The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone

JimiTime wrote: »

Hmmm, let me see. We are talking about creation/evolution. I am asking a Christian who believes God is our creator, so I reckon you could hazard a guess on what the 'what' is.

I'll give you a clue: Method of creation;)

Evolution doesn't explain creation. I am baffled that anyone still believes that who has visited this thread. There isn't a biology book in the world that says evolution explains the creation of life. I really wish you would get this concept.

bonkey

daithifleming wrote: »

Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood me.

No...I was trying to make sure that you understood wolfsbane

I simply said that if you want to believe that evolution began via the process of abiogenesis or that god began the process doesn't make any difference to the theory itself.

With that, I'd agree entirely.

I would point out, in defence of the point I was making, is that wolfsbane has made it abundantly clear that he is a believer in so-called Young Earth Creation. His desire to agree on a common designer without further conditions is not reconcilable with the notion of abiogenesis occurring as the result of the divine, followed by evolution....but rather intended to support the notion of a designer creating a muiltiplicity of species recently, within a timescale that you and I would agree is not reconcileable with the theory of evolution.

I am merely pointing out that a common designer need not support the notion of evolution....which is the claim you made whilst saying "why not". It is, from my perspective, the very reason "why not". A common designer, when made explicitly distinct from a common ancestor, suggests that the notion of a common ancestor is unacceptable.

Thus, the notion of a "common designer" does not mean that evolution is still a fact. In the terms that it was made, it was almost explicitly phrased to reject the notion of a common ancestor and subsequent evolution.

JimiTime

daithifleming wrote: »

Evolution doesn't explain creation. I am baffled that anyone still believes that who has visited this thread. There isn't a biology book in the world that says evolution explains the creation of life. I really wish you would get this concept.

Ehhh. this is not the first time I've seen you jump the gun in these boards Daithi. I know its different from abiogenesis. But if you switch off your attack button, you'd realise that I said 'method of creation'. I.E. God using evolution as the method. I am thinking the christian posters will know what I'm asking, it has been suggested in the past. I really wish 'You' would take it all in before you shoot, and maybe not tar all us Deluded freaks with the same brush.:)

Ekancone

JimiTime wrote: »

Ehhh. this is not the first time I've seen you jump the gun in these boards Daithi. I know its different from abiogenesis. But if you switch off your attack button, you'd realise that I said 'method of creation'. I.E. God using evolution as the method. I am thinking the christian posters will know what I'm asking, it has been suggested in the past. I really wish 'You' would take it all in before you shoot, and maybe not tar all us Deluded freaks with the same brush.:)

Sorry, I guess this is down to semantics on my part. But creation and evolution are not the same topics. Perhaps you call it method of adaption for species. But it is not a method of creation, sorry.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote: »

To Bonkey: Do you believe, that evolution is fact. By fact I mean, not just 'its the best explaination' or 'on the curremt evidence'. Would you as a person, not a scientist, say its a fact?

I'm not entirely sure why you ask the question, nor what is to be gained from my answering it. For these reasons, I'm not willing (currently) to answer the question.

I have tried to make it clear that I have no issue whatsoever about what beliefs someone wishes to hold. My stance on this thread has not been to argue that Creationists are wrong (or that scientists are right), but rather that Creationism is not science. I have tried to stop short of trying to speculate why believers in Creationism feel the need to argue this point, but am fairly confident that if you look through the (long) history of this thread, you'll see occasions where I have failed in that.

I do not believe that what I believe to be true in terms of our past and origins has any relevance to that position. I'm here to defend one belief, and one belief only, and that is that Creationism is not science.

Indeed, I would rather that we not focus on evolution at all. I would ask them to either clearly establish the falsifiability of what they call Creationist Science, or admit that they have no such thing. Everything else is misdirection...it is allowing them to redefine the game we're playing.

For that reason, rather than answering your question, I would ask you to explain to me why you feel it is in any way relevant. Why does it matter what I believe about our past. If I believe that God did it all,9000 years ago, but accept that this is not a scientific position, does it undermine the argument I've been making? If I believe in evolution, does this somehow make my argument stronger? Why does it matter what I believe? As far as I can see, its merely distracting from the topic at hand....and such distractions are at least partially why this thread has run in circles.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

JC, they tested the remains of past trunks which are fed by the still living root system. The remains JC, they tested the remains. In other words, they tested the dead remains, which are dead. You know, the remains?

