The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure one non-research paper in 10 years counts as "actively engaged" :rolleyes:

Not in the reality-based community anyway.

But, in comparison to what some of AiG's creationists -- that nice Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997) comes to mind -- have been up to recently, I'd say that one paper published ten years ago demonstrates a most commendable level of activity.

Ekancone

From that page:

As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because we submit that they should know better.

LOL!!!

Hot Dog

There are ONLY two basic hypotheses for the origin of life.....

EITHER life was created/evolved/designed by an 'Intelligence'

OR life was created/evolved/designed 'spontanously' by exclusively materialistic means

So, which designer, Allah, Vishnu, Kali, the FSM, God, Zeus, the god of the Australian aborigines, of the native Americans, of the mesoAmericans?

Whom do we believe? Post evidence defending your support of Christian creation

2Scoops

Eschatologist wrote: »

Austin's paper does not advance the creationist argument, and this research has already been done before.

Doesn't advance a supported argument; distinct lack of novelty. Two excellent reasons why it wouldn't be published in a scientific journal. :pac:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

but the purely materialistic hypothesis has been scientifically invalidated!!!!!!!!!!!:D

No it hasn't... :pac:

Eschatologist

J C wrote: »

Darwin knew nothing of modern genetics or DNA.......and had he known.....he probably would have become a CREATIONIST!!!

Will we ever be done with the dodging and misdirection?:rolleyes: Your idle speculation on what Darwin might have thought doesn't help your argument. In fact, even though he had no knowledge of how the mechanism of natural selection proceeded, it's still perfectly valid and actually supported by modern genetics - independent lines of evidence: the scientific method in progress!

J C wrote: »

In the beginning God Created is the simplest and the most likely explanation.....and therefore Occam's Razor favours the Creationist explanation over the spontaneous Evolution one!!:)

Eh, no because creationism makes no sense in light of naturalistic explanations.

It seems a bit pointless to me that a creator god would put so much effort into making the world complex then expecting everyone to believe that it's actually 6000 years old. Forget the evidence!

PS - God made Adam out of clay so... that's literally 'muck to man' by the bible's own words, isn't it!? Might analogy not have made it's way into Genesis somehow, to make it easier to undersatand? But that's just my idle speculation.

2Scoops

Eschatologist wrote: »

PS - God made Adam out of clay so... that's literally 'muck to man' by the bible's own words, isn't it!?

Muck + 'intelligence' into man - hence, 'intelligent design.' It's been brought up before.

Killbot2000

Embryology also lends great support to the theory of evolution and I feel this has been largely ignored on this thread.

One example concerns the tortuous routes that nerves in the human face take for example the aptly named facial nerve. That the nerves do this weighs heavily against an intelligent designer. The reason that biology has come up with is that as evolution proceeds it can never start from scratch, it is constantly upgrading an ancestral body plan.

Embryogenesis permits a lot of tinkering as the given animal is little more than an amorphous blob. However this is not the tinkering of an intelligent designer as the numerous redundancies, pseudogenes, chronic disorders etc. clearly show.

Feel free to respond to my earlier point about the accumulation of non functional olfactory genes in cetaceans.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Darwin knew nothing of modern genetics or DNA.......and had he known.....he probably would have become a CREATIONIST!!!

Why?

J C wrote: »

The vast majority of recessive genes are deleterious......and they are the result of deleterious mutagenesis of the originally perfect genetic information!!!!

Recessive genes are defective (not deleterious) only in that they are expressed less efficiently than a dominant allele. Most mutations (which may result in a relative dominant or recessive gene) are deleterious in the context to which they emerge, however natural selection deletes these over time and so the majority of extant recessive genes in existence at any given time tend to be, at worst, non-functional rather than actually harmful. Where we find a high frequency of a harmful gene (be it dominant or recessive) in a population, this tends to be because of a recent change of context. The persistence of a gene implies a selective advantage.

Allergy, to make a much-simplified example, is considered most likely to be a holdover from the days when humans were still quite riddled with parasites, requiring an immune system much more over-active along our anti-parasitic axis. Whilst bacterial and viral infection tended to be cleared or kill us- ancient humans tended to live with an excessive persistent parasite burden on their immune systems. In the modern context this powerful histimine response has become deleterious. My parasites are all gone and so my nose won't stop running. There are no bad genes in the absolute sense. Context is a huge part of evolution.

