The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

Define "equally well qualified" :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

Well they were given the scientific rebuttal. They ignored it, so they got ridicule. No one is being censored, as demonstrated by the massive amount of Creationist nonsense on the Internet and websites such as Answers in Genesis.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

This has been deliberately kept low key

Well you got that bit right :rolleyes:

For a group that seemingly has $1 million dollars (Dr. Evil laugh) you think they could have afforded a web designer.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

So it is dishonest for either side to rubbish the their arguments as being unscientific.

Unless of course, one side or the other actually is being unscientific. As it happens, the bearded wonder in AiG has already decided his conclusion and rejects counter-evidence as de-facto false. You're certainly free to kid yourself that this is real science and a genuine scientific debate, but it's not.

Ham is leading you up the garden path by your nose, no doubt to an ATM!

Ekancone

robindch wrote: »

Unless of course, one side or the other actually is being unscientific. As it happens, the bearded wonder in AiG has already decided his conclusion and rejects counter-evidence as de-facto false. You're certainly free to kid yourself that this is real science and a genuine scientific debate, but it's not.

Ham is leading you up the garden path by your nose, no doubt to an ATM!

Seconded. This is not science.

sdep

daithifleming wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Unless of course, one side or the other actually is being unscientific. As it happens, the bearded wonder in AiG has already decided his conclusion and rejects counter-evidence as de-facto false. You're certainly free to kid yourself that this is real science and a genuine scientific debate, but it's not.

Ham is leading you up the garden path by your nose, no doubt to an ATM!

Seconded. This is not science.

Agreed. Creationism has certainly evolved since the days of Archbishop Usher. Under the selective pressure of public scepticism, it has come to take on many of the trappings of science and can now be considered to be a sort of Batesian mimic of science. However, we must stress that creationism has only changed within its own kind and that no new information has been generated.

Zombrex

sdep wrote: »

Agreed. Creationism has certainly evolved since the days of Archbishop Usher. Under the selective pressure of public scepticism, it has come to take on many of the trappings of science and can now be considered to be a sort of Batesian mimic of science. However, we must stress that creationism has only changed within its own kind and that no new information has been generated.

stevejazzx

wolfsbane wrote: »

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

I think Origin of Species was published in 1859 or thereabouts so they're actually quite clever offering a million dollars since if one was to deflate the currency to the tune of approx 150years the figure payable would be substantially less - unless the Dawkin estate were somehow able to charge intrest and penalities from said date, unlikley.

wb wrote:

This has been deliberately kept low key in the scientific community, but I was pointed to it last week

You see things which are unscientific simply aren't on the scientific agenda, it's the first rule of the scientific.

Scofflaw

I'm willing to offer a million dollars to see God do it again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm willing to offer a million dollars to see God do it again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm willing to offer a million dollars to see the details of the process allowing a mammal species to evolve into another mammal species within the time frame required by Young Earth Creationism.

wolfsbane

Ciaran500 wrote: »

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.

Why don'y you check with their acountancy firm: http://www.youngbrophy.com/index.html

If the Foundation is fool enough to put up $1Million for a subject you guys have mastered, why not go for it? Maybe your foundation is the problem - sand, not rock.

If all you can do is ridicule the web-design, that shows how impotent your case is. Your evolutionary majesty is as naked as the day he evolved.

humanji

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the Foundation is fool enough to put up $1Million for a subject you guys have mastered, why not go for it?

There's no point. It's as loaded a request as you can get. No matter how you prove what they want, they'll always move the goalposts. There are thousands of these trick competitions all over the net. Hell, there's one that was on the conspiracy forum a while ago that wanted someone to make a fake video of a lizardman. Easy enough if you know your stuff, but those who made the offer changed the requirements when the video was provided. The exact same thing will happen here. There's more chance of you accepting evolution than them keeping their promise.

stevejazzx

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why don'y you check with their acountancy firm: http://www.youngbrophy.com/index.html

If the Foundation is fool enough to put up $1Million for a subject you guys have mastered, why not go for it? Maybe your foundation is the problem - sand, not rock.

But hold on a second, with creationists making the priori assuption that a god exists and that everything that happens is ultimatley attributable to him, how are we supposed to believe that if they were presented with irrefutable evidence of evolution they wouldn't just attribute it to God?

-'Oh come on we wouldn't do that'

-'Isn't that what you're already doing?'

-'No, you've given us no proof!'

-'But we have given you tonnes of proof already?'

-'No we're not accpeting that, we have a different idea'

-'But all your ideas have to tie into a priori assumption whereas we have treid to piece things together using history science and mathamatics, our method is impartial, yours is biased from the outset'

-'You would say that, science is always changing it's mind'

-'No it's not it simply revising our current understanding'

-'So you might be wrong then'

-'Yes, it is possible, but all the evidence suggests that the information presented is in agreement which generally speaking, means that is highly highly unlikley that we are fully wrong. Our best estimate would be that we are right about the majority of our current understanding, could religon be wrong?'

