Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1265266268270271822

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Exactly what I said. A person or group cannot claim to be scientific while putting forward a mission statement that is the exact opposite of scientific, that being that they will ignore or discard evidence and observation if it appears to contradict the Bible.

    Very true.

    Method of science:

    - We observe something.
    - We derive a theory that models our observation.
    - We use our theory to make predictions.
    - We devise and carry out an experiment to test these predictions.
    - If the predictions fail to come true, we modify or reject the theory.

    Method of creation 'science':

    - We start with the theory that the bible's account of creation is literal truth.
    - Though generally we stop there, we may use the creation theory to make predictions.
    - We may devise experiments to test these predictions.
    - If these experiments fail to give the predicted results, we refuse to believe the experimental evidence because we've decided in advance that the theory can't be wrong.

    That last point is what AiG mean when they include in their statement of faith the declaration, "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." That's why creation 'science' is effectively the opposite of science. I think an appreciation of this distinction could usefully be put into a high school science curriculum.

    Creationists often accuse 'evolutionists' (their word, not mine) of seeking to fit the world to some materialistic agenda. Is this because they can't appreciate how science could be other than agenda-driven?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    sdep wrote: »
    Very true.

    Method of science:

    - We observe something.
    - We derive a theory that models our observation.
    - We use our theory to make predictions.
    - We devise and carry out an experiment to test these predictions.
    - If the predictions fail to come true, we modify or reject the theory.

    Excellent post sdep

    Another point Creationists fail to explain is that nearly all scientific theories started of a Creationist in nature, including those on the origin of life on Earth.

    These theories were modified simply and only because they did not fit observation.

    If in fact the world if full of evidence of direct Biblical creation this would never have happened in the first place.
    sdep wrote: »
    Creationists often accuse 'evolutionists' (their word, not mine) of seeking to fit the world to some materialistic agenda. Is this because they can't appreciate how science could be other than agenda-driven?

    I suppose when they view science as purely a tool for religious propaganda it is impossible to see science as anything other than that. They rational that because they do it the "other side" must do it as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    Why do people keep arguing with these religious anti-evolution folk? They are willfully obtuse and seem intent to stay that way. There is a mountain of scientific evidence out there, available and tangible, in support of evolution. If creationists choose to ignore it let them dwell in their fantasy diety driven world.
    My Gamma used to say, 'don't wrestle with pigs, you'll only get dirty and the pig likes it.' This thread a very apt example of that.

    I'm inclined to agree.

    My concern, though, is less with persuading people who say upfront that they aren't persuadable as with pointing out what's going on to everyone else.

    One creationist argument is that literal Biblical creation should be taught as an alternative to biological evolution in school science lessons simply because we should be open-minded. I've heard people, even scientists, say they find this reasonable. The reality is that creation 'scientists' are by definition closed-minded when evidence conflicts with their creation theory, and that their 'science' is non-scientific. I don't expect creationists to agree, but I'd hope this can be generally recognised.

    And with any luck, creation 'science' has already reached its high water mark and is declining. With Blair gone, the UK government is soft-pedalling on faith schools and should be less welcoming when creationist benefactors come calling at the Education Department. In America, the intelligent design teaching ban and Bush's forthcoming departure give encouragement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    In the temporary absence of Creationists, I'll point out how Creationists modify the scheme you've given:
    sdep wrote: »
    Method of science:

    - We observe something.
    - We derive a theory that models our observation.
    - We use our theory to make predictions.
    - We devise and carry out an experiment to test these predictions.
    - If the predictions fail to come true, we modify or reject the theory.

    - We observe something.
    - We derive a theory that models our observation.
    - We use our theory to make predictions.
    - We devise and carry out an experiment to test these predictions.

    Here's the first point - Creationists are prone to interpreting "experiment" as literally a workbench business. They would claim that no 'experiment' can be devised to test the theory of evolution, or planetary formation - and they are generally correct, in the narrowest sense of experiment.

    The "field sciences" - geology, botany, zoology, ecology, etc - do not usually perform 'experiments' as such. Predictions are tested against observation of the natural world, rather than experimentally. Of course, an experiment is simply a set of observations under controlled conditions, but that's a bit subtle.

