The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Killbot2000

wolfsbane wrote: »

Eschatologist said:

Creation science offers scientific argument to support the biblical account. You want science to have no starting assumptions. That's OK too, but it is not better science because of it. The quality of the science is determined by the honest evaluation of the evidence and ability of the scientist.

Certainly one has to beware of our presuppositions tending us to fit the interpretation of the evidence to our position. Both creationists and materialists face that problem. Honesty and rigour help avoid it.



Depends on how gullible you are.:D But the Christian has a much better grounds for belief - God reveals it to his/her heart.


Again, the Christian doesn't have to choose science or theology as the cause; both are true. God made the physics and it runs naturally in accordance with His will. At times He intervenes against the course of nature and we call that a miraculous act.


Agreed.


Agreed. That's why so much of scientific discovery was by Christians who sought to find out the wonderful ways of God in nature.


That's Pantheism, not Theism.


Agreed. That's why Christians have played a big part in science and the Creation Science movement specifically addresses matters like the science of the Flood.

Creationists persist in the delusion that the Earth is only thousands of years old and the only reason they do this is because they start out with a series of dogmatic unverifiable beliefs (i.e. faith). This is about as far from science as one can get but very close to religion. You say yourself that the quality of science comes from an honest evaluation of the evidence, yet you seem incapable of doing this.

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

......and for those many Evolutionists whose arguments have been 'shot down in flames' on this thread.......... here are some words of comfort from a fellow Evolutionist and ACLU member Robert E. Smith who says:

"For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist literature and have attended lectures and debates on related issues.... based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution.
That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school.
In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory."
"Origins and Civil Liberties," by Robert E. Smith as quoted in Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.

.....equally the following quote could ALSO describe the 'state of play' on this thread:-
"At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles."
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 12.


.....and this might be good advice for all of the Evolutionists on this thread as well:-
"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

Emphasis in all case mine!!!!:eek::):D

Evolution is defined as a change in the allele (gene) frequencies of a population through generations. This much has been empirically observed and is the fact of evolution. The theory used to describe this fact is natural selection which is the non random survival of these alleles. All very simple.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

If you say so. :rolleyes: Speaking of lawyers, what was verdict in the Dover trial?

The validity of Evolution WASN'T legally tried in Dover.......

.......all that was tried in Dover was whether parents had the right to not have their children taught Intelligent Design......which DOES invoke a God or at least a 'Designer'......and therefore DOES have religious significance.........

.......and as ALL religion is banned from Amercan Public Schools.....ID was also banned!!!

.......there were also some findings in relation to the 'scientific validity' of ID.......and similar findings could also possibly be made about Spontaneous Evolution .......but, as I have said.......Spontaneous Evolution wasn't legally tried......so we don't know the answer to that particular conundrum!!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

The validity of Evolution WASN'T legally tried in Dover.......

Yes, but the validity of creation science was.

J C

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Evolution is defined as a change in the allele (gene) frequencies of a population through generations. This much has been empirically observed and is the fact of evolution. The theory used to describe this fact is natural selection which is the non random survival of these alleles. All very simple.

......and Creation Scientists accept all of the above information conserving / degrading systems as valid........

.....it is the erroneous extrapolation, that the mechanisms of 'Evolution' can spontaneously generate the massive quantities tightly specified complexity required to 'morph pondslime into Man' ......that Creation Science......and indeed basic logic and the fundamental Laws of Science reject as IMPOSSIBLE!!:eek::D

bogwalrus

I must say JC that you have some very interesting points and from my limited knowledge of geology you have swayed me a bit. But i feel that the manner in which you approach your theories etc are like opposites of the way normal scientists approach their theories based on evolution. (i do not mean "normal scientists" in any way to isult you). What i mean by this is that your arguement can hold great weight against the current scientific idea being evolution but it does not convince and really is transparent as when other more solid minded people attack your theories you do resort to faith supported ideas.

it must feel strange citing theology such as noahs ark beside such magnificent scientific claims that you have mentioned in the last number of threads (which as i say did stike a chord with me)

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Yes, but the validity of creation science was.