-'Yes but we can't think about that becasue we have faith'




etc etc etc!

pH

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why don'y you check with their acountancy firm: http://www.youngbrophy.com/index.html

If the Foundation is fool enough to put up $1Million for a subject you guys have mastered, why not go for it? Maybe your foundation is the problem - sand, not rock.

If all you can do is ridicule the web-design, that shows how impotent your case is. Your evolutionary majesty is as naked as the day he evolved.

A nonrefundable application processing fee of $500 per submission. Review of each submission costs many thousands of dollars and a great deal of valuable time and effort on the part of well-known scientists. The application fee is necessary to discourage frivolous submissions.
http://www.us.net/life/rul_appl.htm

ROFL - it's the creationists cashing in on the Nigerian 501!

You're so very close to winning the $1million professor, if you can now provide another $200 for university approval then it's going to be yours.

wolfsbane

stevejazzx said:

But hold on a second, with creationists making the priori assuption that a god exists and that everything that happens is ultimatley attributable to him, how are we supposed to believe that if they were presented with irrefutable evidence of evolution they wouldn't just attribute it to God?

As far as I can determine, the Origin-of-Life Foundation is not creationist. It is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature.. See: About The Gene Emergence Project http://www.us.net/life/

wolfsbane

humanji wrote: »

There's no point. It's as loaded a request as you can get. No matter how you prove what they want, they'll always move the goalposts. There are thousands of these trick competitions all over the net. Hell, there's one that was on the conspiracy forum a while ago that wanted someone to make a fake video of a lizardman. Easy enough if you know your stuff, but those who made the offer changed the requirements when the video was provided. The exact same thing will happen here. There's more chance of you accepting evolution than them keeping their promise.

Maybe you should complain to the various institutions from which the judges come?

See: Judging in http://www.us.net/life/

J C

Originally Posted by humanji
There's no point. It's as loaded a request as you can get. No matter how you prove what they want, they'll always move the goalposts. There are thousands of these trick competitions all over the net. Hell, there's one that was on the conspiracy forum a while ago that wanted someone to make a fake video of a lizardman. Easy enough if you know your stuff, but those who made the offer changed the requirements when the video was provided. The exact same thing will happen here. There's more chance of you accepting evolution than them keeping their promise.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Maybe you should complain to the various institutions from which the judges come?

See: Judging in http://www.us.net/life/

The guys behind this prize ARE leading evolutionists......so surely they would NOT move the goalposts!!!!:D:)

I too share your pessimism on anybody being able to demonstrate a natural origin for life.....and I therefore DON'T rate your chances of claiming the $1,000,000 'origins of life' prize!!!:D

......but there is a consolation prize for any evolutionist who can demonstrate materialistic evolution (i.e. open-ended evolution in a closed system).......full details here:
http://www.panspermia.org/eprize.htm
http://www.evolutionprize.net/oeeipossiblenks.doc

The prize is only $100,000.......but based on the miserable performance of evolutionists on this thread, I also DON'T rate their chances of claiming the the 'proof of Evolution' prize either!!

.....and NO, sarcasm towards Creation Scientists doesn't count......only SCIENTIFIC PROOF for both Materialistic Evolution and a materialistic origin of life should be submitted!!!!!:D

The ultimate irony of both of these evolutionist-sponsored prizes is that they could actually result in the DISPROVING of a materialistic origin for both life and 'evolution'!!!:D:)

......these prizes also indicate that neither evolution nor a materialistic origin of life are 'proven facts'......as many evolutionists believe.......they are simply 'Articles of Faith'........for Materialists!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm willing to offer a million dollars to see the details of the process allowing a mammal species to evolve into another mammal species within the time frame required by Young Earth Creationism.

How about a Wolfhound and a Shih Tzu......they are physically incapable of breeding naturally....and so they are technically separate species of dog!!!

Shall I email my bank details to you to claim the prize???:)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane, you're aware that the prize is offered for an abiogenesis theory? Do we take it you want to shift the focus off evolution?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

wolfsbane, you're aware that the prize is offered for an abiogenesis theory? Do we take it you want to shift the focus off evolution?

cordially,
Scofflaw

..there is ALSO a consolation prize of $100,000 for any person who can scientifically demonstrate Materialistic Evolution as well.......

......see my previous posting #8057 for details......


......are you going to try and claim EITHER prize????:)

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm willing to offer a million dollars to see God do it again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That is something that you will have to take up with God.......when you meet Him.......

........but I suspect that it won't be very high up your agenda when you DO meet Him!!!:eek::D

sdep

stevejazzx wrote: »

But hold on a second, with creationists making the priori assuption that a god exists and that everything that happens is ultimatley attributable to him, how are we supposed to believe that if they were presented with irrefutable evidence of evolution they wouldn't just attribute it to God?

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily object if they did. Crudely, evolutionary biologists are just trying to find a mechanism to account for biological speciation within the framework of the physical laws governing the universe. If people can reconcile such a mechanism with their theology, as many do, so be it.