Do you get it?

The remains.

IF the 'remains' "are fed by the still living root system".......then the 'remains' are being fed 'new' C-14 all the time .....and so they are effectively or even actually 'radiometrically ALIVE'!!!

.....if they are not being "fed by the still living root system".......then they are dead.....and they will rapidly disintegrate to be recycled in the Carbon Cycle because they are sited in such an aerobically exposed position....

....EITHER way, testing for C-14 should NOT yield a 10,000 year 'age'.....because anything that is dead will have disintegrated within a few years.....and if it is alive (or 'being fed' by living areas of the tree) it should have a C-14 'age' of ZERO!!!

J C

wrote:

daithifleming
Evolution doesn't explain creation. I am baffled that anyone still believes that who has visited this thread. There isn't a biology book in the world that says evolution explains the creation of life. I really wish you would get this concept.

JimiTime
Ehhh. this is not the first time I've seen you jump the gun in these boards Daithi. I know its different from abiogenesis. But if you switch off your attack button, you'd realise that I said 'method of creation'. I.E. God using evolution as the method. I am thinking the christian posters will know what I'm asking, it has been suggested in the past.

daithifleming
Sorry, I guess this is down to semantics on my part. But creation and evolution are not the same topics. Perhaps you call it method of adaption for species. But it is not a method of creation, sorry.

Jimi......could I gently point out that Science currently has NO viable method that explains Creation/Abiogenesis.....and the ONLY people who seem to believe that God used Evolution as the 'method of creation' are Theistic Evolutionist Theologians!!!!

Could I also point out that Creation Scientists accept that Evolution occurs (without direct Divine intervention) as a method of adaption for species....and sometimes even speciation...........
......BUT always using pre-existing information.....and within Kinds...........

......so Creation Scientists only differ with the Materialists on the ultimate source of the information used and the scale over which Evolution acts.

Both Creation Scientists AND Materialists rule out Evolution as the mechanism of biogenesis......and ONLY the Theistic Evolutionists seem to believe that God used Evolution for biogenesis.......which kinda places huge question marks over the validity of any aspect of Theistic Evolution !!!!:)

One has to seriously ask where the 'Theistic bit' fits into Evolution......
...and I await any answers forthcoming from Theistic Evolutionists on this issue with bated breath!!!:D

.....BOTH their Theology AND their Science are 'on the line' on this one......and St Augustine's admonition (in Hot Dog's sig) to be careful when interpreting areas outside of your competence, is good advice which Theistic Evolutionists should seriously consider taking!!:D

pH

J C wrote: »

IF the 'remains' "are fed by the still living root system".......then they are obtaining 'new' C-14 all the time .....and so are effectively and/or actually ALIVE!!!

.....if they are not being "fed by the still living root system".......then they are dead.....and they will rapidly disintegrate to be recycled in the Carbon Cycle in such an aerobically exposed position....

....EITHER way testing for C-14 should NOT yield a 10,000 year 'age'.....because anything that is dead will have disintegrated within a few years.....and if it is alive (or 'being fed' by living areas of the tree) then it should have a C-14 'age' of ZERO!!!

This is where non-scientists like yourself founder on "real science". You read somewhere that living organisms have a C14 ratio equal to the atmospheric ratio up until death at which stage the C14 content will gradually decay. This is mostly true for most organisms, whose life spans are negligible compared to the time past since death, and for organisms who are replacing carbon content over their life span.

However this is not true for long living trees, who in general fix atmospheric CO2 to carbon in the year's growth, this carbon is now fixed in this year's growth ring and is not replaced every year, you seem to assuming that a large long lived tree is replacing its carbon content annually.

So if you date the centre of a living 1,000 year old tree you'll get a C14 date of 1,000 years, if you date the outer ring you'll get a date of 0 (well you won't because C14 dating for the last 150 years is messed up becuase of the industrial revolution and nuclear testing).

