The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

nerin wrote: »

nice example,,,

and if a snake egg is hatched by a hen is it a basilisk?

No, she would get a 'snake surprise'......instead of a chick!!!:D

nerin wrote: »

Fallen blossom doesn't return to the branch, a broken mirror can not be made to shine

......and molecules do not spontaneously evolve into Men EITHER!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

He that can DOES ..... and he that can't MODELS!!!!!:eek:

The evolutionist can't demonstrate any aspect of 'Molecules to Man Evolution' and so he has to resort to MODELS (of a computer variety, I hasten to add)!!!!:eek::D

On the other hand, the Creation Scientist can EXPERIMENT to demonsrate the boundaries of Created Kinds.

Ok, you have just demonstrated with that sweeping statement of gross, almost unfathomable, ignorance of the highest order that not only is there no possible way on Earth you are a qualified scientist but you also clearly haven't the foggiest idea what "science" even is.

Well done JC, you have officially made my ignore list

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

You can watch a Kind demonstrate ITSELF......by putting a Lion and a Tiger in a cage and watch them produce Ligers!!!!!:D

.....who said that Creation Science wasn't fun???:D

Not only is that "answer" nonsense, since what exactly is the "kind", the Lion the Tiger or the Liger (a Liger cannot produce a Lion or a Tiger so how is that the "kind" that produced them), you also have the small fact that Ligers can't produce offspring because all males are sterile, so if that is your example of a "kind" life on Earth would have lasted 2 generations after Noah. Perhaps you should watch/read "Children of Men"

As daithifleming asks it must be hard being so ignorant of so much ....

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

I haven't read most of what's on it, so I can't say. Anything I have read seemed reasonable. Maybe you have an example you wish me to comment on?

Not really. I was just wondering what degree of faith you had in AiG. Single-sourcing isn't something I would do myself.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Not really. I was just wondering what degree of faith you had in AiG. Single-sourcing isn't something I would do myself.

I agree. I do read much wider.:)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. I do read much wider.:)

On the subject of science and Creation?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. I do read much wider.:)

You don't seem to be able to reference much wider ...

Any change I can get a response to my earlier request in this post

I have the computer ready to go ...

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Put simply I want something I can enter into a computer and model

I can do this with neo-Darwin evolutionary biology. I can model evolution from the molecular level of DNA and RNA interaction and mutation right up to species change over hundreds of thousands of years.

OK, let's see the model.

I want to be able to model "Creationism". I want to be able to run a simulation of year dot up to now using the theories you claim Creationists have.

Can you help me out here?

Certainly - just give me your model and I'll see if I can parallel it with the Creationist one.

For a start tell me what a "kind" actually is to the level that I can model it with a computer, and then tell me how a "kind" changes into the species we have on Earth today, to the level that I can model in a computer.

I want to be able to run a computer simulation and watch a "kind" turn into a new species using that process

OK, just as soon as you show your idea of model.

My understanding of 'kind' incorporates the ability to interbreed is a marker. Sterility of the off-spring may just indicate how specialised and narrow the gene pool has become in those cases. But that's my layman's understanding.

For a discussion of 'kind' see: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm

Also: Creation, Mutation, and Variation by Gary Parker, Ed.D. http://www.icr.org/article/171/

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to reference much wider ...

Any change I can get a response to my earlier request in this post

I have the computer ready to go ...

If you try to remember, I gave you abundant links to several creationists sites. ICR, CRS, and those linked by TrueOrigin.Com, not just AiG.

As to your request, I was glad to oblige in my previous post. I await your model.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the subject of science and Creation?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes. AiG only gets a part of my study of the subject. I've even been known to read evolutionists! (That's in addition to your good selves).

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to your request, I was glad to oblige in my previous post. I await your model.

Certainly but it will probably be a good few pages. You might want to start on yours

Giblet

J C wrote: »

He that can DOES ..... and he that can't MODELS!!!!!:eek:

The evolutionist can't demonstrate any aspect of 'Molecules to Man Evolution' and so he has to resort to MODELS (of a computer variety, I hasten to add)!!!!:eek::D

On the other hand, the Creation Scientist can EXPERIMENT to demonsrate the boundaries of Created Kinds.