.....it was Intelligent Design that was tried.......and NEITHER Creation Science NOR Spontaneous Evolution was tried.......so we DON'T know the (legal) answer as to whether they should be taught in Public School....or indeed, their scientific validity!!!!:D


......in any event, this thread demonstrates that Spontanous Evolution is seriously 'evidentially and logically challenged'!!!

......the 'useless combinatorial space' is simply overwhelmingly large.....

.......and that is why we don't randomly manufacture products and use 'quality control' to eliminate the 'useless' attempts.......because practically EVERY random attempt would produce 'useless' quality rejects!!!!:D

......and if a simple 'widget' component cannot be manufactured using random processes......even with a quality control mechanism similar to NS, in place......then the massive levels of tightly specified complexity observed in living systems also could NOT be spontaneously produced!!! :eek::D:)

NS is NOT able to 'save the day' for random mutations!!!

.......all NS can do is select.......and the 'useless combinatorial space' is so massive between observed 'useful' biomolecules that random processes are incapable of 'crossing' this 'combinatorial space' to 'find' another 'useful' biomolecule............the waste and the 'death toll' would be simply overwhelming!!!!:D

......all NS could do is to kill off the organisms with the 'useless' biomolecules........and just one 'useless' biomolecule for a critical function would be sufficient to kill off the organism, even if......and it is a big if.....the organism had several thousand other fully functioning biomolecules!!!!

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

......and Creation Scientists accept all of the above information conserving / degrading systems as valid........

.....it is the erroneous extrapolation, that the mechanisms of 'Evolution' can spontaneously generate the massive quantities tightly specified complexity required to 'morph pondslime into Man' ......that Creation Science......and indeed basic logic and the fundamental Laws of Science reject as IMPOSSIBLE!!:eek::D

Logic and science accept evolution even to the extent of computer programs taking advantage of the theory. All you need for evolution to proceed is a heritable replicator with a relatively high level of fidelity. Give it 3.5 billion years or so and, hey presto, a population of self aware humans.

Your problem is that you cannot believe in it, in other words you're putting forward the argument from personal incredulity, I'm afraid such a position is untenable.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....it was Intelligent Design that was tried.......and NEITHER Creation Science NOR Spontaneous Evolution was tried.......so we DON'T know the (legal) answer as to their scientific validity!!!!:D

The distinction is lost on me. So, you accept that irreducible complexity is not science?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

......however, this thread demonstrates that Spontanous Evolution is seriously 'evidentially and logically challenged'!!!

Not really. I must have missed that bit. :rolleyes::eek:

J C

bogwalrus wrote: »

I must say JC that you have some very interesting points and from my limited knowledge of geology you have swayed me a bit. But i feel that the manner in which you approach your theories etc are like opposites of the way normal scientists approach their theories based on evolution. (i do not mean "normal scientists" in any way to isult you). What i mean by this is that your arguement can hold great weight against the current scientific idea being evolution but it does not convince and really is transparent as when other more solid minded people attack your theories you do resort to faith supported ideas.

it must feel strange citing theology such as noahs ark beside such magnificent scientific claims that you have mentioned in the last number of threads (which as i say did stike a chord with me)

When I first jettisoned Evolution ....because of it's objective invalidity......the Noah's Ark business did make me cringe a bit.......but that was just due to my previous 'Slides' conditioning to reject Creation in favour of Evolution irrespective of the weight of evidence on both sides!!!!

.......anyway, the evidence DOES support a worldwide catastrophy SIMILAR to Noah's Flood.......and our recorded History is amazingly brief for a supposed million year old Humanity........with a 'guillotine' on ALL recorded History a few thousand years ago......just like you would expect, if the Genesis account is true !!!!:D

Speaking purely as a Scientist I cannot conclude SCIENTIFICALLY that it was Noah's Flood that produced practically all Sedimentary rocks.........but if it looked like Noah's Flood and behaved like Noah's Flood.......then perhaps it WAS Noah's Flood......