However, as this wonderfully informative thread shows, creationism would require so many impossible things to have happened that we can't accommodate it within our understanding of physical laws. The creationist response to this critique is lots of handwaving evasion and a counter-attack aimed at discrediting widely-accepted scientific theory.

Suppose for a moment that science thought that Lamarck's theory could account for speciation. Would disproving Lamarck, as has happened, prove the Ark? That's how creationists reason. Creationist stunts, such as this new prize, are impertinent. If you fail to prove evolution, even if you refute it entirely, that still doesn't prove the animals went in two by two.

J C

sdep wrote: »

Suppose for a moment that science thought that Lamarck's theory could account for speciation. Would disproving Lamarck, as has happened, prove the Ark? That's how creationists reason. Creationist stunts, such as this new prize, are impertinent. If you fail to prove evolution, even if you refute it entirely, that still doesn't prove the animals went in two by two.

Science has disproven BOTH Lamarkism AND Darwinism.......

........and the prizes are put up by EVOLUTIONISTS.......

...........and so, they NOT 'Creationist stunts'......as you have erroneously described them!!!!:D:)

J C

sdep wrote: »

Agreed. Creationism has certainly evolved since the days of Archbishop Usher. Under the selective pressure of public scepticism, it has come to take on many of the trappings of science and can now be considered to be a sort of Batesian mimic of science. However, we must stress that creationism has only changed within its own kind and that no new information has been generated.

......well at least you are starting to use Creation Science terminology ......and highlighting it!!!! :)

......and I suppose your recognition of Creation Science as a 'mimic of science' is a good first step in your emergence from total denial of the validity of Creation Science!!!!:D:)

.......the next stage is accepting Creation Science as a 'sort of science'.....

.......and this is usually followed by accepting it as a 'Kind' of science.....

......and the 'ultimate stage' is reached when you 'follow in the footsteps' of thousands of other Evolutionists, and you become a 'full blown' Creation Scientist.. !!!!:D

sdep

J C wrote: »

and the prizes are put up by EVOLUTIONISTS.......

...........and so, they NOT 'Creationist stunts'......as you have erroneously described them!!!!:D:)

Where creationism is concerned, I find it best not to take assertions at face value. Though if it's not a creationist stunt, just a stunt, does it change the basis of my argument? That if you fail to prove abiogenesis to the satisfaction of some particular set of criteria, that doesn't justify throwing out evolution in favour of Noah.

J C

Ciaran500 wrote: »

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.

......I suppose the colour co-ordination of the site WILL evolve!!!!

.........via the intelligent design of it's authors!!!:eek::D

........BTW do you always look 'gift horses' in the mouth.......or do you focus on other parts of their anatomies........rather than the prize-money that they can win for you???:)

J C

sdep wrote: »

.....if you fail to prove abiogenesis to the satisfaction of some particular set of criteria, that doesn't justify throwin out evolution in favour of Noah.

......you certainly WOULDN'T then have any basis for throwing out Noah in favour of 'evolution' EITHER!!!!!:D:):eek:

sdep wrote: »

Where creationism is concerned, I find it best not to take assertions at face value. Though if it's not a creationist stunt, just a stunt, does it change the basis of my argument?

.....the prizes don't seem to be stunts.......they seem to be genuine attempts by Evolutionists to stimulate other Evolutionists into proving their beliefs!!!!:D

......something which this thread hasn't succeeded in doing!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

......you certainly WOULDN'T then have any basis for throwing out Noah in favour of 'evolution'!!!!!:D:):eek:

.....and the prizes don't seem to be stunts.......they seem to be genuine attempts at (financially) stimulating Evolutionists into proving their beliefs!!!!:D

So we've come down to the point in your arguments where the mere existence of a prize is all you've got? Such prizes have been offered before - and are regularly offered in many scientific fields (the Nobels are the most obvious) for exactly the same purpose - to encourage research in the fields in question.

One major question is whether those offering the prize (who are rather surprisingly shadowy) have defined the terms correctly. If life did not evolve within the parameters they suggest, it may be completely impossible for anyone ever to claim the prize. One can offer a prize for reaching the Moon by balloon, but that does not mean it is possible to do so.

You really will have to do better than this.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

just spotted this

http://moneyforgod.blogspot.com/

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

How about a Wolfhound and a Shih Tzu......they are physically incapable of breeding naturally

Sweet hairy Moses

Not being able to physically reach your sexual partner does not a definition of a different species make ... if it did half the drunk people out tonight would be "technically" different species :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

The guys behind this prize ARE leading evolutionists......so surely they would NOT move the goalposts!!!!:D:)

LOL .. these guys are "leading evolutionists?"

Would that be the accountant then, accountancy famed for it in depth study of biological evolution?

Or the maths guy who works for the DoD?

Or perhaps the guy who owns a computer repair shop?

Quite what these guys are doing with $1 million year is another question...