I'm just gonna guess that you don't know what a model is, and move on.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

What is "real" morality. Even in your own religion the morality is based on what God himself is supposed to think.

Objective morality, as distinct from subjective morality. If my first premise is true, then objective morality exists: God's law. If you are right about man's origins, then objective morality does not exist - as you so clearly put it yourself, The point is that there is no universal standard (in my opinion) so I don't need to compare it to anything to see if I'm right. I don't lock up the rapist because my moral standard is more right than his moral standard. I lock up the rapist because he is raping someone and I don't want him to

Well the only reason he has to heed you is punishment from your God,

Correct.

and the reason he has to heed me is punishment from my society that includes me.

I did specify that the perp was in a position to be not detected/punished by society. That being the case, he logically can have no reason not to do as he pleases.

In neither case the rapist himself change his mind about how he views what he has done.

If the intending perp reflects on the morality of his action and believes there is a God to whom he must answer, then it may well cause him to refrain. That has happened time without number in most people's lives. Of course, if he is convinced there is no God, then he is free of restraint. He only need consider punishment from others. If he is strong or devious enough, he need not worry.

Yes but you seem to be implying that the science leads itself to one ethical deduction over another. It doesn't. The science is utterly neutral as to what deduction should be taken either way.

I don't personalise science at all. It has no morals or preferences. Man does, and he deduces from science what course of action will best suit him. If he believes fire will burn him, then (in most cases) he will consider it best not to put his hand in the fire. If he believes man is just a super complex collection of chemicals, then he will see the logic of treating him any way that suits, even if that is like the dog-dirt on his shoe.

As I said evolution does not tell you that you came from star dust, chemistry and physics models do through study of your material composition and theories about where these materials originated in the universe. The models of biological evolutionary theory have nothing to say about where the individual atoms of life came from originally. It is not a factor in these models and never has been.

I'm using the evolutionary theory in the wider sense, the sense most evolutionists use when they trace man's origin. Obviously biological evolution treats only of the biosphere.

This goes back to the rather ridiculous missunderstand that Creationists seem to have that every theory in science that in any way conflicts with Genesis is some how "evolutionary" in nature. The simple fact of the matter is that theories such as how the solar system developed, how stars produce the heavier atoms etc etc have absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. They were developed independently in different fields. Call astro-physics professors who work on Big Bang models "evolutionists" (as AiG so likes to do) is missclassification to the point of utter irrelevance.

It draws attention to the obvious question biological evolution demands: how did life arise? And the evolutionist is happy to oblige with 'models' of the Big Bang that terminate with abiogenesis in a primal soup.

You could have made a different deduction with the exact same science. Really? Let's have an example.

Well you deduce that there is a "real" morality and that everyone should follow it.

You miss the point: a false view of the science led to the amoral position. You said it could have led to a different one. Yet when I asked for an example, you give me. But I don't share your false view of the science, my morality is not based on it. So again I say, your evolutionary view has amorality as its logical outcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That is exactly the accusation I'm making: that your system is objectively amoral. I'm glad you confess it.

"Confess" it? I've been saying that for most of my life.

I mean confess in the non-criminal sense. As in The 1644 Baptist Confession of Faith.

What I don't accept is your idea that because morality is at the end of the day simply a human concept it is therefore utterly worthless and should some how be ignored, simply because it isn't coming from God.

Certainly, invented morality often helps preserve society. They often share much in common with Theistic Morality. The point is that no one can logically feel obliged to keep them. The rapist's morality is just as valid as the aid-worker's.

Firstly why is God's judgement on morality any more relievant than anyone else?

If He is the God of the Bible, then what He says is the real truth, what He commands is the only right way.

He did some pretty immoral things in the Old Testament so he certainly isn't someone I would go to for advice on ethical issues.

That is your judgement on His actions. You are judging Him as if He were merely a fellowman. But as God He has every right to order our affairs as He in His holiness sees fit. He gives us life, and it is His to take.