    - If the predictions fail to come true, we modify or reject the theory.

    Here's the second point - Creationists (and post-modernists) claim that we interpret the experimental results (or observations) in line with dominant paradigms. Therefore, they claim, no interpreted observation will disprove evolution, because observations are interpreted in line with the evolutionary paradigm - and more generally, all scientific observations are interpreted in line with a materialistic paradigm. Only Creation Scientists, being free of the dominant materialistic paradigm, can successfully break free of this Catch-22.
    sdep wrote: »
    Creationists often accuse 'evolutionists' (their word, not mine) of seeking to fit the world to some materialistic agenda. Is this because they can't appreciate how science could be other than agenda-driven?

    Not quite - it's more because they reject the materialistic (that is, naturalistic) basis of science as wrong. If it is wrong, then to use it is false, and to promote it (for example, by pointing out that the supernatural, by virtue of being supernatural, is neither necessarily causal nor subject to logical constraints) therefore requires the promoter to have a materialistic agenda - on the basis that anyone promoting falsehood must have an agenda.

    In sufficiently inspired hands, this leads to the obvious conclusion that scientists are, if not inspired by Satan (representing the material, materialistic, earthy, dark - and often the feminine), then at least deluded by him - and that the materialistic agenda that science advances is Satan's agenda.

    So, while we are inclined to see science as the light of reason, and religion as the darkness of superstition and ignorance, they are inclined to see science as the darkness of materialism, and religion (well, the right religion) as the light of spirituality and salvation. Naturally, there's only so far they can push that view, because in a competition between washing machines and God, washing machines will win - for most people. However, the seeds of that Ludditism are always there.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    .....because in a competition between washing machines and God, washing machines will win - for most people. cordially,
    Scofflaw


    Have you ever seen just how white God gets his whites...they're almost blinding...so I think you better re-evaluate him, as at least good opposition in that context!:)



    BTW 'twas a great post.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    this notion that human beings plopped, yes plopped out of thin air at the behest of a supernatural entity into the middle east 6,000 thousand years ago is not only illogical, but pathological. It is litreally insane. Denying the origin of species by substituting an untestable hypothesis (GOD) is illogical and unworkable, it is especially so given the knowledge and evidence that is currently available.

    OK....so basically you think that a well founded belief in God ...is "insane".....

    .......while a belief that you are directly descended from a 'slime-ball' ....is "rational"????

    ......go 'pull the other one'!!!:D:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    My Gamma used to say, 'don't wrestle with pigs, you'll only get dirty and the pig likes it.'
    Speaking as somebody who has castrated more than a few pigs in my time.....I can confirm that sometimes pigs DIDN'T like it......when I have 'wrestled' with them!!!:D:)

    ....and I suspect that the Evolutionists, on this thread don't like it when I 'wrestle' with them either!!!:D

    .... so, who is next.....for shaving???


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Originally Posted by J C
    Do you have to see a videotape of the building of the Egyptian Pyramids to accept that they were built by an intelligent agent?

    .......so WHY do you not accept that similar evidence and logic indicates that life was ALSO built by an intelligent agent?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well no, you don't need to observe something directly to understand how it works based on the study of the evidence left behind by the process.

    Which is why evolutionary biologists can understand very well how life on Earth evolved naturally over 3 billion years without have to observe the entire process on some massive time laps video tape.

    Wow, you really walked into that one didn't you :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    So we observe living organisms to contain levels of specified complexity and precise interactive information at molecular levels of resolution.....that would 'melt' a super-computer.......

    .....and the Evolutionist claims that it was all an enormous cosmic ACCIDENT!!!!

    ......you really backed into that one, didn't you? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sdep wrote: »
    Very true.

    Method of science:

    - We observe something.
    - We derive a theory that models our observation.
    - We use our theory to make predictions.
    - We devise and carry out an experiment to test these predictions.
    - If the predictions fail to come true, we modify or reject the theory.