Hope this clears things up, probably best not to use creationist web sites as your sole source for science.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Could I also point out that Creation Scientists accept that Evolution occurs (without direct Divine intervention) as a method of adaption for species....and sometimes even speciation...........

J C wrote: »

......BUT using pre-existing information.....and within Kinds...........

Sorry, jumped the mark there. Carry on..


edit: hey, at least we agree on some things, right?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Sorry, jumped the mark there. Carry on..


edit: hey, at least we agree on some things, right?

...I used be an Evolutionist and I am a Scientist.......

......so we probably agree on MANY things!!!:D

2Scoops

pH wrote: »

However this is not true for long living trees, who in general fix atmospheric CO2 to carbon in the year's growth, this carbon is now fixed in this year's growth ring and is not replaced every year, you seem to assuming that a large long lived tree is replacing its carbon content annually.

Do the tree rings themselves show the tree is greater than 6000 years? That alone would mitigate against the creationist timeline.

Have J C or wolfsbane produced any creation scientists, creation science or evidence of creation publication censorship in the last few weeks? Or are we still dealing with "scientists who are creationists?"

JimiTime

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure why you ask the question, nor what is to be gained from my answering it. For these reasons, I'm not willing (currently) to answer the question.

I have not read all your posts here, but what i have read, I would see a certain wisdom overall. Your reluctance to answer the question is another testiment to the wisdom i think I've observed. Obviously not looking to show what you know, or massage your ego.

I have tried to make it clear that I have no issue whatsoever about what beliefs someone wishes to hold. My stance on this thread has not been to argue that Creationists are wrong (or that scientists are right), but rather that Creationism is not science. I have tried to stop short of trying to speculate why believers in Creationism feel the need to argue this point, but am fairly confident that if you look through the (long) history of this thread, you'll see occasions where I have failed in that.

Indeed. I'm sure there has been much frustration trying to get things to stay on track.

I do not believe that what I believe to be true in terms of our past and origins has any relevance to that position. I'm here to defend one belief, and one belief only, and that is that Creationism is not science.

I totally agree. the question was not loaded however, but I understand that an answer may open up a distracting can of worms. I was merely asking it out of interest. As i said, I would percieve you as having some wisdom in these things. I've never detected a bitterness or an 'i hate god' agenda in your postings. So as much as i can deduce from a collection of posts on a forum, i respect you, or more accurately, the person you present in your posts. This means, that I would hold your answer in higher regard than some other posters. (I'm not just blowin' smoke up your @ss btw. Just giving you an honest account on why I asked 'you' the question.)

Indeed, I would rather that we not focus on evolution at all. I would ask them to either clearly establish the falsifiability of what they call Creationist Science, or admit that they have no such thing. Everything else is misdirection...it is allowing them to redefine the game we're playing.

For me there is no game. I just want any questions 'I' have, to be answered. I want answers for me, and my motivation is certainly not for creationism or to change the goalposts, or to use it in evidence etc.

For that reason, rather than answering your question, I would ask you to explain to me why you feel it is in any way relevant. Why does it matter what I believe about our past. If I believe that God did it all,9000 years ago, but accept that this is not a scientific position, does it undermine the argument I've been making? If I believe in evolution, does this somehow make my argument stronger? Why does it matter what I believe? As far as I can see, its merely distracting from the topic at hand....and such distractions are at least partially why this thread has run in circles.

See above. If you feel that you could answer the question, but not here so as not to detract from the topic at hand. You could PM? If not, no bother.

JimiTime

J C wrote: »

Jimi......could I gently point out that Science currently has NO viable method that explains Creation/Abiogenesis.....and the ONLY people who seem to believe that God used Evolution as the 'method of creation' are Theistic Evolutionist Theologians!!!!

Could I also point out that Creation Scientists accept that Evolution occurs (without direct Divine intervention) as a method of adaption for species....and sometimes even speciation...........
......BUT always using pre-existing information.....and within Kinds...........

......so Creation Scientists only differ with the Materialists on the ultimate source of the information used and the scale over which Evolution acts.