Secondly I don't require an over all authority to proclaim to me what I should believe is or is not ethical. I can figure out what should be or shouldn't be ethical myself. I certain welcome ethical discussion, but I've yet to hear any ethical proclamation that I agreed with without first accepting it.

Sure, that is the essence of subjective morality. But the rapist can just as logically say the same. Your system is logically amoral, or rather, permits any morality one wants.

You will probably say how do I know my ethics are any more "right" than a serial killer.

Correct.

But your probably is that you are still thinking of this in terms of how closely an individual's moral outlook matches some magical universal moral standard.

No, I'm looking for self-consistency, rationality in your argument.

You are saying I don't know what this universal standard is so how can I compare my morality to it to see if I'm right or not

Again, I'm asking you to say why your morality is superior to the rapist's, not to God's.

The point is that there is no universal standard (in my opinion) so I don't need to compare it to anything to see if I'm right. I don't lock up the rapist because my moral standard is more right than his moral standard. I lock up the rapist because he is raping someone and I don't want him to

It is as simple as that.

An excellently simple explanation. Your morality is just that: yours. It doesn't apply to anyone else. They will have their own. In your view it was wrong to gas the Jews; in Himmler's view, it was the good and right thing to do. As there is no outside Judge, you can only express your preference and act on it; you cannot logically say Himmler was immoral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Life is complex and dangerous. One action may lead to prosperity or calamity. Depends on many contingencies. But dominance is usually better than subservience.

Well I mean I don't know what you want me to say. That sentence is meaningless.

Are there examples where dominance is "better" (very hard to define in itself, I assume you mean from the point of view of most of the species not dying) than subservience? Yes. Are there examples where subservience is "better" than dominance? Yes.

That's all I'm saying.

In evolution and natural selection "usually better" has no meaning because no two environments are the same.

So it's not usually better for a species to take over the food supply or shelter of another species? They are more likely to thrive staying where they are or even being ousted by the other species?

Also evolution isn't trying to make things "better" in the first place. It is trying make things adaptable so that the replication system continues to function.

Evolution is not trying to do anything. It has no personality. It is just a (supposed) process.

Its as simple as that. "better" is a meaningless concept in terms of evolution.

Better has meaning for the (supposed) subjects of evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, that concurs with what I wrote above, except that life has its top dogs.

It doesn't though, that is the point.

One can certainly pick an arbitary characteristic and study which life forms do that particularly well, but that is simply arbitary characteristics.

For example, who is "top dog", humans or the bacteria that live under your finger nails?

To figure that out you would first have to define how you measure "top". And then you have to ask yourself why did you pick those particular characteristics?

Top dog can normally be applied to those who determine their survival at the expense to the other. Man preys on everything else, including himself. He is prey to many things, but he is the one waging the more successful war, despite many battle losses.

Someone can say that they believe that killing weak memebers of the society will produce a "better" evolutionary out come in the long run for their species. But that person would have as bad an understand of evolution as you do, because as I explained there is no such thing as a "better" evolutionary out come.

As I explained, a better outcome certainly applies to the desires and needs of the subjects of evolution.

But even if that was true, why is a better evolutionary out come the "moral" choice to take? That is an ethical decision to take, and actually has nothing to do with the actually science (which as I explained above isn't even the actual science)

I didn't say a better evolutionary out come was the "moral" choice to take. It would be the logical course to take, given normal desires. But an objective morality may demand a sacrifical choice.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, you have just demonstrated with that sweeping statement of gross, almost unfathomable, ignorance of the highest order that not only is there no possible way on Earth you are a qualified scientist but you also clearly haven't the foggiest idea what "science" even is.

.....and is my statement that experimentation is superior to modelling not valid ......because experimentation can TEST models!!!:D

Wicknight wrote: »

Post #7563
Well done JC, you have officially made my ignore list

....OK then parting is such sweet sorrow....and all that....I will miss your Evolutionary masterpieces......but there you go....