    .......which is WHY neo-Darwinian Evolution should have been abandoned by science years ago!!!:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Creationists are prone to interpreting "experiment" as literally a workbench business. They would claim that no 'experiment' can be devised to test the theory of evolution, or planetary formation - and they are generally correct, in the narrowest sense of experiment.

    The "field sciences" - geology, botany, zoology, ecology, etc - do not usually perform 'experiments' as such. Predictions are tested against observation of the natural world, rather than experimentally. Of course, an experiment is simply a set of observations under controlled conditions, but that's a bit subtle....

    I don't claim subtlety as a strong suit, but yes. In mitigation, I'll plead concision.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Creationists (and post-modernists) claim that we interpret the experimental results (or observations) in line with dominant paradigms. Therefore, they claim, no interpreted observation will disprove evolution, because observations are interpreted in line with the evolutionary paradigm - and more generally, all scientific observations are interpreted in line with a materialistic paradigm. Only Creation Scientists, being free of the dominant materialistic paradigm, can successfully break free of this Catch-22.

    ...

    they reject the materialistic (that is, naturalistic) basis of science as wrong. If it is wrong, then to use it is false, and to promote it (for example, by pointing out that the supernatural, by virtue of being supernatural, is neither necessarily causal nor subject to logical constraints) therefore requires the promoter to have a materialistic agenda - on the basis that anyone promoting falsehood must have an agenda.

    Being a simplistic sort, I reckon we've got used to a fairly common sense, natural world where predictions based on past experience are often borne out, hence useful. If we lived in a world of constant supernatural intervention, where you never knew what gravity would be from one minute to the next, we'd long ago have thrown up(?) our hands and quit. This not being so, we've come up with a nifty tool called science to systematise our prediction-making.

    So yes, there is in science an in-built assumption that the world proceeds reasonably from natural cause to natural effect. The supernatural can't be modelled scientifically because it is not subject to this kind of reasoning. As long as we remember this, we ought to be able to avoid controversy.

    I think you can present the workings of a washing machine in natural, causative terms, and still leave room for the possibility that the divine hand is at work, guiding each detergent molecule on its way in a manner beyond the scope of science to detect. Evolution, 'brought to you by the same people who brought you the washing machine', is a theory based on natural cause and effect. Evolution doesn't require supernatural input, but it's not for science to rule it out.

    This is the 'non-overlapping magisteria' approach favoured by non-fundamentalist churches. Richard Dawkins may deride it, but to the cynic in me it seems like a nice, if slightly hazy, accommodation.


    But getting back to creationism, to claim that any science which ignores the divine is inadequate, yet still try to use scientific reasoning to tug at the threads of the evolutionary tapestry would seem contradictory. My main objection, though, remains that, in any definition of science, you don't reach your conclusion before you've done your experiment, which is why creation science is a misnomer.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    .
    So, while we are inclined to see science as the light of reason, and religion as the darkness of superstition and ignorance, they are inclined to see science as the darkness of materialism, and religion (well, the right religion) as the light of spirituality and salvation. Naturally, there's only so far they can push that view, because in a competition between washing machines and God, washing machines will win - for most people. However, the seeds of that Ludditism are always there.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    BOTH Science and the Christian Faith are fully compatible.......and THEY are respectively, based on the lght of reason ....and the light of (well founded) faith!!!:D

    There is no competition between God and washing machines.......and the salesman who recently delivered our new machine DIDN'T claim that it was better than God......!!!!:eek::D

    .......perhaps he WASN'T an Evolutionist......that might explain it!!!!:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Have you ever seen just how white God gets his whites...they're almost blinding...so I think you better re-evaluate him, as at least good opposition in that context!:)

    Quite!!!!!:D:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    J C wrote: »
    Speaking as somebody who has castrated more than a few pigs in my time.....I can confirm that sometimes pigs DIDN'T like it......when I have 'wrestled' with them!!!:D:)

    ....and I suspect that the Evolutionists, on this thread don't like it when I 'wrestle' with them either!!!:D

    .... so, who is next.....for shaving???