Both Creation Scientists AND Materialists rule out Evolution as the mechanism of biogenesis......and ONLY the Theistic Evolutionists seem to believe that God used Evolution for biogenesis.......which kinda places huge question marks over the validity of any aspect of Theistic Evolution !!!!:)

One has to seriously ask where the 'Theistic bit' fits into Evolution......
...and I await any answers forthcoming from Theistic Evolutionists on this issue with bated breath!!!:D

.....BOTH their Theology AND their Science are 'on the line' on this one......and St Augustine's admonition (in Hot Dog's sig) to be careful when interpreting areas outside of your competence, is good advice which Theistic Evolutionists should seriously consider taking!!:D

Thanks for that JC. Could i ask you my original question though. What is the issue with a christian believing that evolution was the method God used to bring species to where they are?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Do you subscribe to that statement?

I don't subscribe to it, but I do broadly agree with it.

The wording of it contains a fudge. When the Statement was being crafted the YEC's wanted a clause about a 6-day Creation to be inserted. Others felt that was too restrictive. So in the end they used a form of words that, depending on your interpretation, either affirms Creationism or allows for theistic evolution. Which demonstrates the truth of the adage that a camel is simply a horse that was designed by a committee.

My reason in pointing to the Chicago Statement was, in particular, that belief in inerrancy does not mean ignoring common features of language such as figures of speech, rounded numbers, phenomenological language etc.

For me, when it comes to Creationism/Evolution the key issue is whether Genesis Chapters 1 & 2 were intended by the original authors to be taken as a scientific account or as a poetical affirmation of God's primacy over the other 'gods' of pagan creation myths. I don't know the answer myself, and that is why I have never argued for or against evolution.

PDN

J C wrote: »

Jimi......could I gently point out that Science currently has NO viable method that explains Creation/Abiogenesis.....and the ONLY people who seem to believe that God used Evolution as the 'method of creation' are Theistic Evolutionist Theologians!!!!

If by 'method of creation' you refer to abiogenesis, then I would be extremely surprised if anyone thought it occurred via evolution.

However, if by 'method of creation' you mean the Creation of Man, then it is untrue to state that only theologians believe that man is the result of an evolutionary process. The following scientists, according to wikipedia, believe in theistic evolution:

* Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution").
* Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
* R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
* evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)
* biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)
* biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science
* biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in which he has suggested the term BioLogos for theistic evolution.
* biologist Joan Roughgarden, teaches at Stanford University; author of various books including Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist.
* paleontologist Robert T. Bakker
* microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator
* paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The timespan is indeed a part of the model - just as billions of years is part of the evolutionary model. If either fell, the revelant model falls also. That doesn't mean either 6000 years or 13 billion years are non-falsifiable surely?

You are missing the point.

If YEC find some piece of evidence that falsifies the 6000 year date they conclude that this evidence must be wrong, even if they don't know how, and stick to the 6,000 year date.

Therefore it is not falsifiable, since YEC are not prepared to accept any evidence that can falsify it.

It is not science.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You are missing the point.

If YEC find some piece of evidence that falsifies the 6000 year date they conclude that this evidence must be wrong, even if they don't know how, and stick to the 6,000 year date.

Therefore it is not falsifiable, since YEC are not prepared to accept any evidence that can falsify it.

It is not science.

As a non-scientist could I ask a layman's question? (Actually a deries of questions)

If you found some evidence that contradicted the proposition that 1+1=2 then would you conclude that 1+1 does not in fact =2? Or would you conclude that the evidence must be wrong, even if you don't why?

Are there some truths that you would consider to be of a 'higher order' than others and so beyond questioning? Are some truths considered to be self-evident? If so, are these truths science?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

As a non-scientist could I ask a layman's question? (Actually a deries of questions)

If you found some evidence that contradicted the proposition that 1+1=2 then would you conclude that 1+1 does not in fact =2? Or would you conclude that the evidence must be wrong, even if you don't why?

I'm not sure if you are being literal, or if the "1+1=2" is just supposed to represent something that we take for granted as being correct.

If you are being literal then it doesn't really apply because mathematics doesn't contain "evidence", simply logic and calculations.