.......but NO you return......with further questions for me......
.......welcome back......so does that mean that I am off your 'ignore list' after less than 15 minutes???!!!::eek::D

Wicknight wrote: »

Post #7564
Not only is that "answer" nonsense, since what exactly is the "kind", the Lion the Tiger or the Liger (a Liger cannot produce a Lion or a Tiger so how is that the "kind" that produced them), you also have the small fact that Ligers can't produce offspring because all males are sterile, so if that is your example of a "kind" life on Earth would have lasted 2 generations after Noah.

You have forgotten that most speciation events are irreversible......after all that is what makes a species into seperate species!!!:D:)

With loving thoughts

J C

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....and is my statement that experimentation is superior to modelling not valid

No it's not valid. [EDIT]Insult removed and apologies for the term "dingbat"[/EDIT]

Experiments on their own are useless. Experiments are simply tools used by scientists to construct and test models. The only purpose of experimentation in the first place is the construction and refinement of scientific models (btw model=theory, and please for the love of Allah don't make me explain that to you as well)

Science is modeling. That is all science is. Construction and refinement of models.

For you to say that models are not as useful as experiments, and that real science is experiments not models, shows that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about science.

Which is why I really could not be bothered listening to any more you have to say.

J C wrote: »

.
You have forgotten that most speciation events are irreversible......after all that is what makes species into seperate species!!!

That sentence (I assume it is supposed to be an answer) has absolutely nothing to do with my question. So I've no idea what you expect me to say. Do you actually understand what I was asking?

I really couldn't be arsed with this ... JC you have no idea what you are talking about

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Objective morality, as distinct from subjective morality. If my first premise is true, then objective morality exists: God's law.

But that is the point, God's law is not objective, it is subjective to God's opinion.

For morality to be truly objective it would have to be universal, even beyond God himself.

God's opinion that something is immoral is just as subjective as my opinion that something is immoral. You may hold his opinion in much higher respect that the opinion of any human, but that isn't the point.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I did specify that the perp was in a position to be not detected/punished by society. That being the case, he logically can have no reason not to do as he pleases.

Agreed, but then I don't see the point of your example. If he is not aware of your religion, or doesn't believe in it, he also has no logical reason to not do as he pleases either.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the intending perp reflects on the morality of his action and believes there is a God to whom he must answer, then it may well cause him to refrain.

True, but then he will only do this if he understands that what he is doing is considered wrong in the first place. And that that can happen from reflecting that society views it as wrong as much as it can from reflecting that Christianity views it as wrong. But the most likely outcome is that the perp will simply not reflect on this either way.

History is littered with Christians who have obviously managed to rationalise the most horrific crimes to themselves. If your premise holds then the only logical conclusion is that they did not really believe in God, because if they did they would be too scared to do what they did.

That seems an unsupported conclusion.

A far more rational conclusion, based on how people compartmentalize their actions, is that they did believe in God but rationalised to themselves that what they were doing was not wrong from that standard.

The classic example is the "God is on our side" argument for war.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If he believes man is just a super complex collection of chemicals, then he will see the logic of treating him any way that suits, even if that is like the dog-dirt on his shoe.

You keep saying that Wolfsbane and people here keep trying to explain to you that that not the only deduction

You only view humanity as having value because God has informed you that humanity has value. Therefore you seem to have a very hard problem understand how a human can view humanity as having value without this proclamation from God.

I understand you are having trouble with that, I'm not sure why exactly, but I can assure you that one can rationally conclude that human life has value independent of any proclamation from a deity.

I would point out that religion throughout history (including your Bible) have committed terrible crimes because they have concluded the exact opposite, that God has decided that certain groups of humans don't have value. This is has lead to war and genocide.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm using the evolutionary theory in the wider sense, the sense most evolutionists use when they trace man's origin.

There is no "wider sense" of evolutionary theory. That is simply Creationist nonsense.

Planets and stars didn't evolve, the universe didn't evolve, evolution theory doesn't apply to them. Darwinian evolutionary theory is applied to very little other than the processes of life (you can find it in cultural studies and computer programming).

wolfsbane wrote: »

It draws attention to the obvious question biological evolution demands: how did life arise? And the evolutionist is happy to oblige with 'models' of the Big Bang that terminate with abiogenesis in a primal soup.