    Bizarre. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    BOTH Science and the Christian Faith are fully compatible.......and THEY are respectively, based on the lght of reason ....and the light of (well founded) faith!!!:D

    There is no competition between God and washing machines.......and the salesman who recently delivered our new machine DIDN'T claim that it was better than God......!!!!:eek::D

    .......perhaps he WASN'T an Evolutionist......that might explain it!!!!:D

    You have really just given up now haven't you ...

    Ah well


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You have really just given up now haven't you ...

    Ah well

    I certainly haven't given up .......I've actually reached the point of victory...........
    .....is that an Evolutionist towel that I see being tossed towards me????:confused::eek::D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    I certainly haven't given up .......I've actually reached the point of victory...........
    Point of victory?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    2Scoops wrote: »
    Bizarre. :)

    .......but not half as 'bizarre' as 'molecules to man evolution'!!!:D:)

    ......I enjoyed visiting the Young Scientist Exhibition today.....

    .......I particularly enjoyed the exhibit on the Wollemi Pine (or Dinosaur Tree).......

    There were two vigorous young speciemens present as well as a photo of a supposed 100 million year old fossil.......and AMAZINGLY the young growing tree leaves EXACTLY matched those in the fossil......

    .....so, during the time that NS was supposedly 'evolving' something that looked like a 'glorified rat' into a Human Being.....NS has had absolutely NO EFFECT on the Wollemi Pine !!!!!

    Is that stasis or is that stasis......

    ......or is the Wollemi fossil less than 10,000 years old?????

    ....and did the 'glorified rat' remain a rodent???

    Love you all!!!:)

    J C

    PS Wikipedia has the following to say about the Wollemi Pine "Genetic testing has revealed that all the specimens are genetically indistinguishable, suggesting that the species has been through a genetic bottleneck in which its population became so low (possibly just one or two individuals) that all genetic variability was lost."

    ...mmm..... a genetic bottleneck.....descended from one or two individuals.......images of Noah's Flood spring to mind!!!!!:D


    ......all genetic variability was lost........not much sign that mutation can produce useful genetic diversity in that observation!!!:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Point of victory?

    Evolutionist towel???:eek::D

    .....thrown in???:eek::D


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    J C wrote: »
    I certainly haven't given up .......I've actually reached the point of victory...........
    .....is that an Evolutionist towel that I see being tossed towards me????:confused::eek::D

    The Black Knight of Creationism.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Apologies for not responding for a while - a lot of other commitments. I'll try to distill some of the key objections.

    Scofflaw said:
    Honestly, why are we going through all this again? These are the arguments of particularly dim schoolboys.
    Because these are the arguments of scientists just as expert in their fields as their opponents: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

    And their arguments are not schoolboy stuff. For example:
    "Excess Argon": The "Achillies' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
    THE SANDS OF TIME: A BIBLICAL MODEL OF DEEP SEA-FLOOR SEDIMENTATION
    http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/
    What dating methods that suggest a young earth? The only "dating method" that produces a young earth is Biblical chronology.
    For example: http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf
    http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf

    We've been 'round and 'round the merry-go-round long enough on some of these issues. I'm hampered in countering arguments by my lack of scientific training, so it takes an inordinate time for me to research and assess the importance of each piece I examine. So in future I will leave the technical stuff to JC and the Creationist sites - for those of you genuinely interested in the arguments.

    But shout if you have any problems or objections on the logical or theological aspects of Creation.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Apologies for not responding for a while - a lot of other commitments. I'll try to distill some of the key objections.

    Scofflaw said:

    Because these are the arguments of scientists just as expert in their fields as their opponents: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

    And their arguments are not schoolboy stuff. For example:
    "Excess Argon": The "Achillies' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
    THE SANDS OF TIME: A BIBLICAL MODEL OF DEEP SEA-FLOOR SEDIMENTATION
    http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/

    I think you should broaden your reading - Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective:

    Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

    This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.


    Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    I realise that, 8000 posts in, I've come to the party as people are hunting for their car keys, and we're down to the Twiglets. So sorry if this has been flogged to death already.