.....in any event Science cannot ignore the question 'what if everything happened as it says in Genesis?'

.........the 'fig leaf' which materialists hide behind is that it is somehow 'outside of science' to examine the evidence for a supernatural origin for life.......even if it did occur that way!!!

......the supernatural is certainly beyond the ability of science to examine......but the evidence of the physical results of supernatural activity is NOT beyond the abilities of Science to examine and assess.......and the Intelligent Design movement has made some excellent progress in identifying and scientifically describing the unambiguous 'fingerprints' or 'symptoms' of intelligent activity.

.......and the ID breakthroughs have applications across many other less controversial areas of science as well as the 'origins question'......for example, proving intelligent activity (as distinct from 'natural causes') is important for Forensic Science (in crime investigations), in Astronomy (for possible ET detection), in Archaeology (for identifying Human aretefacts and activity), in Diagnostics (for identifying Genetically Modified products), etc., etc.

Academic freedom should protect and encourage such research.....and if nothing comes of it .....so be it.

However, something IS already coming from it ......and it is pointing towards a supernatural origin of life......and as scientists we are duty bound to objectively assess the evidence and conceptual frameworks that ID proponents are proposing.

The fact that I may disagree Theologically with many ID proponents DOESN'T mean that I should reject their excellent scientific work 'out of hand'.......and I similarly have never rejected the excellent scientific work of Spontanous Evolutionists.......and I actually accept 90% of their conclusions after I have evaluated them.......NS within Kinds and the structure of the DNA Molecule being two obvious examples!!!

......robust evaluation of ID concepts and conclusions, by all means.......but the ID people themselves shouldn't have 'run the gauntlet' of professional anhiallation for simply proposing a (very likely) and radically different hypothesis to Materialistic Spontaneous Evolution.........
.......and could I point out that an ID hypothesis is shared by practically all Theists (i.e. that an intelligent God or gods had some input into life)!!!!
.........if anybody is claiming that 'two plus two equals six' we should easily debunk it ......but we shouldn't attack them professionally, for a genuinely held hypothesis.......that seems to be bearing considerable scientifically valid 'fruit'.

I also accept that Creation Scientists claims should also be robustly evaluated.......but saying that they are not scientists ......when they objectively are......gets nobody anywhere.......and is a needless distraction..........
........attack and evaluate the idea......and leave the person alone!!!!

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

MOST limestones ARE made up of non-fossiliferous i.e. chemical CaCO3!!!!

.....some Limestones do contain (microscopic) Diatom CaCO3 and others contain macro-fossils such as shells, etc.




Could I gently remind you that ALL Limestone IS Calcite......i.e. CaCO3!!!!

......and 99% of all Limestone were formed when the 'fountains of the deep' burst forth laiden with suspended Calcite and this rapidly precipitated when it mixed with the superheated waters near the widespread sub-oceanic volcanic activity that was a fundamental characteristic of the Flood processes.

.......and Wikipedia confirms the validity of the contention that Limestone was FORMED and other sedimentary rocks were CEMENTED from CaCO3 that precipited out of the Flood waters ......and this occurred particularly rapidly when the waters were superheated!!!
"Calcite exhibits an unusual characteristic called retrograde solubility in which it becomes less soluble in water as the temperature increases.

When conditions are right for precipitation, calcite forms mineral coatings that cement the existing rock grains together or it can fill fractures."......as well as producing large scale Limestone formations!!!:eek::D

Quite amazing. This is so far wrong you must be on some kind of mind altering drug. Substance D?

And where did you do your undergrad mapping project?

