The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

“According to the study, published in February in Oikos, a highly respected scientific journal, the MORE BEER a scientist drinks, THE LESS LIKELY the scientist is to publish a paper or to have a paper cited by another researcher, a measure of a paper’s quality and importance.”eek::pac::pac::pac::)

Of course, there will be no correlation of creation science output to alcohol consumption, since both X and Y need to vary. :pac::pac::pac: and :pac:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

……….while radiometric dating is INDIRECT and based on a number of assumptions, any one of which could invalidate the result!!!:D
[/B]
How is radiometric dating INDIRECT?

(there is such a thing as indirect dating, but radiometric dating isn't it)

Hot Dog

SO, is there gonna be any proof for creationism forthcoming, as opposed to evidence against the current mainstream science?

2Scoops

Wicknight wrote: »

How is radiometric dating INDIRECT?

Because you're not timing each year individually as it happens? Biblical genealogies ftw. :pac:

2Scoops

Hot Dog wrote: »

SO, is there gonna be any proof for creationism forthcoming, as opposed to evidence against the current mainstream science?

Hold on a cotton-pickin' minute!! We're still waiting on the latter as well as the former, don't forget! :eek::pac:

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote: »

Of course, there will be no correlation of creation science output to alcohol consumption, since both X and Y need to vary. :pac::pac::pac: and :pac:

Harsh. Very harsh. But fair.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

Hot Dog wrote: »

SO, is there gonna be any proof for creationism forthcoming, as opposed to evidence against the current mainstream science?

No. They like to use the argument, "If we can convince people taht X is wrong, then Y is correct by default!"

Eschatologist

Tomorrow night on the Discovery Channel: Did Jesus travel to the Himalayas?

Ekancone

Seeing as JC loves his quotes from former 'Evolutionists' i thought i would add one from the other side of the coin:


"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."

--Dan Barker, former evangelist, author, critic

Killbot2000

Neil Shubin of the University Of Chicago was investigating the water land transition. He noted that fossils around 380mya were unequivocally fish and strata dated around 360mya contained fully fledged terrestrial animals. Consequently he chose to explore sites around 370myr old to see if he could find transitional material.

Guess what, his team found Tiktaaik, an intermediate between sea and land! His site was in the Arctic circle so there was no element of blind luck here. He used his knowledge of stratigraphy palaeontology etc. to determine the best place to look and found exactly what he expected.

Now, one of the things that can determine the strength of a theory is its predictive power and this expedition proved that many of the aforementioned disciplines of geology do indeed have predictive power.

What say you now my creationist foes, what say you now?

robindch

Killbot2000 wrote: »

What say you now my creationist foes, what say you now?

"God put it there to test the faithful", I suspect.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

But in your example, the literal interpretation of Genesis is more closely analogous to believing the J Lynch affair was a metaphor, since that is what is flies in the face of the available evidence.

It's not about whether or not Lynch debated moving on the North ( as far as I can determine, it was briefly mooted), but about how a narrative can be split up arbitarily between literal and metaphor. The honest answer about the supposed Lynch history would be to suggest either:
1. It was true - he did consider crossing the border, and he did betray his colleages on the IRA arms issue.
2. It wasn't true - it was all the result of malicious rumours.

What would not be an honest handling of the history would be to say all the rest was factual history, but the first bit was an allegory about the economic conditions back then.

Translating that into the Genesis creation account, that means either:
1. It is a factual account of what happened.
2. It is a legend, an account handed down by those who believed it was historical, but in fact is totally mistaken.

It is not intellectually honest to claim the Biblical history is history until it gets back to Genesis, but then it becomes metaphor.

Ekancone

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Neil Shubin of the University Of Chicago was investigating the water land transition. He noted that fossils around 380mya were unequivocally fish and strata dated around 360mya contained fully fledged terrestrial animals. Consequently he chose to explore sites around 370myr old to see if he could find transitional material.

Guess what, his team found Tiktaaik, an intermediate between sea and land! His site was in the Arctic circle so there was no element of blind luck here. He used his knowledge of stratigraphy palaeontology etc. to determine the best place to look and found exactly what he expected.