    Creation scientists (done with typing inverted commas, but they are intended) are acting not as scientists but as defence lawyers. They presume that creation is literally Biblical until proven otherwise, so their job is just to create enough reasonable doubt over any evidence suggesting an old earth, and creationism gets a free pass. After all, it worked for OJ. However, to repeat myself - and doubtless many who have posted here already - science it ain't.

    As an aside, do creation scientists genuinely believe that the overwhelming evidence for an ancient universe is wrong? I wonder how many have invested so much intellectual capital they feel they just can't back down, how many are compartmentalising - having faith in a literal Genesis yet seeing a stack of fact that speaks against - and how many are cynically telling others to believe what they themselves do not, either thinking it benefits society or knowing (Hovind?) it's to their own gain. Of course, any creationist could turn round and ask the same questions about 'evolutionists'. I think the appropriate reply would be 'Oink'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    Bah! You call that qualifications!

    Answers in Genesis has a vet (yes, a vet, as in a veterinarian) and a US Marine (as in, well, a US Marine) who will explain how radiometric dating is completely flawed and impossible to trust.

    I'm actually not making that up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    sdep wrote: »
    I realise that, 8000 posts in, I've come to the party as people are hunting for their car keys, and we're down to the Twiglets. So sorry if this has been flogged to death already.

    Flogging things to death is a discursive necessity here. They generally reincarnate anyway. Put aside your worries - JC has claimed victory roughly every 25 pages.
    sdep wrote: »
    Creation scientists (done with typing inverted commas, but they are intended) are acting not as scientists but as defence lawyers. They presume that creation is literally Biblical until proven otherwise, so their job is just to create enough reasonable doubt over any evidence suggesting an old earth, and creationism gets a free pass. After all, it worked for OJ. However, to repeat myself - and doubtless many who have posted here already - science it ain't.

    As an aside, do creation scientists genuinely believe that the overwhelming evidence for an ancient universe is wrong? I wonder how many have invested so much intellectual capital they feel they just can't back down, how many are compartmentalising - having faith in a literal Genesis yet seeing a stack of fact that speaks against - and how many are cynically telling others to believe what they themselves do not, either thinking it benefits society or knowing (Hovind?) it's to their own gain. Of course, any creationist could turn round and ask the same questions about 'evolutionists'. I think the appropriate reply would be 'Oink'.

    That is a question that interests all of us (for a specific value of us). It seems that most Creationists are happy to find even one "flaw" they can really hang on to, and that is sufficient for their faith to swallow the rest of the camel. The psychology of it is fascinating.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,002 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The psychology of it is fascinating.
    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    I think there are two groups:

    1. Those that are devout about their faith and don't really know that much about Science. (In fairness most people don't much about Science, even those that study it, ask a random selection of people who have studied science to explain the scientific method and you'll see what I mean or ask someone who has fallen for there's no global warming propaganda either).

    2. Those that know a lot about Science and see a nice way to make some money selling a load of propaganda. I read a chapter of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" where he attempts to rebutt evolution theory. He begins the chapter by name checking several eminent Scientists and their works e.g. Richard Dawkins and The Selfish Gene, he then name checks several others. He presents himself as someone who has done a lot of research into evolution
    and really understands it.

    He then completly misrepresents what the theory is and tries to make out their are several holes here and several holes there. He also leaves out pertinent facts for example that most mainstream Christian Churches accept the theory.

    I can only think he is playing the role of a defense lawyer with one thing on his mind - shaft the truth, time to make some money. In fact he comes from a legal background which is no surprise.

    I sometimes think J C is up to the similar tricks and is using this thread to see what he can get away with saying. He is rarely on other threads and seems obsessed with this one.

    I feel sorry for many Christians, fair enough if they have "faith" but when they are sold this propaganda, their faith just appears foolish. I think the Church leaders need to embrace Science more, I appreciate some are doing this but it really is the only way they can distinguish themselves from the lunatics and fundamentalists.