J C wrote: »

1) Objective proof DOES exist for an Intelligent Creator in the enormous levels of specified complexity observed in living creatures.

Even if you assume that compexity has arisen within 6000 years, I could just as easily claim that an interstellar civilisation deposited all life as-is onto Earth at that time, leaving no trace of their presence other than us. My hypothesis cannot be falsified and so is scientifically invalid. As is yours.

J C wrote: »

2) Muck has never been observed to spontaneously turn into anything......other than more muck......so forget about muck spontaneously turning into Man!!:eek::)

I never mentioned "muck". Nor did I suggest that it suddenly changed into people- that sounds more like the book of Genesis to me. Nucleotides can be produced in a lab under the correct conditions from nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon (not muck but the constituents of Earth's oceans and atmosphere). As can amino acids. Lipids, the most basic constituents of both fat and our cell membranes- will form bilayers and enclosed lipsomes (think a cell with no nucleus, organelles or receptors) in a matter of seconds when placed in water. We can do all of these reactions in a trivially short space of time- whilst the Earth has had those same resources, along with ideal environmental conditions and most importantly 4.4 billion years of time.

None of the above ingredients requires a designer or creator.

J C wrote: »

......livng cells are much more complex and tightly specified than car seats......and they therefore ALSO require a designer and a builder .....and they are even less likely to arise spontaneously than car seats over hundreds of millions of years !!!!

No, they are statistically more likely to do so as they are self-replicating and prone to replicative error. Car seats have not been observed to possess either trait.

J C wrote: »

In the beginning God Created is the simplest and the most likely explanation.....and therefore Occam's Razor favours the Creationist explanation over the spontaneous Evolution one!!:)

The existence of God is not provable scientifically. We have demonstratable mechanisms by which life can arise and evolve in His absence, therefore we do not need to invoke Him.

J C wrote: »

The Evolving and the Creating that is inherent to technological development are BOTH the direct result of applied (Human) INTELLIGENCE!!!!

I was not disputing that. My point, restated, is: technology and its development does indeed have the analogy to evolution that you have repeatedly cited, however it innately requires a designer whereas life does not. If we observe that a limestone building is changed over time to appear more worn, then observe that rainwater degrades limestone, and finally observe that rain frequently falls on our building, is it a reasonable leap to assume that God is responsible? We have an alternate mechanism that is far simpler and makes fewer assumptions. We don't need God for this one.

Ciaran500

J C wrote: »

There are ONLY two basic hypotheses for the origin of life.....

No, you have one hypothesis and one theory as creationists constantly feel the need to remind us, and before you reply with your typical smart arse manner. Evolution is the theory and creation barely skirts into the the definition of hypothesis.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Not in the reality-based community anyway.

But, in comparison to what some of AiG's creationists -- that nice Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997) comes to mind -- have been up to recently, I'd say that one paper published ten years ago demonstrates a most commendable level of activity.

....we've reached a new low, even for this thread, when you make fun of the dead.
Yes, Professor Verna Wright is dead, but he was a leading Physician and Rheumatologist who was also Chairman of the UK Arthritis and Rheumatism Council.

It is obvious that he hasn't done any research since he died in 1997.....but somewhat tasteless to point out this fact.

BTW Pasteur, Newton or Faraday haven't done much research recently either.....but it is would be both silly and tasteless to point this out.

Even though they are dead, their work lives on after them and they all deserve their place among the ranks of great Creation Scientists.

Hot Dog

JC, can you address this post you may have missed

So, which designer, Allah, Vishnu, Kali, the FSM, God, Zeus, the god of the Australian aborigines, of the native Americans, of the mesoAmericans?

Whom do we believe? Post evidence defending your support of Christian creation

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

So, which designer, Allah, Vishnu, Kali, the FSM, God, Zeus, the god of the Australian aborigines, of the native Americans, of the mesoAmericans?

Whom do we believe? Post evidence defending your support of Christian creation

God is God........'The Great I Am'.

.....so does this mean that you accept that the basic hypothesis (of spontanous materialistic Evolution) is false and therefore the alternative ('Intelligence') hypothesis is true???!!!!