1+1=2 is a logical calculation, one based on rules that we invented in the first place. You can't find evidence to the contrary, not because you won't but because that isn't how maths works. 1+1=2 not because this is some universal truth, but because that is the true we decided in the first place.

The point about science is that is doesn't work like mathematics. As you will often here people on this forum saying "proofs" belong in maths, not science.

PDN wrote: »

Are there some truths that you would consider to be of a 'higher order' than others and so beyond questioning?

Not in a real world subject such as science, since it is impossible to determine an absolute truth.

Only in mental constructs such as mathematics, because we do after all invent the rules for them in the first place. Obviously we don't invent the rules for real world subjects.

PDN wrote: »

If so, are these truths science?

No, "truth" is a goal of science, but it is not something one can determine.

that isn't to say that people don't use the word "true" in a lay fashion. For example if I said "Is it true or false that if I throw myself out of a window I will fall to the Earth" a person could be reasonably expected to say "true"

But the important point is that that is only very likely to happen based on the current conceptual models we have about the universe. Gravity hasn't flipped in record history, and our models of physics give no reason why it would, but it could for some unknown reason, and I cannot say for 100% sure that it won't just as I throw myself out of the window.

Basically even if something is actually true there is no way to actually determine that, so one cannot say it is true.

Science deals with accuracy rather than truth. It is not about telling people what is or is not true, it is about building models of the universe that try to be as accurate as they can, mostly so these models can do interesting things and advance our understanding of what the universe is actually like.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If you found some evidence that contradicted the proposition that 1+1=2 then would you conclude that 1+1 does not in fact =2?

It's been a couple of years since this exact point has come up, but to repeat:

1+1=2 is not a "proposition", but a conclusion which results -- after much crunching of symbols -- from the application of rules to axioms. If you use different rules, or different axioms, you'll reach a different conclusion.

For example, in Boolean Algebra, the string "1+1=1" is "true", while "1+1=2" is "false".

I suspect you're trying to apply a religious understanding of the word "truth" to the rigorous and highly restricted mathematical understanding of the same word.

bonkey

robindch wrote: »

I suspect you're trying to apply a religious understanding of the word "truth" to the rigorous and highly restricted mathematical understanding of the same word.

It should be additionally noted that the use of the word in a scientific context would be, again, something different.

To try and answer the question that I think PDN is asking, however....

If I found evidence which contradicted a scientific theory`widely held to be correct....what would I do?

Let us say, for example, that I discovered that at some given location, objects of the same mass, but differing densities, fell at different speeds in a vacuum. (I seem to remember, in fact, that exactly this was believed to have been observed some years ago).

This would appear to contradict the theory of gravity...so what would I do.

Firstly, I would double-check and triple-check my experimental setup. I would ensure that I wasn't doing something stupid, didn't have fault equipment that I hadn't noticed, and so forth.

Failing that, I would then see if I could determine any further details...was it only two particular samples which differed....or one material which differed to all others....was it location-dependant....was there a possibility of interference from something I hadn't considered.

If and when I ran out of ideas but still couldn't remove the discrepancy, I would then seek to have my findings published in as much detail as possible, so that other scientists could evaluate whether or not I had, in fact, found a contradiction to the theory of gravity.

And so it would continue from there. If, at the end of it all, someone could explain why my tests produced an erroneous result and that there was no flaw in the theory of gravity exposed, then that reason would be noted to help future scientists avoid making the same mistake again. If, on the other hand, people could reproduce my results, could not find any explanation other than that our theory of gravity was somehow flawed (perhaps some materials have a hithertofore unknown property that can, in the right conditions, 'shield' against gravity, or even counteract it), then I'd go down in history as having found one of the most significant finds of modern times.

This last bit is the important one. There is nothing that gets one held in higher esteem in scientific circles than finding a flaw in an existant theory. The more "solid" the theory...the closer it is held to being the "truth" that you mention in your question, the higher the esteem gained from knocking it off its pedestal. Indeed, some scientists have gained in esteem when they showed their own previously-accepted theories to be incomplete or flawed.

It might take time, sure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means that the scientific community is appropriately cautious.