And you still have not answered any of the questions (not in a meaningful way at least) that I asked several pages ago.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
.....it was Intelligent Design that was tried.......and NEITHER Creation Science NOR Spontaneous Evolution was tried.......so we DON'T know the (legal) answer as to their scientific validity!!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

The distinction is lost on me. So, you accept that irreducible complexity is not science?

Irreducible complexity is an observable FACT......in everything from mouse traps to cars.......to living systems!!!!

The point that I was trying to make is that Evolution and Creationism weren't subjected to trial in Dover.......and it may indeed be possible that if they were.......they BOTH would have been established to have faith, and therefore religious dimensions......and they both might therefore have also 'fallen foul' of the 'no religion in public schools' policy.

It might indeed be a very interesting Constitutional case to test whether mandatory teaching of Atheistic Evolution is in compliance with the US First Amendment.......i.e. is mandatory education in Evolution a form of state-established (Atheistic) Religion????

In any event, the SCIENTIFIC validity of Evolution, ID and Creation Science can only be fully established in the 'Halls of Science' ......rather than the 'Halls of Justice'......because Science is Science ......and Law is ...er... LAW!!!!:D:eek:

J C

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Logic and science accept evolution even to the extent of computer programs taking advantage of the theory. All you need for evolution to proceed is a heritable replicator with a relatively high level of fidelity. Give it 3.5 billion years or so and, hey presto, a population of self aware humans.

Intelligently designed computer programmes may use aspects of selection to 'evolve' ......but they run on complex, tightly specified, intelligently designed, computers and they use intelligently designed programming and pre-existing information!!!!!:D

....and nobody that I know is seriously suggesting that a computer will spontaneously produce itself and 'boot up' into Excel without any ultimate intelligent input!!!:D

.....and even the 'simplest' living cell is vastly more complex than a super-computer!!:eek:

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Your problem is that you cannot believe in it, in other words you're putting forward the argument from personal incredulity, I'm afraid such a position is untenable.

My problem, as a scientist, is that I cannot OBSERVE 'Molecules to Man Evolution'......or reconcile it with logic or the known Laws of Science.....and 'big picture' Evolution is therefore scientifically invalid ....and logically untenable!!!:D:)

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

Quite amazing. This is so far wrong you must be on some kind of mind altering drug. Substance D?

NO...I'm not on any mind altering 'Substance D'.........or E, for that matter......

......and what part of my answer is wrong????

Hot Dog wrote: »

And where did you do your undergrad mapping project?

....I'll cite the Fifth Amendment .....on that one!!!:D:)

Hot Dog wrote: »

And you still have not answered any of the questions (not in a meaningful way at least) that I asked several pages ago.

I've answered all questions comprehensively......and the fact that you don't like the answers doesn't invalidte them!!:D

J C

.....and for those who deny that Atheism and Evolution are religously connected here are some enlightening quotes.......from an Atheist:-

"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30


“Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph.

Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism.”
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30


“The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30


“It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.”
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30


......sounds like the Atheists have much greater clarity on the importance of Evolution from a Theological perspective.......than many Christians do!!!!:eek::D

This explains why there are so many Atheists are robustly debating the 'origins issue' on this thread......

What is more difficult to understand is the indifference shown by many Christians on the thread to the debate !!!!!:eek::D

pH

J C wrote: »

......sounds like the Atheists have much greater clarity on the importance of Evolution from a Theological perspective.......than many Christians do!!!!:eek::D

.....it may also explain why it is mostly Atheists who are debating the 'origins issue' on this thread.......
........while some of the Christians on the thread are walking about with their 'eyes wide shut'........and apparently avoiding the debate!!!!!:eek::D

At last something we agree on J C; evolution just isn't compatible with any reasonable reading of Christian texts - if evolution is 'true' then Christianity isn't. We just differ on the minor detail of the truthiness of evolution. I shall now use some smilies in celebration ;):cool:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....and for those who deny that Atheism and Evolution are religously connected here are some enlightening quotes.......from an Atheist:-

Well they aren't religiously connected since atheism isn't a religion, it is a rejection of religion.

