The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

J C wrote: »

....we've reached a new low, even for this thread, when you make fun of the dead.

I wasn't making fun of the dead, but rather pointing out that AiG's supporters are so few, that they have to recruit the dead to make up the numbers! AiG's cynicism in this demands your condemnation far more than I do

J C wrote: »

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.

As indeed, you have just tastelessly done. It really does seem that there are so few living scientists who support creationism that recruiting the deceased without their consent really may well be the only way to give the appearance of support to a cause as dead as its most famous advocates!

.

iUseVi

Plus you gotta remember that these guys did not have the benefits of in some cases 100s of years of research and development. Creationism was the current theory at the time. It has since then been disproved and replaced with better, more accurate theories.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

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

Yet not tasteless for AiG to claim, as one of their own, dead people who naturally cannot defend themselves from any possible slander or misrepresentation.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Yet not tasteless for AiG to claim, as one of their own, dead people who naturally cannot defend themselves from any possible slander or misrepresentation.

I think it is eminently reasonable for Creationists, or evolutionists, to cite those who are have publicly gone on record as supporting their position, be those people living or dead.

I remember a thread some time back on the A&A forum about whether atheists lack joy or not. Someone cited (the late) Douglas Adams as an example of a joyous atheist. I don't think it was tasteless to state that a dead guy, was an atheist. Neither was any theist tasteless enough to point out that he hasn't shown much joy since his death 7 years ago. Yet somehow Robin thinks it is OK to mock a guy for not having done any research since his death.

IF misrepresentation has taken place, as Wicknight is accusing, then maybe you could cite some sources? Is there any evidence that the man in question was not a Creationist and that AiG is misrepresenting his views? If so, then please fire away!

Misrepresentation is wrong when carried out by either side. If Christians start trying to claim that Darwin or Einstein made deathbed conversions - then they should be challenged to put up evidence or shut up. If atheists start silliness like "Galileo would have been an atheist if he was alive today" then they similarly deserve scorn. However, I see nothing wrong with any side in a debate claiming the support of those who, although now deceased, did publicly state their opinions while alive. If we start censuring that then half the threads on these boards would be classed as tasteless.

bonkey

PDN wrote: »

I think it is eminently reasonable for Creationists, or evolutionists, to cite those who are have publicly gone on record as supporting their position, be those people living or dead.

I would agree, as long as they made clear that said people were deceased.

When I first visited the AiG page referenced, I was somewhat bemused to see that the names in contention were listed amongst "modern scientists", but then I noticed that the phrasing was accurate : "modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation". In fairness to AiG, they also note who is deceased on that list.

If I wanted to critique the amount of support, I would do so by pointing out that rounded to the nearest percent, it constitutes a solid 0% of modern scientists. Of course, were I to do so, someone would no doubt point out that science is neither a popularity contest nor a democracy. The response, naturally, would be to question why AiG feel the need to claim some sort of popular support.

This is a road well travelled, but that seems to be par for the course for this thread

bonkey

J C wrote: »

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 showing one basic hypothesis (materialism) to be false DOES prove the alternative ('Intelligence') hypothesis to be true!!!!

This holds true if you can show that there are and can be no other possibilities.

Can you do so?

but the purely materialistic hypothesis has been scientifically invalidated!

No, it hasn't, unless we buy into the (rather large amount of) smoke-and-mirrors used to try and redefine what constitutes scientific invalidation.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Yet somehow Robin thinks it is OK to mock a guy for not having done any research since his death.

Good heavens, PDN, I'm beginning to worry that you neither read nor understand anything that I write! From this post, two prior to yours:

robindch wrote:

I wasn't making fun of the dead, but rather pointing out that AiG's supporters are so few, that they have to recruit the dead to make up the numbers!

To which I can only add in response to the original request, that an ongoing career break of twelve years on the part of Mr Austin constitutes a curious understanding of "actively engaged in research".

BTW, one wonders what some of the very famous people on AiG's list -- Newton, Leibnitz, Linneaus, Pasteur, Kelvin and Maxwell, for example -- would have thought of (diploma-mill-Dr) Ken Ham using their names and reputations as marketing collateral without their permission?