BTW it was Divine Creation that occurred......and the Creation Accounts of various religions are approximations of the Genesis account which have acquired various embellishments as the story was passed down the generations amongst these peoples.:)

J C

Originally Posted by J C
but the purely materialistic hypothesis has been scientifically invalidated!!!!!!!!!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

No it hasn't... :pac:

.....oh yes it has!!!!!!!!!:):pac:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....we've reached a new low, even for this thread

J C wrote: »

.....oh yes it has!!!!!!!!!:):pac:

:pac:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Even though they are dead, their work lives on after them and they all deserve their place among the ranks of great Creation Scientists.

...scientists who were creationists.

J C

Ciaran500 wrote: »

...... you have one hypothesis and one theory .......

Yes, we have one valid Creation hypothesis......and one invalidated Evolutionary theory!!!!!!:D:)

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

...scientists who were creationists.

Point accepted.....

Even though Boyle, Kepler, Dalton, Kelvin, Lister, Joule, Maxwell, Pasteur, Newton, Faraday.......are dead, their work lives on after them and they all deserve their place among the ranks of great Scientists who were Creationists!!!

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

Yes, we have one valid Creation hypothesis......and one invalidated Evolutionary theory!!!!!!:D:)

I've had a bad week and this sort of thing is causing me great distress. I've posted a number arguments over the past few days which support evolution and falsify young earth creationism.

J C

Killbot2000 wrote: »

I've had a bad week and this sort of thing is causing me great distress. I've posted a number arguments over the past few days which support evolution and falsify young earth creationism.

I've had a stressful week as well....... but I have got great help from my relationship with Jesus ......you should try it some time........
......He loves YOU too......and wants to save YOU:):D

Jesus is 'knocking at your door'......and waiting (patiently)!!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Point accepted.....
.......are dead, their work lives on after them and they all deserve their place among the ranks of great Scientists who were Creationists!!!

What about all the non-scientists who were creationists? :eek::pac:

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

I've had a stressful week as well....... but I have got great help from my relationship with Jesus ......you should try it some time........
......He loves YOU too......and wants to save YOU:):D

Jesus is 'knocking at your door'......and waiting (patiently)!!!!:D

Well I've been waiting patiently for a response to my arguments.

J C

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Embryology also lends great support to the theory of evolution and I feel this has been largely ignored on this thread.

It is now accepted by nearly all Evolutionists that embryos DON'T recapitulate.....

......and here is some further reading on the invalidity of recapitulation:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/embryonic.asp

Killbot2000 wrote: »

One example concerns the tortuous routes that nerves in the human face take for example the aptly named facial nerve. That the nerves do this weighs heavily against an intelligent designer. The reason that biology has come up with is that as evolution proceeds it can never start from scratch, it is constantly upgrading an ancestral body plan.

....and the Woodpecker's tongue goes up the BACK of it's skull and down it's sinuses......but this is proof that gradual Evolution couldn't have done this......what use would a short tongue up the back of your head be to anything.....and particularly an insect eating bird?????:)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-adaptation.asp


.......your facial nerve argument reminds me of the 'inverted retina' argument of Evolutionists ......which Creation Scientists have demonstrated to be totally invalid.....and you can read all about it here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Embryogenesis permits a lot of tinkering as the given animal is little more than an amorphous blob. However this is not the tinkering of an intelligent designer as the numerous redundancies, pseudogenes, chronic disorders etc. clearly show.

Some of this is the deleterious result of the Fall......and the rest is the result of the information packed originally created genomes.

.....and BTW calling an embryo 'an amorphous blob' is about as sensible as calling a computer 'a rectangular box'......and just about as valid!!!!!

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Feel free to respond to my earlier point about the accumulation of non functional olfactory genes in cetaceans.

I am not familiar with this particular phenomenon......but could I point out, that if these genes are accumulated then even Evolutionary theory would indicate that they have a useful function....or at the very least a non-disruptive function!!!:)

......and the useful function would be explained by Creation !!!

J C

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Well I've been waiting patiently for a response to my arguments.

I've provided a response above ......

......and Jesus is STILL 'knocking on your door'......and waiting patiently, for a response!!!!:pac::):D

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

What about all the non-scientists who were creationists? :eek::pac:

.......they were great people......who were Creationists

......but they were not great scientists, who were Creationists ......
.......like Boyle, Kepler, Dalton, Kelvin, Lister, Joule, Maxwell, Pasteur, Newton, Faraday!!!:eek::pac::)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......they were great people......who were Creationists

......but they were not great scientists, who were Creationists ......
.......like Boyle, Kepler, Dalton, Kelvin, Lister, Joule, Maxwell, Pasteur, Newton, Faraday!!!:eek::pac::)

How does the fact that they were scientists make them more noteworthy as creationists?? Any more than the journalists and teachers and preachers?