Now, one of the things that can determine the strength of a theory is its predictive power and this expedition proved that many of the aforementioned disciplines of geology do indeed have predictive power.

What say you now my creationist foes, what say you now?

Any ol'link there?

Galvasean

daithifleming wrote: »

Any ol'link there?

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

Pretty much anything you'd like to know about the little 'fishpod'

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

Pretty much anything you'd like to know about the little 'fishpod'

Here's a bit on the other side:
Tiktaalik—a fishy ‘missing link’
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250%22

by:

Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3547/

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3547/

Another creation journalist who has successfully failed to publish peer-reviewed science of any description since 1995. And also a chemist by training, in a fine position to criticize the archaeological findings above.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Seeing as JC loves his quotes from former 'Evolutionists' i thought i would add one from the other side of the coin:


"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."

--Dan Barker, former evangelist, author, critic

Just shows he knew nothing about Biblical faith. There are many like him, full of notions about God but without God-given faith in their hearts.

I would agree that faith as understood by many today is empty - a blind faith. But that is not the Biblical use of the term.

Biblical faith is not a fancy, but a fact known in the heart/mind/soul. It is a certain sure knowledge imparted by God.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Another creation journalist who has successfully failed to publish peer-reviewed science of any description since 1995. And also a chemist by training, in a fine position to criticize the archaeological findings above.

His occupation since 1995 is given in the article:
In August 1996, he returned to the country of his birth to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for Creation Ministries International in Brisbane. In this capacity, he is co-editor of Creation magazine, and also writes and reviews articles for Journal of Creation, CMI’s in-depth peer-reviewed publication, as well as contributing to CMI&rsqo;s CreationOnTheWeb website.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

His occupation since 1995 is given in the article:
In August 1996, he returned to the country of his birth to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for Creation Ministries International in Brisbane. In this capacity, he is co-editor of Creation magazine, and also writes and reviews articles for Journal of Creation, CMI’s in-depth peer-reviewed publication, as well as contributing to CMI&rsqo;s CreationOnTheWeb website.

Like I said: a creation journalist. Unless he has done some actual science in his new position?? :pac:

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Another creation journalist who has successfully failed to publish peer-reviewed science of any description since 1995. And also a chemist by training, in a fine position to criticize the archaeological findings above.

Here's another Creationist you might find interesting:

Fossil expert says ... think weird!
Interview with Dr Kurt Wise
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/878

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's another Creationist you might find interesting:

Unfortunately, I find him decidedly uninteresting, having, as he does, very little new to say or, indeed, data to present.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's a bit on the other side:
Tiktaalik—a fishy ‘missing link’
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250%22

Based on reading his article about Tiktaalik I can suspect that this man knows very little about palaeontology as he puts forward a very weak argument.

wolfsbane wrote: »

by:
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3547/

Suspicion confirmed. Although I can respect his credentials, it is clear he has no real experience in the field of palaeontology or indeed archaeology.

What is it about creationists and lumping all scientists into one field? Just because someone is an expert in chemistry does not mean they are also experts in palaeontology. It would be like asking a dinosaur expert about the workings of black holes. It is simply not his field.

Eschatologist

I was thinking about radiometric dating and rare nuclides produced in the early Solar System and it occurs to me, if the Earth were only 6000 years old, why are no extinct radionuclides such as Al-26 and Mg-26 found on the Earth?

2Scoops

Galvasean wrote: »

What is it about creationists and lumping all scientists into one field? Just because someone is an expert in chemistry does not mean they are also experts in palaeontology. It would be like asking a dinosaur expert about the workings of black holes. It is simply not his field.

Assuming that these people even are scientists! Certainly, they don't appear to be engaging in any scientific research.