"Evolutionists" are not happy to oblige with models of the Big Bang or the universe. Darwinian evolution has very little to do with any of these astrophysics theories

Again the term "Evolutionist" as applied to everyone who does science is a nonsense term that Creationists invented.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So again I say, your evolutionary view has amorality as its logical outcome.

You can say that all you like Wolfsbane and I will simply try to explain to you that the two are not connected. It is possible to view evolution as the way morality developed and still subscribe to the idea of universal morality. I know people who do. You might not understand that, but then I don't think they would particularly care TBH.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Certainly, invented morality often helps preserve society.

In your system your morality is just as invented Wolfsbane, it was invented by God. You just respect his opinion more than anyone else. But the morality is no more objective than any other decision on morality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The point is that no one can logically feel obliged to keep them.

That holds no more in your system of morality defined by God.

You seem to be getting rather muddled.

If someone doesn't agree with a moral decision taken by someone else, be it me or God, they won't agree with it. No one, not even God, can force someone to agree with a moral decision. They either agree or they don't. How obliged they feel to keep a decision they don't agree with is up to them, influenced by threat of hell or prison, it doesn't really matter.

But either way they won't be keeping it because they agree with it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The rapist's morality is just as valid as the aid-worker's.

Valid to who? The rapist? It isn't as valid to me because I don't agree with it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If He is the God of the Bible, then what He says is the real truth, what He commands is the only right way.

That doesn't make sense. It is the right way because he has decided it is the right way. He could decide otherwise, if he wanted to. To say that his decision is a universal truth is a paradox, because it means God could not decide otherwise, which clearly isn't true.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is your judgement on His actions. You are judging Him as if He were merely a fellowman.

Who he is is ultimately irrelevant. What he is supposed to have done is what matters. In my system of morality there are not two standards of morality, one for man and one for gods, because it doesn't actually matter what someone is, what matters is the consequences of their actions.

For example, if a homeless man rapes a woman is that any different than a Nobel Peace Prize winner raping the same women? No, because who the person is isn't the important bit, the important bit is the fact that the woman has been raped.

If God kills a child that is exactly the same for the child as if Satan killed the child. The child is dead, and that is the crime The child has the right to life. That right is independent to anything, including God.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But as God He has every right to order our affairs as He in His holiness sees fit. He gives us life, and it is His to take.

No he doesn't. "Rights" (at least in my wacky version of morality) don't work like that. If they did they wouldn't be "rights" in the first place.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure, that is the essence of subjective morality. But the rapist can just as logically say the same.

He can. But I'm still going to throw him in jail.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I'm looking for self-consistency, rationality in your argument.

Possibly, but you aren't actually listening to my argument.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, I'm asking you to say why your morality is superior to the rapist's, not to God's.

But that is the point. "Superior" doesn't apply because what does one measure it against. The opinion that my morality is better than the rapists morality is my opinion. There is no universal gauge to measure it upon, but I don't care.

Your question is that if there is no universal gauge to measure my morality upon then how do I know I am "right" in any universal sense. I don't because it doesn't apply since there is no universal "right"

But then does that actually matter? I'm not trying to justify myself to anyone except other humans, who can decide they agree with me or not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They will have their own. In your view it was wrong to gas the Jews; in Himmler's view, it was the good and right thing to do. As there is no outside Judge, you can only express your preference and act on it; you cannot logically say Himmler was immoral.

I can logically say Himmler was "immoral"

But since there is no universal standard of morality Himmler is only immoral in the opinion of those who subscribe to my values of morality. Himmler no doubt didn't consider himself immoral at all. But I don't care, because I don't agree with his concepts of morality to start with. To me Himmler is immoral.

I think your problem Wolfsbane is that you keep swapping in and out of frameworks where there is or isn't universal morality. I can say Himmler was immoral because in my system there is no universal morality. You then switch back into a framework where there is universal morality and say how can I say that because i don't know if my morality matches this universal morality. This ignores that I'm not working within a system of universal morality to begin with so the question doesn't apply.