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

It is now accepted by nearly all Evolutionists that embryos DON'T recapitulate.....

......and here is some further reading on the invalidity of recapitulation:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/embryonic.asp


....and the Woodpecker's tongue goes up the BACK of it's skull and down it's sinuses......but this is proof that gradual Evolution couldn't have done this......what use would a short tongue up the back of your head be to anything.....and particularly an insect eating bird?????:)

.......your acial nerve argument reminds me of the 'inverted retina' argument of Evolutionists ......which Creation Scientists have demonstrated to be totally invalid.....and you can read all about it here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp




Some of this is the deleterious result of the Fall......and the rest is the result of the information packed originally created genomes.

.....and BTW calling an embryo 'an amorphous blob' is about as sensible as calling a computer 'a rectangular box'......and just about as valid!!!!!


I am not familiar with this particular phenomenon......but could I point out, that if these genes are accumulated then even Evolutionary theory would indicate that they have a useful function....or at the very least a non-disruptive function!!!:)

I did not say that embryos recapitulate, only that the field of embryology lends a lot of support to the theory of evolution. Certainly recapitulation is no longer accepted in biology.

Your woodpecker argument has been disproved, indeed many of the creationist websites that use this argument have been shown to have erroneous information regarding the morphology of the woodpecker's tongue.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

My facial nerve argument still holds, you have not answered my question. There are numerous redundancies in its path as it overlaps with other nerves.

But you can read why the creationists have gotten the inverted retina argument the wrong way around (pun intended) here:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Lahti.html

With respect to my description of an embryo, I was merely trying to show that a developing embryo is a more 'malleable' object than a fully formed organism because by definition it is not yet fully formed.

The point about the whales is that modern genomic evidence supports the fact that they have evolved from a terrestrial ancestor. This is, in turn, supported by palaeontology.

The crux of my argument is that there is substantial evidence for a tinkering of species through the generations i.e. evolution, but this is emphatically not an intelligent tinkering. This is made clear by the redundancies, problems, non functional genes etc. found throughout life on this planet. Each organism was not created from scratch, they built upon their ancestor's template.

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

God is God........'The Great I Am'.

.....so does this mean that you accept that the basic hypothesis (of spontaneous materialistic Evolution) is false and therefore the alternative ('Intelligence') hypothesis is true???!!!!

BTW it was Divine Creation that occurred......and the Creation Accounts of various religions are approximations of the Genesis account which have acquired various embellishments as the story was passed down the generations amongst these peoples.:)

yes but your geological model is based entirely on a global flood 6000 years ago, many of our previous discussion have been about your continued attempt to shoehorn modern geology into Christian belief system

SO, why not accept a creation myth that is an age other than 6000 years and involves no flood? Take a look at some of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_myths

So, as you can see, many of these place no restrictive geological chronological, geological or stratigraphical constraints, and are as many and varied as the cultures that imagined them. Many are polytheistic, amd are vastly differnt from chritianity

So, again, supply evidence why Christian creation myth is more correct than any other.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

I am not familiar with this particular phenomenon......but could I point out, that if these genes are accumulated then even Evolutionary theory would indicate that they have a useful function....or at the very least a non-disruptive function!!!:)

......and the useful function would be explained by Creation !!!

Evolution will allow non-functional genes to propagate so long as they do not significantly impact on the likelyhood that an organism will reproduce. If I were designing an organism, I wouldn't put non-functional genes in there. A non-function suggests a random process. A function suggests favourable natural selection. Both of which are features of evolutionary theory.

Killbot2000

Why should I believe (and it is a faith based belief) in one religion over another? From a purely philosophical standpoint I can see no reason as to why I should favor Christianity. Creationism is espoused by all religions.

The argument that geography is one of the main determinants of religion strongly suggests that religion itself is a completely man made concept.

Religions have their good points e.g. humanitarian aid in the name of God etc. However their explanatory power is next to useless considering the whole idea is to accept ideas in the absence of evidence, the definition of faith. This seems absurd to me.

Philosophy uses logic to describe our world but it is not restricted by a set of beliefs which must be incorporated at all times into these descriptions. So even where science falls down, I don't see how religion can bring anything to the table.