That problem you Bible-literal Christians have is that you started off, rather foolishly, saying that if evolution is true there is no God. Its been determined that evolution is true, so you are left with the conclusions of your original assertion. You will notice that evolutionary theory never said anything about God.

It isn't really the fault of atheists that theists originally sought to explain (incorrectly as it turns out) the natural world around them with invented myths and legends, and then got annoyed when the actual real world didn't match these made up stories.

A simple "we don't know" would have done, instead you guys decided to shoot yourself in the foot, making up an "answer" to explain the universe and now the answer turns out to be wrong.

J C

pH wrote: »

At last something we agree on J C; evolution just isn't compatible with any reasonable reading of Christian texts - if evolution is 'true' then Christianity isn't. We just differ on the minor detail of the truthiness of evolution. I shall now use some smilies in celebration ;):cool:

I do agree with you on on everything you said above!!!!


I shall ALSO now use some smilies in celebration ;):cool

Ekancone

Here JC, some arguments you avoided.

I took a look at some of those papers on that Institute of Creation Research Institute site. One caught my eye: THE RELEVANCE OF Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS TO ELUCIDATION OF THE GENESIS AND HISTORY OF RECENT ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHO.

Very interesting. So dating andesites, because they contain a crustal component, proves the Earth is young? True, andesites are often formed from magmas generated at active oceanic margins by incorporating part of the recycled crust from the wedge into the parent melt, and dating of such rocks can yield young ages. But it depends on what you are dating. A scientist needs to distinguish between early-formed crystals (in the basaltic melt, eg. titanite, zircon, baddeleyite, pyroxenes to name a few, which yield the real formation age) and later-former crystals (from the crustal component, the minerals stable at lower temperatures, eg. quartz, albite etc.). The authors of this paper conveniently forgot to mention fractional crystallisation - even an andesite with a young crustal component incorporated later will have older evolved minerals from the parent magma.

Besides, dates obtained from rocks don't always reflect the formation age of the rock nor do geologists pretend otherwise - sometimes it is helpful to date the peak metamorphic conditions, backed up theoretically and experimentally from certain mineral assemblages which always occur together.

The paper also mentions that radioisotopes do not always provide reliable age measurements when it comes to dating volcanics (quick reminder: JC, granite is not volcanic, it is hypabyssal). Again this depends on what isotopes you have chosen to use. As has been well-documented, and no scientist is denying it, some isotopes give very old age estimates; case in point, the potassium-argon method which is useful for dating volcanics because the minerals present in many volcanic rocks usually contain those two elements (commonly biotite and hornblende).

But it has been shown that in phenocrysts in xenoliths from Hawaiian volcanics for example, the minerals chosen for dating often contain tiny fluid inclusions with contain argon formed at depth and which is therefore is much older. This can give false age determinations (Funkhauser, Barnes & Noughton, 1965). This was known in the sixties. Again the proponents of young-Earth authors also conveniently left out that the K-Ar dating method is not often used, if it can be helped, as it is as it can be unreliable. However, if the phenocryts are crushed before dating methods are employed the excess argon is released, so the technique is still viable.

Just one more bone (or fossil even!) to pick for tonight - given the great diversity in geological features today, how does 'flood geology' (two words combined which don't make sense to me) account for all of that? It's interesting to note that the top of the Himalaya is composed of marine limestone. How on Earth did it get up there!?! I would love to hear the young-Earth version of the Himalaya story, and any rigorously scientific models to account for, as Hot Dog eloquently stated in an earlier post, the juxtaposition of wind-blown deposits (Old Red Sandstone count for anything?) with deep sea deposits? Shallow water coral reefs? Littoral deposits? Braided river sediments?

Ooh let me guess - underwater rivers! Oh wait, that only (confusingly and illogically) explains one tiny aspect of the literally hundreds of thousands of examples of geological deposit...