It's clearly an appeal to uneducated folk that 'scientists' agree with creationism, hence, there is a scientifically supportable position that creation is true. The field of science (formerly) studied is irrelevant. All that matters is that they're scientists, dammit! :pac:

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's not about whether or not Lynch debated moving on the North ( as far as I can determine, it was briefly mooted), but about how a narrative can be split up arbitarily between literal and metaphor. The honest answer about the supposed Lynch history would be to suggest either:
1. It was true - he did consider crossing the border, and he did betray his colleages on the IRA arms issue.
2. It wasn't true - it was all the result of malicious rumours.

What would not be an honest handling of the history would be to say all the rest was factual history, but the first bit was an allegory about the economic conditions back then.

Translating that into the Genesis creation account, that means either:
1. It is a factual account of what happened.
2. It is a legend, an account handed down by those who believed it was historical, but in fact is totally mistaken.

It is not intellectually honest to claim the Biblical history is history until it gets back to Genesis, but then it becomes metaphor.

Hmm. Why? Many early works of history do exactly that - events close to the time of the writer are more or less factual, and the further back you go, the less historical the material is. Holinshed's Chronicles are a good example, but almost any Greek or Roman history starts with stories of gods and heroes, but ends up in politics and personalities.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Galvasean wrote: »

Based on reading his article about Tiktaalik I can suspect that this man knows very little about palaeontology as he puts forward a very weak argument.

Suspicion confirmed. Although I can respect his credentials, it is clear he has no real experience in the field of palaeontology or indeed archaeology.

What is it about creationists and lumping all scientists into one field? Just because someone is an expert in chemistry does not mean they are also experts in palaeontology. It would be like asking a dinosaur expert about the workings of black holes. It is simply not his field.

Indeed...he's a chemist, which bears no relation to palaeontology whatsoever. On the other hand, he should be pretty interesting on the subject of abiogenesis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's another Creationist you might find interesting: Fossil expert says ... think weird! Interview with Dr Kurt Wise
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/878

Creationists fall, broadly, into one of two camps. The first type contrive to trip over their shoelaces while sitting down, while the second may manage a step or two before negotiating more serious damage to reality, or themselves, or both.

And so, it's fun to see Dr "Wise" manage all three within his lengthy puff-piece, maneuvering himself through a standard set of non-sequiturs and logical potholes, to arrive at the following bizarre call to action:

CMI, Dr Wise wrote:

[...] the time of the 'lone wolf' creationist is past [...] So if anyone has an interest in any field of science—go for it. You may be able to [...] be the expert in creationism in that field.

Think "weird". Indeed.

Killbot2000

The creationists have thus far failed to answer how Dr. Shubin could have made such a remarkable find when the theories he used to aid him are apparently wrong.

That he knew where and "when" to look seems to be strong evidence that geology does in fact put forward useful theories which help us understand the world.

Killbot2000

"Even more importantly, the order is not right! Compare Fig. 4 (right): Panderichthys is dated earlier than its supposed predecessor, Eusthenopteron. And all are earlier than the undoubted fish, the coelacanth. This is yet another parallel with alleged bird evolution—undoubted beaked birds like Confuciusornis are 10 Ma older than their alleged feathered dinosaur ‘ancestors’. Evolutionists would argue that it is not a problem, for the same reason that sometimes a grandfather can outlive his grandson. This is correct, but one of the major ‘evidences’ of evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly matches the fossil sequence. So the mismatch of claimed order of appearance with claimed phylogeny undermines the evolutionary explanation."

From: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250%22

This passage demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. So-called primitive animals can exist alongside their more derived cousins. Furthermore, evolution is emphatically not linear, species branch off by cladogenesis. If this wasn't the case, anytime something new evolved it would replace its ancestor. If you take this to its logical conclusion then the Earth would become dominated by the species that has evolved most recently!

This is the classic problem of people asking "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around today?".

Galvasean

Killbot2000 wrote: »

This passage demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. So-called primitive animals can exist alongside their more derived cousins. Furthermore, evolution is emphatically not linear, species branch off by cladogenesis. If this wasn't the case, anytime something new evolved it would replace its ancestor.

In fairness to Dr. Sarfati, at least he did mention the mosaic principle. However he did misinterprate it.