Undeniably, there are individuals who fail to live up to this ideal. Some adopt new ideas as "truth" too early...and typically look foolish when shown to be wrong. Some cling to old "truths" too long...and typically are seen as foolish through the lens of history. But science as a field of study, and scientists as a community, are not closed to challenging established "truth". Rather....they relish it.

Ekancone

bonkey wrote: »

If I found evidence which contradicted a scientific theory`widely held to be correct....what would I do?

If the theory was something that contradicted the bible, you would proclaim the entire theory to be false.

bonkey wrote: »

This would appear to contradict the theory of gravity...so what would I do.

If the theory of gravity contradicted the bible, you would proclaim that the theory of gravity is wrong and write an article for AiG, using all the skills you acquired in med school and applying them to physics. Following calls to provide a new model for your explanation of events you would completely ignore them and instead go on the Bill O'Reilly show claiming that the Evolutionist's got it wrong. Then you would go and publish a book and make millions of dollars from people who are ignorant of physics, desperate for your version of events to be correct and are impressed by your title of 'Dr'.

Retire to a tropical beach and laugh your head off at all the idiots you just duped into handing over their cash.

Rinse and repeat.

Galvasean

Only in the Creationism thread could we argue whether or not one plus one equals two... :pac:

Zombrex

bonkey wrote: »

It should be additionally noted that the use of the word in a scientific context would be, again, something different.

To try and answer the question that I think PDN is asking, however....

If I found evidence which contradicted a scientific theory`widely held to be correct....what would I do?

Let us say, for example, that I discovered that at some given location, objects of the same mass, but differing densities, fell at different speeds in a vacuum. (I seem to remember, in fact, that exactly this was believed to have been observed some years ago).

This would appear to contradict the theory of gravity...so what would I do.

Firstly, I would double-check and triple-check my experimental setup. I would ensure that I wasn't doing something stupid, didn't have fault equipment that I hadn't noticed, and so forth.

Failing that, I would then see if I could determine any further details...was it only two particular samples which differed....or one material which differed to all others....was it location-dependant....was there a possibility of interference from something I hadn't considered.

If and when I ran out of ideas but still couldn't remove the discrepancy, I would then seek to have my findings published in as much detail as possible, so that other scientists could evaluate whether or not I had, in fact, found a contradiction to the theory of gravity.

And so it would continue from there. If, at the end of it all, someone could explain why my tests produced an erroneous result and that there was no flaw in the theory of gravity exposed, then that reason would be noted to help future scientists avoid making the same mistake again. If, on the other hand, people could reproduce my results, could not find any explanation other than that our theory of gravity was somehow flawed (perhaps some materials have a hithertofore unknown property that can, in the right conditions, 'shield' against gravity, or even counteract it), then I'd go down in history as having found one of the most significant finds of modern times.

This last bit is the important one. There is nothing that gets one held in higher esteem in scientific circles than finding a flaw in an existant theory. The more "solid" the theory...the closer it is held to being the "truth" that you mention in your question, the higher the esteem gained from knocking it off its pedestal. Indeed, some scientists have gained in esteem when they showed their own previously-accepted theories to be incomplete or flawed.

It might take time, sure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means that the scientific community is appropriately cautious.

Undeniably, there are individuals who fail to live up to this ideal. Some adopt new ideas as "truth" too early...and typically look foolish when shown to be wrong. Some cling to old "truths" too long...and typically are seen as foolish through the lens of history. But science as a field of study, and scientists as a community, are not closed to challenging established "truth". Rather....they relish it.

Excellent answer, particularly the last bit.

The idea that the scientific establishment is interested in maintaining the current status quo of theories is nonsense to the point of being laughable.

There isn't a biologist alive who would not relish to opportunity to come up with a more accurate theory than neo-Darwinian evolution, or a physicist who would not relish the opportunity to come up with a more accurate theory than say the Big Bang.

That is the whole point of science.

The Creationist propaganda that science is interested only in maintaining the current "Godless" theories is not only wrong, but it in fact misses the entire point of science in the first place, misses on of the main reasons why scientists become scientists.

PDN

Killbot2000 wrote: »

As there were only two representatives of every species on the Ark, it was very likely that many of the first generation offspring were all of the same sex. This would be disastrous for obvious reproductive reasons.