Ekancone

And this one

In the link posted above:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...late-tectonic

And I quote "...extremely rapid subduction during the Flood, followed by extremely slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated". This is supposed to explain why the Nazca trench sediments are undeformed as opposed to if slow subduction was at play. Okay, this model gives an 'explanation' of the sediment problem (leaving aside that the Nazca ridge has high erosion rates so the older deformed sediments are already subducted, Hampel et al., 2004) but leaves out how the mechanism actually works - how does a large volume of water actually affect plate tectonics?

So, water a few km deep (6-8?) if it's to erode mountains, versus the mantle at 2900 km thickness to drive plate motions. Which is the more satisfactory answer?

I also checked out the New Scientist reference (no. 11) at the end of the above article, cited by the young-Earth people in their favour when in fact the model presented in the New Scientist article is perfectly compatible with accepted old-Earth ideas - it even states in the NS article: "Pangaea began to split apart roughly 180 million years ago. 'Neither the existence of Pangaea nor the fact that our continental plates are moving has been in dispute for more than 20 years,' says John Baumgardner" - the very guy the YE people quote in their favour! Misrepresentation and misquotation of science to further these young-Earth ideas just discredits the article and their explanations for me. Are they trying to further scientific knowledge to benefit us all or further their own religious agendas?

Please, no more links, I'm sick of finding spurious claims in these YE 'scientific' articles. Actual accredited scientific journals are fine.

Ekancone

And...

How come The Flood did not produce hydrological sorting with the heaviest material at the bottom of the geological strata and the lightest at the top?

In terms of biology and the fossil record many lineages seem to obey Cope's Law, with lineages increasing in size through time, consequently the largest animals of a given lineage appear higher up in the strata than their smaller ancestors. This is completely at odds with the predictions of a global flood.

Uh oh, does that mean it never happened!

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....it was Intelligent Design that was tried.......and NEITHER Creation Science NOR Spontaneous Evolution was tried.......so we DON'T know the (legal) answer as to their scientific validity!!!![/I]

If creation science was put on trial it would have been found equally as guilty if not moreso than ID. The case hinged on the fact that ID was religious. Creation science is doubly so.

J C wrote: »

Irreducible complexity is an observable FACT......in everything from mouse traps to cars.......to living systems!!!!

It is not an observable fact in living systems. Unless the Holy Spirit has revealed something else to you that we mortals are not privy to?

J C wrote: »

The point that I was trying to make is that Evolution and Creationism weren't subjected to trial in Dover.......and it may indeed be possible that if they were.......they BOTH would have been established to have faith, and therefore religious dimensions......and they both might therefore have also 'fallen foul' of the 'no religion in public schools' policy.

If they put on trial creation science would be seen to have a religious element. The science of evolution would not. That is all.

J C wrote: »

In any event, the SCIENTIFIC validity of Evolution, ID and Creation Science can only be fully established in the 'Halls of Science' ......rather than the 'Halls of Justice'......because Science is Science ......and Law is ...er... LAW!!!!:D:eek:

Entirely true. And to a large extent it already has. But you're the one who respects the opinion of lawyers so much (Robert F Smith) so I thought I introduce what the law actually has to say about creation science. Funnily enough, it's in agreement with what science says i.e. that CS is not science. Case closed!

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

NO...I'm not on any mind altering 'Substance D'.........or E, for that matter......

......and what part of my answer is wrong????


....I'll cite the Fifth Amendment .....on that one!!!:D:)



I've answered all questions comprehensively......and the fact that you don't like the answers doesn't invalidte them!!:D

truly, you are divorced from reality.

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

truly, you are divorced from reality.

.....and believing that you are a direct descendant of a 'Slimeball'.....and a 'Monkey's Cousin' IS in full communion with reality?????:eek::D:)


.......next thing you will be telling me that Muck can spontaneously 'morph' into Man.......and dead things can spontaneously spring into life!!!:D

wolfsbane

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Creationists persist in the delusion that the Earth is only thousands of years old and the only reason they do this is because they start out with a series of dogmatic unverifiable beliefs (i.e. faith). This is about as far from science as one can get but very close to religion. You say yourself that the quality of science comes from an honest evaluation of the evidence, yet you seem incapable of doing this.