    PS Scofflaw, I remember you said your bro was a church goer, what's his take on evolution etc?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I think there are two groups:

    1. Those that are devout about their faith and don't really know that much about Science. (In fairness most people don't much about Science, even those that study it, ask a random selection of people who have studied science to explain the scientific method and you'll see what I mean or ask someone who has fallen for there's no global warming propaganda either).

    Very true.
    2. Those that know a lot about Science and see a nice way to make some money selling a load of propaganda. I read a chapter of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" where he attempts to rebutt evolution theory. He begins the chapter by name checking several eminent Scientists and their works e.g. Richard Dawkins and The Selfish Gene, he then name checks several others. He presents himself as someone who has done a lot of research into evolution
    and really understands it.

    He then completly misrepresents what the theory is and tries to make out their are several holes here and several holes there. He also leaves out pertinent facts for example that most mainstream Christian Churches accept the theory.

    I can only think he is playing the role of a defense lawyer with one thing on his mind - shaft the truth, time to make some money. In fact he comes from a legal background which is no surprise.

    I sometimes think J C is up to the similar tricks and is using this thread to see what he can get away with saying. He is rarely on other threads and seems obsessed with this one.

    One certainly hopes he gets something out of it!
    I feel sorry for many Christians, fair enough if they have "faith" but when they are sold this propaganda, their faith just appears foolish. I think the Church leaders need to embrace Science more, I appreciate some are doing this but it really is the only way they can distinguish themselves from the lunatics and fundamentalists.

    PS Scofflaw, I remember you said your bro was a church goer, what's his take on evolution etc?

    Standard scientific take. His wife too, despite her being a Presbyterian. Statistically, of course, that's what you'd expect - the majority of Christians aren't Creationists. My mother-in-law, on the other hand, is an old-fashioned woolly Creationist - the sort of person who wonders what use slugs are.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,002 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Standard scientific take. His wife too, despite her being a Presbyterian. Statistically, of course, that's what you'd expect - the majority of Christians aren't Creationists. My mother-in-law, on the other hand, is an old-fashioned woolly Creationist - the sort of person who wonders what use slugs are.
    In your experience do you think the Presbyterians have a high number of creationists?
    The Anglicans, Lutherans and RC Church seem to have no problem with evolution or science now. Calvinists, I don't know if they have an official line.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I think you should broaden your reading - Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective:

    Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

    This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.


    Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    I've no problem acknowledging some Christian scientists go with the evolutionary scenario. I am just pointing out that scientists equally well qualified in the same field don't. So it is dishonest for either side to rubbish the their arguments as being unscientific. One or the other - or both - must be mistaken, but they are worthy of scientific rebuttal, not ridicule and censorship.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wonderful news for my evolutionist friends: a massive prize awaits you, a reward for your diligent research on the origins of life!

    This has been deliberately kept low key in the scientific community, but I was pointed to it last week ( http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v9i11f.htm#footnote2) - and immediately thought of you.

    The Origin-of-Life Prize ® http://www.us.net/life/

    They point out how difficult the challenge will be, e.g. Inanimate stepping stones of abiotic evolution are essential components to any natural process theory of the molecular evolution of life. Full reign must be given to the exploration of spontaneously forming complexity and to self-ordering inanimate systems. But reductionistic attempts to provide models of life development must not sacrifice the very property of "life" that biology seeks to explain. Coacervates, micelles, vesicles, and various primordial quasimembrane models, for example, may resemble membrane equivalents and merit considerable ongoing research, but should not be confused with the active transport membranes of the simplest known free-living organisms. .

    You might need to consider how you want to distribute the prize ($50,000.00 (U.S.) per year for twenty consecutive years, totalling One Million Dollars in payments). Equally, or should Wickie get the lion's share? :D

    JC and I hold no resentment over this, we are just glad to have sharpened your thinking and research to bring you to where you are in understanding the origins of life. The Foundation could have saved themselves a lot of money had they checked out the postings on The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread.:D:D:D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The Origin-of-Life Prize ® http://www.us.net/life/
    How can a they be trusted to pay $1,000,000 with a site like that? :eek:

    Honestly, I could make a nicer site and I've only played around with HTML. Its horrendous.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement