the facts are other than you believe them to be, then your sincere belief does not make you right. I know, I know, you think that science has its facts wrong...

wolfsbane wrote:

So that rules out any concept of scientific debate: one side at least must be believing something other than the facts, so their arguments are 'non-science'. An interesting concept. Not one shared by the 'scientific community' I suspect - except when it comes to Creationism.

Rubbish. You continue to couch this as if your ideas were somehow new, and therefore to be examined afresh. Your ideas are not new - they represent a position that has been abandoned because it does not explain the world except in the most trivial sense.

coolly,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

The Word of God is very clear that Jesus Christ was true God and true Man conceived by a virgin named Mary by the direct action of the Holy Spirit.

This is totally a matter confined to the realm of FAITH – and it is obviously inaccessible to science.

Laugh? I can barely start.

sorrowfully,
Scofflaw

robindch

> To 'take the bible at its word' is not to take it all literally or all metaphorically, just as it
> would be idiotic to do so for any other communication.

Hmm... perhaps you should consider whether it's likely that some people might be able to communicate something honestly and unambiguously, even if you or your chosen holybook can't? See my post above where I talk about our different understandings of facts.

Anyhyow, this is great. I still can't decide whether or not you're being serious -- with every post, you volte-face in some new and random direction and declare that black is white, or up is sideways with even greater speed than JC who's no slouch when it comes to the lively business of sidestepping facts and leaping over great chasms of logic.

> The visions of the OT prophets [...] are examples of the metaphoric.

Oh, so Genesis is metaphorical then? Last week, you said it wasn't. How come it's changed?

J C

J C wrote:

Quote Bluewolf
People still take the virgin birth seriously? I thought it was generally acknowledged that it was a mistranslations.

The Word of God is very clear that Jesus Christ was true God and true Man conceived by a virgin named Mary by the direct action of the Holy Spirit.

This is totally a matter confined to the realm of FAITH – and it is obviously inaccessible to science.

It is a fundamental tenant of the Christian Faith – and if you are NOT a Christian you are obviously free to believe it or reject it.

I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about someone mistranslating the word for "young girl" into virgin. What it is exactly, I'll have to go and check.

You can rule out God for a start, as He is sinless and therefore wouldn’t break the Eighth Commandment.

Could I also point out that the question of who created the Universe and all life therein is a fundamentally DIFFERENT question to who stole cookies from a cookie jar – and it comes down to the following:-

1. There are MANY intelligent agents (both Human and animal) CAPABLE of stealing the cookies from a cookie jar – and a quick look around will usually reveal the culprit – or at least a number of ‘prime suspects’.

2. There is only ONE intelligent agent CAPABLE of creating all life – and indeed only ONE God who SAID that He did it – therefore the ONLY ‘prime suspect’ for this action is God.

3. The alternative of evolution is analogous to believing that the cookies got up and walked out of the cookie jar all by themselves.

If somebody proffered explanation number 3 above to you in relation to cookies, I don’t think that you would believe them – yet amazingly many people believe essentially the same story 'dressed up' as evolution!!!

Could I also point out that the whole thing is pointing at the "we don't know so it MUST have been god" crowd, without and more backing whatsoever.
You can debate it til the cows come home if you like, but a lot of people don't and insist that ignorance of the answer is somehow proof of whatever they want to say.

3. The alternative of evolution is analogous to believing that the cookies got up and walked out of the cookie jar all by themselves.

If it wasn't such a short space of time, yeah maybe.

J C

Quote Scofflaw
I accept that 'paradigm blindness' is by no means restricted to Creationists.

Whatever, about this ‘paradigm blindness’ that you speak of – could you please address my points in posting # 713 page 36 that invalidates Neo-Darwinian Gradual Evolution.

While you are at it, you might also like to comment on my Robotics analogy in the same post (# 713 page 36) – please try explaining how Robots could start to spontaneously generate themselves WITHOUT an INITIAL input of Human INTELLIGENCE and ingenuity!!


Quote Bluewolf
I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about someone mistranslating the word for "young girl" into virgin. What it is exactly, I'll have to go and check.

There are TWO reasons why a Christian BELIEVES in the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ:-

1. The Word of God confirms it to be the case – and YES the correct translation is ‘virgin’ and NOT the meaningless term ’young girl’ (which could be somebody aged 3 to 23 and therefore not a descriptor at all).

2. The fact that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly Man could only be achieved by His direct conception through the Holy Spirit of God. IF Jesus WAS conceived through normal sexual intercourse between a Man and a Woman He would ONLY be a Man like every other Man on Earth thereby negating the ENTIRE BASIS of Christianity (i.e. the Divine nature of Jesus Christ).

The fact is that the sovereign Creator God of the Universe loved you and me so much that He humbled Himself to come down on Earth as MAN AND GOD to die on a Cross that WE MIGHT BE SAVED from God’s JUST wrath.

Because it is entirely a matter of FAITH, you are of course free to believe or to reject this as you wish.


Quote Bluewolf
Could I also point out that the whole thing is pointing at the "we don't know so it MUST have been god" crowd, without and more backing whatsoever.
You can debate it til the cows come home if you like, but a lot of people don't and insist that ignorance of the answer is somehow proof of whatever they want to say.

And could AGAIN I point out that (just as I have conclusively PROVEN in my Post # 738 on page 37) your statement that "we don't know so it MUST have been god" is invalid – and your ‘cookie jar’ analogy is equally invalid.

When it comes to Creation WE ARE NOT IGNORANT OF THE ANSWER – and I have DEMONSTRATED in my post # 738 on page 37 that the ONLY REASONABLE candidate as the ORIGINATOR of life is God.

When a policeperson (through observation and the appliance of logical deduction and science) RULES OUT all suspects except ONE, this is NOT ignorance – but excellent detective work – that is sufficient to prove the case BEYOND ALL DOUBT!!!

Creation Science has similarly established the case for Creation by examining the evidence


Quote Bluewolf
Original Quote by JC
The alternative of evolution is analogous to believing that the cookies got up and walked out of the cookie jar all by themselves.

If it wasn't such a short space of time, yeah maybe.

Do you TRULY BELIEVE that, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME that inanimate cookies could actually get up and walk out of a cookie jar by themselves through NATURAL UNDIRECTED processes?

J C

J C wrote:

Quote Bluetooth
I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about someone mistranslating the word for "young girl" into virgin. What it is exactly, I'll have to go and check.

There are TWO reasons why a Christian BELIEVES in the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ:-

1. The Word of God confirms it to be the case – and YES the correct translation is ‘virgin’ and NOT the meaningless term ’young girl’ (which could be somebody aged 3 to 23 and therefore not a descriptor at all).

2. The fact that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly Man could only be achieved by His direct conception through the Holy Spirit of God. IF Jesus WAS conceived through normal sexual intercourse between a Man and a Woman He would ONLY be a Man like every other Man on Earth thereby negating the ENTIRE BASIS of Christianity (i.e. the Divine nature of Jesus Christ).

You may laugh like Scofflaw, if you wish, but your laughter will change nothing about the fact that the sovereign Creator God of the Universe loved you and me so much that He humbled Himself to come down on Earth as MAN AND GOD to die on a Cross that WE MIGHT BE SAVED from God’s JUST wrath.

Because it is entirely a matter of FAITH, you are of course free to believe or to reject this as you wish.

However, if you choose to reject Jesus Christ and His perfect atonement for YOUR sins I am duty bound as a Christian, with full Teaching Authority from Jesus Christ, to make you aware that you will continue to remain under God’s Justice (rather than His Grace).

The choice is yours – accept His free pardon and believe on Jesus Christ or remain under God’s Law and Justice to suffer His Just punishment for sin.

Bluetooth?
And do we have to turn a simple discussion into you preaching?
Why do you build this case based on the only way jesus could have come into the world, when if the world had been translated as "young girl" in the first place(maybe she WAS a young girl, so what?) you wouldn't be making it because you probably wouldn't have thought of it.
Or maybe someone somewhere down the line would have come up with the concept, who knows.
Jesus' teachings are not any less good because of the method of his conception, whether it be natural or not. To insist it's not the same just because his mother was not a virgin...*shrug*
Why don't you just follow his teachings and accept his sacrifice instead of obsessing about the man himself as if it made any difference to his wisdom?

Your attitude of "it MUST have meant virgin because otherwise..." etc is how things get mistranslated and confused in the first place.
Maybe if you didn't care so much about it you might pay more attention to what he said o.o
If god can do whatever god wants, god can make it so that jesus was born as a normal human, and still the son of god.

And could AGAIN I point out that (just as I have conclusively PROVEN in my Post # 738 on page 37) your statement that "we don't know so it MUST have been god" is completely invalid

I'm glad you think creationist arguments are invalid.

When it comes to Creation WE ARE NOT IGNORANT OF THE ANSWER – and I have DEMONSTRATED in my post # 738 on page 37 that the ONLY REASONABLE candidate as the ORIGINATOR of life is God.

If there is an originator in the first place, maybe.

When a policeperson (through observation and the appliance of logical deduction and science) RULES OUT all suspects except ONE, this is NOT ignorance – but excellent detective work – that is sufficient to prove the case BEYOND ALL DOUBT!!!

However, I'm not sure they usually make assumptions to the point of excluding something they don't understand or like.
Comparing yourself to a detective who examines actual evidence, whereas you work solely on faith, is a little odd.

Do you TRULY BELIEVE that, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME that maybe inanimate cookies could actually get up and walk out of a cookie jar by themselves through NATURAL UNDIRECTED processes?

Heh, maybe I should have put in a rolleyes icon to make what I said clearer.
To be honest, I don't know and I don't care. The thing is, my analogy works on a short time scale. That's the difference.
For all I know, if you leave a cookie in the mud somewhere and it goes stale and collects fungus, it'll start doing a jig. heh
My sig wasn't about evolution, it was mostly about the big bang, by the way, and some reactions to it.

I’ve heard of people of great faith – but your faith in evolution leaves the rest of us all 'at the starting blocks’ so to speak.

What faith in evolution? You base all this on a "maybe"? Again, maybe I should have put in a rolleyes icon to make what I said clearer.
All I know about evolution is the day to day kind that makes viri adapt to medicines so they won't be affected by them, and insects grow a resistance to pesticides. Apart from that, I don't know and I don't care. I have much by way of apathy when it comes to biology, and I genuinely don't care how life started. I think there's enough to worry about with how things are and will be than obsessing over things and debates which are science vs faith.
Either they are completely seperate, or almost so and the faith gives some theological reasons for the how of the science.

My sig, which you seem to have missed a slight point in, is as a reaction to people on another forum who say "well if we don't know what happened to cause the world then it must have been god". I'm not talking about long in depth arguments on science and scripture, I'm talking about people who use ignorance as proof that it's whatever they want to claim, and that because we don't know, there's no reason it's not what they claim, regardless of burden of proof. If we don't know something, many things are a possibilty, not a fact.

What I don't get is why people who have a faith in creationism react to science of evolution as if it's a personal attack on their faith or something, and try to argue their faith as science. It's not science. It's faith.
I don't know how anyone teaches evolution, but unless they clearly say "and this is why god didn't do it" (which would be stupid) there is no conflict.
How come noone else with creation myths are causing a ruckus?

robindch

> What I don't get is why people who have a faith in creationism react to
> science of evolution as if it's a personal attack on their faith or something

Mostly because the religious cheerleaders -- Robertson, Hinn, Hovind, Ham, Haggard etc, etc, etc -- tell their obedient flocks that it *is* a personal attack. Have you ever read any creationist literature/websites? They portray evolution as something which leads straight to atheism, so it's a direct threat to the spread of the religion.

When seeing crap like this, it's always useful to bear one of Hermann Goering's last dictums in mind:

It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

...he could have added that it works the same for every religion too.

As for the virgin birth, well, that story also appears in Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythologies, as well as in the Buddhist, Mithraic, Zoroastrian, Tibetan and other religious traditions. In fact, it occurs so often, that the list is broken down by classifications: one being insemination of a virgin by a physical god come to earth, while the other's insemination of a virgin by a spirit being of some kind. More good info on the background to this bit of religious culture is available here (scroll down a page or two to get to the relevant bit):

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Quote Son Goku
What is the creationist theory that could succesfully have predicted the amount malignant DNA?

Very simple, the ‘Fall’ of all of Creation from it’s original perfect state.

Analogous regression calculations have been performed on Mitochondrial DNA by both Evolutionary and Creation Scientists.

The Evolutionists claim we are all descended from a few Women who lived over 80,000 years ago – Creation Scientists have established that it was one woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago.

Nice try.
Tell me how from the hypothesis of the fall of man in Eden, you can tell me the amount of malignant DNA in the chimpanzee genome. With the relevant equations.
The fall of man is the hypothesis not the predictive framework. I want the predictive framework. You're a Creationist Scientist, give me the papers with the equations. Or at least quote the motivation (in the correct sense, don't just say that "The fall of man is the motivation").
Come JC, quit with the lame deflections.

Also note the words I have bolded.

Morbert

J C wrote:

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.

It's the calcium hydorxide, not the calcite, that is responsoble for the rapid formation of stalactites. Calcite is nowhere near soluble enough to form the stalactites we see in just 5,000 years. Yes, rates vary, but nowhere near enough to allow such rapid formation. You are tryng to boycott the laws of chemistry in your argument, and that's not allowed. You are also guilty of not incorporating all the evidence in your conclusions. Oxygen isotope levels in stalactites, for example, correlate with predicted ice-ages. If you wish to claim the measured ages of the stalactites is incorrect, then you must explain this 'discrepancy'. And it is quite a large one.

J C wrote:

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.

Micro-evolution and macroevolution do use the same mechanisms, and your above paragraph has nothing to do with microevolution. Instead of addressing the issue of macroevolution, you've decided to discuss the concept of abiogenesis. Macroevolution is the concept of evolution at/above the species level. I have no choice but to conclude that you have no arguments against macroevolution left. So I suppose we can move on to abiogenesis.

Your analogy cannot be applied to organic systems, as while it is true that the first robot needs to be designed, the same is not true for organic systems. I will elaborate below.

J C wrote:

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’!!!

Natural selection (coupled with the laws of chemistry) can indeed construct such apparently irreducible structures. Now, you say you are dealing with a primitive life form, but let's go further back in the history of life. Let's go back to peptides and self-replicating polymers, which can have chains as little as 32 amino acids long.

Now, the probability of such a chain forming in one fell swoop is still incredibly low (Though nowhere near as low as the first primitve organisms in your above example). But we must remember that, although we are dealing with a chance of 1/Some inconceivably high number, the number of 'trials' is far far higher. With conservative figures, self replicating peptides can form quite rapidly (in the space of tens of years). And from these, in about 1 million years, various primitive sequences and a large chunk of complex self-replicating peptides can form, many of which would be considered primitive proteins. So, already we know that the formation of basic self-replicators is quite plausible, and I haven't even touched on the fact that the number of possible self-replicators is huge, reducing the probability even further. These basic replicators then provide the "scaffolding" for chemical hypercycles and probionts and, inevitably, primitive organisms.

Once the basic functioning templates are there, the structures you refer to as irreducible, can form via gradaul steps as various amino acids are substituted and functions are changed. In fact, the term "irreducible" is misapplied, because these systems are only irreducible in the context of their modern structures.

All of this is executed by simple adherence to chemical laws. No intelligence is required. So in short, your analogies etc. break down because of a failure (or unwillingness) to acknowledge the versaitility of biochemical laws. Now I have not gone into the explicit processes of the formations of such chains, or the steps from peptides to organisms because I don't believe they are important at this time, as we are simply dealing with probability at the moment. But I am perfectly willing to describe such processes, and I expect that you will start wheeling out the standard creationist abiogenesis arguments ergarding UV light, the early earth, etc. I have heard them all before but I am willing to go through them again.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Whatever, about this ‘paradigm blindness’ that you speak of – could you please address my points in posting # 713 page 36 that invalidates Neo-Darwinian Gradual Evolution.

Well, could you please answer my questions of Post #673 Page 34? If you remember I asked you to give me the Creationist explanations of the points I had raised, and you responded with a bit of Darwin-bashing. Attempting to knock the theory of evolution is not the same as providing a scientific alternative.

If you were successful at knocking down the theory of evolution, I wouldn't cry or anything you know, but it's a bit silly that you can't provide anything in its place...

Briefly to address the point you raised, while I wait. Your repeated assertions about the impossibility of generating a particular protein by chance ignores (again) a number of rather relevant points:

1. Biogenesis is not the same as evolution. Disproving biogenesis would not disprove evolution. No-one is sure how life got started (except Creationists of various religions, of course), and the question is not currently linked to evolution by anybody but Creationists.

2. Evolution works by the application of selective pressure to random changes. You continually refer to this as 'undirected' (cf "NATURAL UNDIRECTED processes"), and this is incorrect. Where we differ is that you see these 'processes' as 'directed (by an intelligence)', and evolution sees them not as 'directed', but as 'selective'.
To give you a simple analogy: the action of wind in a desert is not 'directed' to remove lighter sand, but does so through the operation of physical constraints (carrying capacity of the wind versus weight of particle), thus leaving, eventually, an 'ablation surface' of heavier particles, by selectively removing the lighter.
Similarly, the fact that it is cold in the Arctic is not 'directed' to kill off creatures with no cold resistance, but does so selectively.

3. Many proteins are closely related in terms of their amino acid sequences. As you point out, sometimes a change in what you term 'critical amino acid sequences' (and amazingly, I cannot find any references to the term other than yours) can have a dramatic effect on the shape, and therefore functionality, of the protein. Sometimes, on the other hand, it does not. Where it does not, there is little problem with evolving through gradual steps. Where it does, a new role may be found for the protein in question (or not, in the case of harmful mutation).

As I think I've said before, you like to point at a particular protein, and say, in effect "what are the chances of that specific protein evolving?" as if the protein had to be assembled randomly. You think this because you characterise evolution (incorrectly) as random, and that therefore the chances are effectively nill. I'll point out, again, that, as everybody learns in school, only independent probabilities can be multiplied. Every step in the evolution of a protein is dependent on the previous steps. Therefore it is incorrect to multiply amino acid probabilities, and the computation is wrong. Selective processes can work with even a slight advantage and as many computer simulations show will rapidly converge on a good solution. This has spawned the field of designing things like airplane wings by selective processes.

I draw your attention to the last sentence - it is possible to do 'design' by 'selective process'.

J C wrote:

While you are at it, you might also like to comment on my Robotics analogy in the same post (# 713 page 36) – please try explaining how Robots could start to spontaneously generate themselves WITHOUT an INITIAL input of Human INTELLIGENCE and ingenuity!!

Alright - here's my comment: you're confusing biogenesis with evolution. Evolution does not deal with the start of life, so your 'analogy' is irrelevant to the discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PS. I note Morbert has, as before, stolen my thunder with a clear technical explanation. I must hire another tractor!

J C

Quote Bluewolf
Jesus' teachings are not any less good because of the method of his conception, whether it be natural or not. To insist it's not the same just because his mother was not a virgin...*shrug*
Why don't you just follow his teachings and accept his sacrifice instead of obsessing about the man himself as if it made any difference to his wisdom?

The ‘Virgin Birth’ is NOT an issue about the goodness or wisdom of Jesus Christ’s teachings – it is an issue about the VALIDITY of His sacrifice.

The only reason that Jesus Christ’s sacrificial atonement for sin is VALID is because He was truly God and Man – and the Virgin Birth, was how God stated that this would be achieved.


BTW, in case you think that only Creation Scientists believe that a naturalistic origin for life is impossible, I came across the following interesting quote recently. It may go some way to also assuring you of the honesty and integrity of Creation Scientists on the ‘origins issue’.

It comes from no less an authority than Sir Francis Crick, the biochemist who shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA:-

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York : Simon and Schuster. 1981) pp 88.

Creation Scientists have discovered that the undirected evolution of life is a mathematical impossibility so I can confirm that Sir Francis Crick’s use of the M-word (miracle) is fully justified.

I wouldn’t have used the word ‘almost’ as well – although, come to think about it, I probably would have used such a qualifier in 1981 – but not anymore.


Quote Robin
As for the virgin birth, well, that story also appears in Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythologies, as well as in the Buddhist, Mithraic, Zoroastrian, Tibetan and other religious traditions.

It is not surprising that the prophecy that God would be incarnated and born of a virgin has echoes in the legends of other cultures.


Quote Son Goku
Tell me how from the hypothesis of the fall of man in Eden, you can tell me the amount of malignant DNA in the chimpanzee genome. With the relevant equations.

I have to say that measuring Chimp defects is currently NOT a priority for Creation Science research. With a limited budget, we have more pressing research imperatives.

However, if the paper that you are referring to is published, Creation Science will do a standard review of its contents, noting any salient findings that it may contain.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

People still take the virgin birth seriously? I thought it was generally acknowledged that it was a mistranslations.

Yes, it is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. No, it was not based on a mistranslation. The Jews make a case that in the original prophecy, Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel., virgin means a young woman of marriageable age, not necessarily a virgin. However, there is no case where the Hebrew word is used of a woman of whom it can be said she was not a virgin. But most important for establishing the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is the actual record of the NT:
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. [emphasis mine]

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I know, I know, you think that science has its facts wrong...

Not at all. I think most scientists have got their interpretation of the facts wrong.

Rubbish. You continue to couch this as if your ideas were somehow new, and therefore to be examined afresh. Your ideas are not new - they represent a position that has been abandoned because it does not explain the world except in the most trivial sense.

I make no such claims. There are of course new discoveries that high-light the case for Creationism, as JC points out in his post #713 on Neo-Darwinian Gradual Evolution. But Creationism's former arguments have also not been refuted. The position has not been abandoned by thousands of scientists, who are just as able as their opponents, so your blanket claim is unfounded.