Creationists do indeed believe in a young Earth for theological reasons. But they also find by scientific research that science supports that belief. Creation Science is the scientific section of Creationism.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

If creation science was put on trial it would have been found equally as guilty if not moreso than ID. The case hinged on the fact that ID was religious. Creation science is doubly so.

.......perahps it would......but the KEY issue is whether Spontanous Materialistic Evolution is ALSO a faith-based conjecture .......and therefore a part of the Atheistic belief system ....or religion!!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

If they put on trial creation science would be seen to have a religious element. The science of evolution would not. That is all.

Creation Science DOES have a religious dimension.....in that it has found objective scientific evidence for God ....and the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood.

......EQUALLY 'Molecules to Man Evolution' has several religious dimensions.....
Firstly, because there is no objective evidence that Spontaneous Evolution actually occurred, and all logic and the Laws of Science shows it to be impossibe, it can therefore only be believed in through FAITH......that it DID occur......and that God DOESN'T exist......which sounds like RELIGIOUS DOGMA to me.

Secondly, Atheists have openly admitted that Evolution is in DIRECT competition with Christianity for the hearts and minds of people......which AGAIN puts Evolution firmly in the RELIGIOUS category.....
.....and the following quote proves that Atheists believe themselves to be in direct competition with Christianity:-

"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

“Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph."
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

.....IF I am in direct competition with banks for business.....I am by definition in the financial services sector.......even if I am in insurance .....

........and if I am in direct competition with Christianity for believers......like Evolution is .......I am by definition in the religious services sector.....even if I am an Atheist!!!!:eek:


......and finally Atheism, as a denial of God is a religious belief held by faith.......just like a belief in God is ALSO a religious belief held by faith!!!!

.........and BOTH religious viewpoints SHOULD be treated equally!!!!!

.......what is sauce for the Atheistic Evolutionist's Goose......should be sauce for the Theistic Creationist's Gander !!!!

wolfsbane

bogwalrus wrote: »

acceptance can come at many levels. As in accepting that this is the society of this day and age but not necessarily being happy about it and neither being able to do anything about it. I accept that the scumbags i see in town are there and are a product of bad social upbringings but i do not have the power to solve that problem but would try to help by maybe electing someone into the dail that could possibly solve the problem....via better education or what not. So in saying that i dont think it is appropriate to say that a culture can have a fractured view on life.

I agree with most of your comments here, except the last sentence. Would you not say the Nazi or Kymer Rouge cultures had a fractured view on life? Or the Holy Roman Empire, or fundamental Islam today?

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

.....and believing that you are a direct descendant of a 'Slimeball'.....and a 'Monkey's Cousin' IS in full communion with reality?????:eek::D:)


.......next thing you will be telling me that Muck can spontaneously 'morph' into Man.......and dead things can spontaneously spring into life!!!:D

I have absolutely no idea, I am not a biologist. Your claimed knowledge of geology however is completely fraudulent. I have never argued with you on evolutionary or abiogenic grounds.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......perahps it would......but the KEY issue is whether Spontanous Materialistic Evolution is ALSO a faith-based conjecture .......and therefore a part of the Atheistic belief system ....or religion!!!!

The science of evolution is not necessarily atheistic. While it may implications on the literal truth of the Genesis account of creation, it is not a religious viewpoint.

J C wrote: »

.......Creation Science DOES have a religious dimension.....in that it has found objective scientific evidence for God ....and the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood.

If they have found objective evidence for God they have, thus far, failed to present it.

J C wrote: »

.......and BOTH religious viewpoints SHOULD be treated equally!!!!!

But the scientific view point and the religious viewpoint should not.