I could only not say Himmler was immoral if I first accepted that there was a universal standard of morality, because I would have to recognize that I don't know if my morality matches that. But I'm not working in that system in the first place.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's all I'm saying.

But one cannot say that something is usually better" That is the meaningless bit, because there is no "usually" to start with.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So it's not usually better for a species to take over the food supply or shelter of another species?

No its not "usually better" because there is no such thing as "usually", even leaving out the fact that "better" is not defined either.

There are examples where such actions resulted in what you would consider a favorable outcome for the species as a whole, and there are examples where it didn't. It all depends on the specific set of circumstances of the environment.

Time is also a major factor as well, where you pick the point to measure if some evolutionary change was "better" or "worse" for a species.

For example, was it "better" for the human species that we developed our highly complex brains some 100,000 years ago, if we end up destroying the planet in the next 50,000 years? It was certainly good in terms of survivability of individuals in the short term, but in the long term we end up genociding ourselves. Which wouldn't be good for the species. So it comes back to how one defines "better" in the first place.

Do you understand the point I'm making?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Top dog can normally be applied to those who determine their survival at the expense to the other. Man preys on everything else, including himself. He is prey to many things, but he is the one waging the more successful war, despite many battle losses.

No offense Wolfsbane but from a biological point of view that is nonsense. Man doesn't prey on everything else, nor is he waging the more "successful" war.

There are more bacteria in you than there are humans on the face of the Earth. They are doing much better than we are in terms of numbers on the planet.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I explained, a better outcome certainly applies to the desires and needs of the subjects of evolution.

That is meaningless from an evolutionary point of view since organisms don't evolve while alive. If I desire something during my life evolution isn't going to do anything, because evolution already did what ever it was going to do the moment I was conceived.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I didn't say a better evolutionary out come was the "moral" choice to take. It would be the logical course to take, given normal desires.

Under what "logic"? You are asserting that the logical course of action to take is the one that produces the better evolutionary out come. But you haven't explained why that is the logical course of action in the first place. Logical towards what purpose or goal?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

No it's not valid. [EDIT]Insult removed and apologies for the term "dingbat"[/EDIT]

Your insults remind me of what a fighter pilot once said......
"you really only 'start taking flack'....when you are directly over the target......and hitting it"

Wicknight wrote: »

Experiments on their own are useless. Experiments are simply tools used by scientists to construct and test models. The only purpose of experimentation in the first place is the construction and refinement of scientific models (btw model=theory, and please for the love of Allah don't make me explain that to you as well)

Be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord.....and loves you!!

Anyway, as an eminently qualified scientist, I DO know the difference between a Model/Theory and Scientifically valid Evidence obtained by observing and reporting on Experiments.......

......and I would point out that experiments and observation are the most critical fascets of science.......otherwise it would decline into a collection of 'old wives tales' or 'young models stories' if you prefer......a bit like 'Molecules to Man Evolution' actually!!!:eek::D

Wicknight wrote: »

Science is modeling. That is all science is. Construction and refinement of models.

For you to say that models are not as useful as experiments, and that real science is experiments not models, shows that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about science.

See my answer above for the critical IMPORTANCE of experiment and observation to the integrity of science!!!:eek::D

Wicknight wrote: »

I really couldn't be arsed with this ... JC you have no idea what you are talking about

You're in a fierce huff, Wicknight........

.....which reminds me of Groucho Marx who made the very 'deep' observation that you should never leave a dinner party in a huff......

.......you should always leave in a minute and a huff.....

.....and if you can't leave in a minute and a huff.....you should leave in a taxi:D

Jesus loves you and I love you too.....in a purely platonic and Chrisitian way....I hasten to add!!!:D

5uspect

J C wrote:

Anyway, as an eminently qualified scientist, I DO know the difference between a Model/Theory and Scientifically valid Evidence obtained by observing and reporting on Experiments.......

Since you are now not now only a "conventionally qualified" scientist but an "eminent" one at that you surely must have at least one peer reviewed paper to your name? Care to share it? Do you have a single scientific paper from the literature to support any of your claims? How else could you be so eminent? Its not for the understanding of science that you display here.