Scofflaw

iUseVi wrote: »

Plus you gotta remember that these guys did not have the benefits of in some cases 100s of years of research and development. Creationism was the current theory at the time. It has since then been disproved and replaced with better, more accurate theories.

Actually, the whole AiG claim is very much like an opponent of plate tectonics pointing out that many of the great geologists believed in geosynclinal theory - or an opponent of quantum theory attempting to bolster his position by pointing to Boyle or Newton.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I think it is eminently reasonable for Creationists, or evolutionists, to cite those who are have publicly gone on record as supporting their position, be those people living or dead.

Considering AiG have changed their position at least 3 times since the Creationist thread started I find it a little difficult to believe that a scientist who died 10 years ago can be said to support AiG's position.

That is the problem in rolling out dead people to say they support a certain position. They can't say they support the position as it is now

Galvasean

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

*what the hell am I doing on this thread?! :eek: *

I once asked myself that same question. that was a year ago..

Galvasean

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

Oh darn, I taught that was those silly Mormons again. I had best let him in!

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

I think it is eminently reasonable for Creationists, or evolutionists, to cite those who are have publicly gone on record as supporting their position, be those people living or dead.

There's a big difference between the likes of Newton and the "scientists" who support modern Creationism. Newton was a christian who was interested in the absolute truth. He never allowed his faith to pervert his observations of the universe. When it became clear to him that the force of gravity was responsible for the movements of the planets, that was enough for him. He placed God in the grey areas- where there was observational proof, he dismissed Him.

The creationist movement seeks to promote the science that supports their viewpoint whilst ignoring or worse falsely discrediting the science that does not. Newton would have been appalled.

2Scoops

PDN wrote: »

I think it is eminently reasonable for Creationists, or evolutionists, to cite those who are have publicly gone on record as supporting their position, be those people living or dead.

But why do they single out scientists ahead of any other occupation??

J C

Originally Posted by J C
.......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!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

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

.....what makes them notable is that they were the 'fathers of modern (Creation) Science'!!!!:)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....what makes them notable is that they were the 'fathers of modern (Creation) Science'!!!!:)

Their work had nothing whatsoever to do with creationism. You're just playing favorites. :pac:

J C

Killbot2000 wrote: »

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.

......it took nearly 100 years for Evolutionists to finally jettison Ernst Haeckel's invalid belief that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"!!!!

.......and STILL Haeckel's invalid ideas are found in some science textbooks!!!

.....if embryos don't recapitulate (and I agree that they don't).....then HOW does embryology lend any support to Evolution.????

Killbot2000 wrote: »

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.

The Green Woodpecker has a tongue that is as long as it's body......and it is wrapped about it's head and stored in it's right nostril......

......to paraphrase Prof Gould's words....the absence of any evidence for intermediary stages between a Woodpecker with a short conventional tongue and the Green Woodpecker with a tongue originating on the back of it's skull, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates invalidates gradualistic accounts of evolution!!!:D

Killbot2000 wrote: »

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.

......my facial nerve works perfectly to co-ordinate the following muscles in my face :-
Occipitofrontalis, Procerus, Nasalis, Depressor septi nasi, Orbicularis culi,
Corrugator supercilii, Depressor supercilii, Auricular muscles (anterior, superior, posterior) Orbicularis oris, Depressor anguli oris, Risorius, Zygomaticus major,
Zygomaticus minor, Levator labii superioris, Levator labii superioris alaeque nasi, Depressor labii inferioris, Levator anguli oris, Buccinator and Mentalis.

.....Some feat of Intelligent Design!!!!!:)

Killbot2000 wrote: »

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

.....and you can read WHY it is the right way around here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp

Killbot2000 wrote: »

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.

......so whales have genes that look like olifactory genes in other creatures....but modern genetics has shown that similar genes may have radically different functions in different organisms.......just like similar pieces of wire can have radically different functions in different machines......which again indicates Intelligent Design.....rather than Spontaneous evolution!!!

Killbot2000 wrote: »

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.