If against all probability every species had a son and daughter or equivalent thereof there is still the issue of survival. The survival rate of many species to sexual maturity is much lower than 50%.

The points against the Ark story are numerous yet you seem unable to counter any of them save for some God of the gaps arguments.

Let me make sure I understand this argument correctly.

You appear to be saying the following:
If a God exists who can speak all created matter into being, and if that God sent a flood to cover the whole earth, and if that same God manipulated things in such a way that 2 of every kind of animal boarded a boat, and if that same God prevented the animals from killing each other on the boat, then it would be impossible for those animals to reproduce effectively because such a God is obviously incapable of bucking the laws of probability when it comes to determining whether the offspring of said animals would be male or female.

Does anyone see why a theist might not be convinced by that argument?

PDN

bonkey wrote: »

It should be additionally noted that the use of the word in a scientific context would be, again, something different.

To try and answer the question that I think PDN is asking, however....

If I found evidence which contradicted a scientific theory`widely held to be correct....what would I do?

No, that isn't actually what I was asking.

I am trying to find out if all of us have certain 'truths' that we believe to be true and which we then use to assess other data. For example, the law of non-contradiction, that something cannot simultaneously be both x and not x. It seems to me that this law cannot be demonstrated without first assuming its own truthfulness. Yet most of use it to accept or reject the accuracy of other data.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Does anyone see why a theist might not be convinced by that argument?

One wonders though why God would bother.

If he has to be constantly being over backward to break the rules (such as forcing each animal pair to have at least a male and female off spring) to allow this Flood to actually take place, why would he bother using a Flood in the first place?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I am trying to find out if all of us have certain 'truths' that we believe to be true and which we then use to assess other data.

No, not in science, not for a formal definition of "true"

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

One wonders though why God would bother.

If he has to be constantly being over backward to break the rules (such as forcing each animal pair to have at least a male and female off spring) to allow this Flood to actually take place, why would he bother using a Flood in the first place?

I don't think an omnipotent being does particularly bend over backwards to do anything. If such a Being is equally able to do something in a more complicated way than in a simple way, then why not?

Last time I visited someone in a hospital I chose to climb the stairs rather than go up in the lift. To a cockroach such a choice would seem incomprehensible. "Why", our strangely rational roach may muse, "Did this humanoid be bothered to climb the stairs? Why bend over backwards to get somewhere when he could just step into the lift?" Of course the cockroach may never understand that I just felt like climbing the stairs for a change. The difference between ascending to the next floor by lift or by stairs is a huge one to a cockroach (assuming, of course, that he doesn't get squashed when the lift doors close). Due to my larger size, the difference, while still there, is less dramatic. If I were omnipotent, of course, it would make no difference to me at all.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No, not in science, not for a formal definition of "true"

Sorry, I'm not really following what you are saying.

If you find two pieces of data to be mutually contradictory, would you therefore conclude that one of them is false? Or might they both be true?

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

Let me make sure I understand this argument correctly.

You appear to be saying the following:
If a God exists who can speak all created matter into being, and if that God sent a flood to cover the whole earth, and if that same God manipulated things in such a way that 2 of every kind of animal boarded a boat, and if that same God prevented the animals from killing each other on the boat, then it would be impossible for those animals to reproduce effectively because such a God is obviously incapable of bucking the laws of probability when it comes to determining whether the offspring of said animals would be male or female.

Does anyone see why a theist might not be convinced by that argument?

So your conclusion is what? God 'bucks' (your word) the laws probabilty to suit himself? If so, many questions need to be asked

a) why set up those laws in the first place
b) is everything a result of God infering? Is there really free will
c) when does God 'buck' his own laws? Is it only when a particularly difficult situation arises? Or can it be when he just wants to do something funky?
d) How do we know he's manipulating his own laws of probability and why did create them to begin with
e) Is he therefore responsible for the bad stuff which befalls mankind or is that again mankinds fault?
f) doesn't a supreme being who 'bucks' his own laws fall into the imperfect category? Isn't God perfect?

It goes on and on PDN..total and utter contradiction.