......and I would point out that experiments and observation are the most critical fascets of science.......otherwise it would decline into a collection of 'old wives tales' or 'young models tales' if you prefer......a bit like 'Molecules to Man Evolution' actually!!!:eek::D

What is the purpose of evidence without a model to fit to it? The evidence and the models built on it which are used to make accurate predictions about the world are together the very essence of science. In the mind numbingly bizarre world of the creationist the model is fixed in fantasy and the evidence shoehorned around it and ignored as much as possible.

J C I'll ask you again, but I don't expect you to reciprocate. Please provide scientific references/evidence for what you claim. Even if you reference what you claim evolutionary theory claims rather than what creationism claims I will be happier. I don't expect you will however, I do fully expect you to respond in a flurry of smilies and nonsensical ramblings.


Mods, on this point I think it only fair that JC be held to account for what he says about scientific theories. I know this is a religious forum and not a science forum, but for the most part the non-creationists have kept within the limits of the charter only stepping out of line for pointing out the dishonesty they see JC getting away with. If JC wishes to express his scientific authority, as he see it, without having to detail his scientific qualifications he should at the very least cite the literature that supports his often outrageous claims. Since he claims that he is a scientist then going to the extra effort to include a journal volume and page number should not be too taxing.

BrianCalgary

5uspect wrote: »

Mods, on this point I think it only fair that JC be held to account for what he says about scientific theories. I know this is a religious forum and not a science forum, but for the most part the non-creationists have kept within the limits of the charter only stepping out of line for pointing out the dishonesty they see JC getting away with. If JC wishes to express his scientific authority, as he see it, without having to detail his scientific qualifications he should at the very least cite the literature that supports his often outrageous claims. Since he claims that he is a scientist then going to the extra effort to include a journal volume and page number should not be too taxing.

Point taken.

However, JC is not breaking any charter rule. I have yet to see him lie, except on the accusations of evolutionists.

Also I can't recall anyone having put their full name and credentials up. So we shouldn't expect it of JC either.

And, if everyone did put their qualifications up, JC would still be under no obligation to do so. Such is the anonymity of the internet.

You are free to not come to this thread if you so desire or stay away, yet you all continue to argue as well.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Point taken.

However, JC is not breaking any charter rule. I have yet to see him lie, except on the accusations of evolutionists.

Also I can't recall anyone having put their full name and credentials up. So we shouldn't expect it of JC either.

And, if everyone did put their qualifications up, JC would still be under no obligation to do so. Such is the anonymity of the internet.

In fact, many of us have cited our qualifications. Qualifications don't identify people. However, mustn't grumble.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You are free to not come to this thread if you so desire or stay away, yet you all continue to argue as well.

Indeed. Mind you, since JC never changes his claims, one can 'argue' with him by copying and pasting earlier responses. It's not as much fun as it used to be, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw, at times you are a real joy.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

Also I can't recall anyone having put their full name and credentials up. So we shouldn't expect it of JC either.

We have all put our credentials up

robindch

Brian wrote:

I have yet to see him lie, except on the accusations of evolutionists.

And unfortunately, I suspect that if JC said that the sun was blue and chewed tobacco, I can't help but think that creationists here would rub their chins and nod agreement. Oh well.

Brian wrote:

Also I can't recall anyone having put their full name and credentials up. So we shouldn't expect it of JC either. And, if everyone did put their qualifications up, JC would still be under no obligation to do so. Such is the anonymity of the internet.

I've posted my full qualifications, year of graduation and university at least once, and perhaps more than that. And while I've not posted my full name, I certainly have linked to letters I've had published in the national press which contain my full name and address. A google for my login will find my wikipedia page from which it's easy to work out who I am.

But despite JC claiming that he'd let his family die rather than declare himself mistaken, JC does not have the courage to reveal his name, or his work, or his qualifications, or indeed, allow us verify the truth of a single claim that he makes about himself. For that reason alone, creationists should be suspicious of his endless claims to perfect truth elsewhere, but I don't recall a single instance in which a single creationist has questioned a single thing that JC has said. This speaks volumes about how familiar creationists are with inquiry.