The 'tinkering' has been largely due to mutagenesis and recombination..... and you are correct it hasn't been directly controlled......the original intelligent input ONLY occurred at Creation!!!:):D

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

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.

....does this mean that you accept that the origin of living creatures could only be via direct creation????

.....as I have said the various Creation accounts around the World are approximations, of varying accuracy to the TRUE account in Genesis!!!!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

.....and God disagrees with your logic......and He put many non-functional or switch-functional genes into the original genomes......and this is the mechanism for rapid speciation.....and it accounts for much of the so-called 'junk DNA' that is observed in modern genomes!!!!:)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

.....and God disagrees with your logic......and He put many non-functional or switch-functional genes into the original genomes......and this is the mechanism for rapid speciation.....and it accounts for much of the so-called 'junk DNA' that is observed in modern genomes!!!!:)

Oh right, is that the rapid speciation which occured at 250,000 times the modern rate? That means the poor little animals were 'speciating' every 8 hours. It must have been a terrible strain...

iUseVi

J C: yours or others inability, to imagine how natural selection could account for certain features does not invalidate the theory. It just means that more research is needed in these areas.

Does it not worry you that one by one all your arguments are being explained away. You are being left with a smaller and smaller corner to defend.

See if you can reply without using a single dot (.). It would make for more readable posts and I and others might actually bother to read them.

J C

Killbot2000 wrote: »

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.

God has granted you complete freedom as to which religion, if any, that you may believe in.
The Bible is the true Word of God and it's truth will set you free.....and will show you how you can be saved.

It lays before you, life and death.......please choose life......but you are perfectly free to not choose at all!!!!:D

Killbot2000 wrote: »

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

The fact that Christians are to be found amongst ALL nations and peoples on Earth suggests that there is much more than Geography at work here!!

Killbot2000 wrote: »

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.

Ordinary observational operational science is excellent at describing and explaining repeatably observable phenomena.

However, when it comes to non-repeatably observable events and phenomena from the past ......things like the origin of life.....then forensic science is used......and forensic science needs a logical framework upon which to build it's theories.
For example, if a body is found with a bullet stuck in it, we don't logically assume that the death was due to spontaneous natural causes......we logically conclude that there was an intelligent Human involvement in the death.....and with further detective (and forensic) work a story about how the death occurred will usually emerge.......so forensic sciences (like Creation Science.....and the belief in Spontaneous Evolution) produce stories...based on scientific evidence and logic.

The same logic that concludes that the co-incidence of a simple bullet in the complex heart of a person is indicative of probable intelligent action......SHOULD also conclude that the complex heart itself is the ultimate result of intelligent action as well!!!!

.....it is difficult to even imagine how a bullet could get into somebodies heart without an intelligent input.......and ditto for the information that produced the heart, in the first place.

......you could come up with a forensic story that the bullet was an accidentally generated bullet-shaped piece of lead that spontaneously flew out of the exhaust of a car and killed the person........but your forensic story would be about as plausible as suggesting the person was spontanously produced by Evolution!!!:D

J C

Originally Posted by J C
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 showing one basic hypothesis (materialism) to be false DOES prove the alternative ('Intelligence') hypothesis to be true!!!!

bonkey wrote: »

This holds true if you can show that there are and can be no other possibilities.

Can you do so?

It holds true until somebody shows that there IS another possibility.....

Can you do so?

J C

PDN wrote: »

I think it is eminently reasonable for Creationists, or evolutionists, to cite those who are have publicly gone on record as supporting their position, be those people living or dead.

I remember a thread some time back on the A&A forum about whether atheists lack joy or not. Someone cited (the late) Douglas Adams as an example of a joyous atheist. I don't think it was tasteless to state that a dead guy, was an atheist. Neither was any theist tasteless enough to point out that he hasn't shown much joy since his death 7 years ago. Yet somehow Robin thinks it is OK to mock a guy for not having done any research since his death.

IF misrepresentation has taken place, as Wicknight is accusing, then maybe you could cite some sources? Is there any evidence that the man in question was not a Creationist and that AiG is misrepresenting his views? If so, then please fire away!