Total trust in the unsubstantiated claims of preachers is the cornerstone of religion. But it forms no part of the reality-based community where openness, honesty and the ability to admit that you might be wrong are considered necessary virtues.

.

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Point taken.

However, JC is not breaking any charter rule. I have yet to see him lie, except on the accusations of evolutionists.

Also I can't recall anyone having put their full name and credentials up. So we shouldn't expect it of JC either.

And, if everyone did put their qualifications up, JC would still be under no obligation to do so. Such is the anonymity of the internet.

I agree this is after all the Internet and he has not broken any rules. He does however seem to get preferential treatment in this forum regarding his behaviour. I accused you and others once of being proud of your ignorance of science. After which you tried, admirably, for sometime to listen to our non-technical explaination of evolution. Soon after that you dismissed it as a rather poor idea. You seem completely oblivious to the decades of testing, modeling, observation and retesting that have gone into the theory and has shown it to be both accurate and robust. Perhaps this is why you don't have a problem with what JC posts. Whereas others here, that have all posted their scientific qualifications, know how difficult scientific research is.

JC often claims that evolution says X and everyone points out that evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort. After why X is wrong has been explained exhaustively he then proceeds to ignore all this and continues to ramble on. This is dishonesty in my book.

So at the very least I propose that J C be required to back up his statements regarding what science says with the scientific literature. If he is a scientist then he has open access to it. He doesn't have to state his degree(s), institution or identity but stating his degree wouldn't hurt. I assume that if he did state his degree it wouldn't shine terribly well on his claims.

You are free to not come to this thread if you so desire or stay away, yet you all continue to argue as well.

I rarely post here anymore as JC seems incapable of even understanding the most basic of concepts and I don't have the patience to deal with him. I salute those that do still post regularly as be makes great reading to see his nonsense dissected so well. I would just like to see a level playing field.

[/grumble]

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Anyway, as an eminently qualified scientist, I DO know the difference between a Model/Theory and Scientifically valid Evidence obtained by observing and reporting on Experiments.......

Well you do NOW JC, because I just told you.

You didn't 2 days ago when you posted that rather ridiculous post.

I'm glad I am contributing to your further education

J C

....as I have previously said...."you only 'start taking flack'....when you are directly over the target......and hitting it" ......

.......and with the amount of 'flack' flying around me in the last few posts ......it looks like I must have gone and hit myself a BULLSEYE!!!!:eek::D:)

Nerin

perhaps,but probably not

J C

robindch wrote: »

........ despite JC claiming that he'd let his family die rather than declare himself mistaken.....

I freely admit that as a fallible Human Being I may be mistaken about MANY things.......

However, isn't it amazing that the Word of God and all aspects of Creation Science described by me on this thread have remained valid......despite the best efforts of some of the best Evolutionist 'brains' who have attempted, but failed, to counter any of my substantive arguments........

.....I am sometimes even surprised myself (although I shouldn't be, at this stage) by the power and veracity of the Word of God!!!

robindch wrote: »

creationists should be suspicious of his endless claims to perfect truth elsewhere,

Christians SHOULD question ALL expressed opinions (including mine)......and I would encourage them to FULLY do so!!!

robindch wrote: »

....but I don't recall a single instance in which a single creationist has questioned a single thing that JC has said.

With Evolutionists parsing every syllable that I have uttered, I guess they just didn't have to bother questioning me....it was all done for them by the Evolutionists!!!!:D

robindch wrote: »

Total trust in the unsubstantiated claims of preachers is the cornerstone of religion. But it forms no part of the reality-based community where openness, honesty and the ability to admit that you might be wrong are considered necessary virtues.

......so, WHY do Evolutionists exhibit such 'total trust' in the idea that they are directly descended from 'primordial slime', when there is no substantive evidence for such a belief???:eek::D

J C

nerin wrote: »

Fallen blossom doesn't return to the branch, a broken mirror can not be made to shine

Would you consider also adding the following obvious truth to your signature???:)

......and Primordial Slime doesn't spontaneously evolve into Man EITHER!!!:D

Nerin

i dunno,its starting to get clearer with your posts lol