Misrepresentation is wrong when carried out by either side. If Christians start trying to claim that Darwin or Einstein made deathbed conversions - then they should be challenged to put up evidence or shut up. If atheists start silliness like "Galileo would have been an atheist if he was alive today" then they similarly deserve scorn. However, I see nothing wrong with any side in a debate claiming the support of those who, although now deceased, did publicly state their opinions while alive. If we start censuring that then half the threads on these boards would be classed as tasteless.

Well said PDN.

It is quite legitimate for all sides to cite the person, writings and ideas of dead people in support of their contentions and it is also legitimate to challenge any misrepresentation of such people or their ideas.

It is tasteless to make fun of dead people, whatever their beliefs when alive.
.....and making a remark about how little Darwin has written over the past hundred years would be equally tasteless.....and indeed useless, in furthering any debating point that a Creationist might wish to make.

Robin, admit it, you got it wrong on this occasion.

......and the first rule in this situation.....is to put down the spade.....and STOP DIGGING!!!!:D

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Well said PDN.

It is quite legitimate for all sides to cite the person, writings and ideas of dead people in support of their contentions and it is also legitimate to challenge any misrepresentation of such people or their ideas.

It is tasteless to make fun of dead people, whatever their beliefs when alive.
.....and making a remark about how little Darwin has written over the past hundred years would be equally tasteless.....and indeed useless, in furthering any debating point that a Creationist might wish to make.

Robin, admit it, you got it wrong on this occasion.

Could you type like this ^^ in future? It is much easier to read, thanks.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Oh right, is that the rapid speciation which occured at 250,000 times the modern rate? That means the poor little animals were 'speciating' every 8 hours. It must have been a terrible strain...

^^^^^something like the strain of trying to keep up with this thread^^^^I guess!!:eek::pac::):D

daithifleming wrote: »

Could you type like this ^^ in future? It is much easier to read, thanks

^^^your every wish is my command^^^^just did so!!!:D

J C

iUseVi wrote: »

J C: yours or others inability, to imagine how natural selection could account for certain features does not invalidate the theory. It just means that more research is needed in these areas.

......the Evolutionist Research has been ongoing for over 100 years....so when will you call it a day and accept that Spontaneous Evolution is simply invalid.....and 'more research' will only invalidate it even further!!!

iUseVi wrote: »

Does it not worry you that one by one all your arguments are being explained away. You are being left with a smaller and smaller corner to defend.

I would, if I was defending a 'smaller corner'......but the only ones in a corner on this thread are the hundreds of Evolutionists who have thrown ALL they had at me.....and acted as an aid memoire by listing every invalid Evolutionist hypothesis known to Man.....and Woman!!:):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

^^^^^something like the strain of trying to keep up with this thread^^^^I guess!!:eek::pac::):D




^^^your every wish is my command^^^^just did so!!!:D

Roffle

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

......the Evolutionist Research has been ongoing for over 100 years....so when will you call it a day and accept that Spontaneous Evolution is simply invalid.....and 'more research' will only invalidate it even further!!!


I would, if I was defending a 'smaller corner'......but the only ones in a corner on this thread are the hundreds of Evolutionists who have thrown ALL they had at me.....and acted as an aid memoire by listing every invalid Evolutionist hypothesis known to Man.....and Woman!!:):D

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"

bonkey

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
It holds true until somebody shows that there IS another possibility.....

I'm afraid thats not the case...although its the answer I expected from you.

If one cannot show that the options presented cover the entire range of possible options, then one cannot claim that the range of options presented covers the entire range of possible options.

More correctly...as you have adequately demonstrated, one can most certainly make the claim, but the claim holds no water. The most obvious third option - which you conveniently ignore - is "or some third option we haven't considered yet".

Its the same problem you have with woodpeckers...that we cannot (currently) define the missing intermediate states does not mean that those states could not exist.

bonkey

J C wrote: »

......it took nearly 100 years for Evolutionists to finally jettison Ernst Haeckel's invalid belief that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"!!!!

Tell me...what was the last thing Creationists admitted to getting something wrong, excluding where they had borrowed something that evolutionary science had first formulated, only to abandon it when evolutionary science also did so?