The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ciaran500

Its Kirk Cameron according to the name of the image.

bonkey

Interesting link.

I've read through it, and as far as I can see, the most telling point comes at the final point.

Dr.Max wrote:

Although Spetner claims that mutations observed in experimental models of evolution uniformly lose information, I have tried to show that his metric for evaluating the information content of proteins has not been rigorously validated, and that his whole argument is therefore based on an untenable foundation.

The response?

Spetner wrote:

AS I HAVE NOTED ABOVE, MAX HAS SHOWN NOTHING OF THE KIND. IF ANYTHING, HE HAS ONLY DEMONSTRATED HIS IGNORANCE OF A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF INFORMATION THEORY, AND HIS REFUSAL TO ACCEPT IT WHEN I EXPLAIN IT TO HIM.

There's a more extended version of the same discourse further up, towards the end of the section titled "Antibiotic Resistance as an Example of Evolution". Dr. Max attempts to point out in more detail the flaws that he sees in the argument, and the response is more of the same...comments about "tiresome", "nit-picking", the argument "becoming ludicrous" and so forth.

One could see this as analagous of peer-review. In peer-review, one is critiqued, and can choose how to respond to the critique. Spetner's response seems to be generally that of a child throwing its toys out of the pram...insisting that the flaws mentioned don't exist, are due to the ignorance of the critic, and so forth.

I'm going through the work in more detail, but generally I'm not all that impressed. I'll see if I can find time to write more detail later.

bonkey

Oh, and for completeness' sake...Here's Dr. Max's telling of the same tale.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html

Ekancone

robindch wrote: »

hmmm... the first two I know, but who's the last bloke? Seems very earnest whoever he is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNTGmoTb8sw

Try not to get too angry.

Ekancone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M

toiletduck

Hey guys, loving the "Why do people laugh at creationists" videos but was just wondering if anyone could tell me who started them and why? Cheers. Just a bit curious.

Galvasean

daithifleming wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNTGmoTb8sw

Try not to get too angry.

The eye compared to a camera lens argument? At first I taught it was a very good argument, one which made me doubt the evolutionary theory, until I read into it and saw the argument refuted many times. Sheesh, they really need to update their examples.

Galvasean

daithifleming wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M

Wow, he sure likes contradicting himself.
Funny, I watched Ferris Bueller's Day off the other night. How the mighty have fallen.

Ekancone

toiletduck wrote: »

Hey guys, loving the "Why do people laugh at creationists" videos but was just wondering if anyone could tell me who started them and why? Cheers. Just a bit curious.

This guy makes em

http://ie.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t

And some more in the same vain:

http://ie.youtube.com/user/potholer54
http://ie.youtube.com/user/AronRa
http://ie.youtube.com/user/cdk007

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....like I said ....your need for a 'peer-reviewed paper' is just an expression of your need for an 'ultra-orthodox' Evolutionist interpretation of the evidence.....to satisfy your religious sensibilities......

Actually it is his need for science .. something you don't seem that bothered about (see below)

J C wrote: »

.....anyway, as the evidence is actually incontrovertable that an infinite Intelligence designed life

That is a very funny thing for a "scientist" such as yourself to claim.

Most supporters of Intelligent Design say that the evidence merely points to an intelligence in the structure of life on Earth. The nature of this intelligence is unknown because it is impossible to ascertain from it's design.

I've never seen anyone claim that the evidence shows than an infinite intelligence designed things, let alone "incontrovertibly" (is that even possible in science)

Its a very funny thing for a scientist to claim because you have no possible way of assessing the infinite nature of the intelligence from what it designed. You haven't even defined what you mean by "infinite intelligence", or how you would falsify that claim.

Its almost, almost, as if you aren't coming from this from a scientific point of view at all! :eek:

Strange, no?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well a lot of them appear not to, as groups including AiG have stated that macro-evolution cannot happen, that a species cannot change into another species.

If one accepts that can happen there there is no issue. The higher terms in the biological classification tree are simply orders of removal. If a species change happens enough times it will jump these groups as well.

So what exactly is the issue here?


But that is exactly what you just said can happen. One species changes into another species into another into another. That is pig to whale, ant to non-ant.


And that happens enough times the changes build up so the species no longer has the (human) classification of "butterfly"

You seem to be agreeing with everything neo-Darwinian Evolution says.

I think the issue would be that any attempt to move outside the group/kind barrier will make the organism unviable. Mutational weight that causes extinction, not evolution.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You think being a scientist makes someone special?

You don't respect the vast majority of scientists out there, any particular reason you hold "YEC scientists" in some particular high esteem?

The special thing about science is the process, not the people doing it. Which is why I don't hang a picture of Richard Dawkins on my wall. I think he is a very clever guy, but it isn't who he is that is important, it is the work he has done, and his work can be reproduced by anyone. You don't need to be Dawkins, or Hawkings, or Einstein.

No, I quite agree. My post was to answer the implied criticism that the creationist case was only made by a 'someone', a 'journalist' or whatever, not a qualified scientist. When I point to scientists qualified in the relevant field, I'm not saying they are better scientists than others likewise qualified. Good scientists sometimes disagree on complex issues.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Not far off!

The Archosaur:

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

It's lineage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur#Phylogeny

The genetic link:



http://discovermagazine.com/2003/jan/breakreptiles

And of course the peer review literature:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enIE236IE237&q=archosaur%20dna&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

Hmm. So they took rhodopsin gene sequence from 30 living vertebrates, fiddled about with it and are amazed they ended up with functioning rhodopsin? Did any of their computer analyses produce non-functioning rhodopsin? Or did they only select what worked for their results? I ask as a layman, but it seems to me that they were determining a viable gene sequence for the supposed ancestor, and of course that would produce functioning rhodopsin.

Am I missing something?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think the issue would be that any attempt to move outside the group/kind barrier will make the organism unviable.

That doesn't make sense.

If a species can successfully move from species to species, moving outside the group is simply a matter of doing that a number of times.

Given that every new species is by definition, viable (otherwise it wouldn't have made it that far in the first place), there is no reason why this process cannot continue on over the "group barrier"

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I quite agree. My post was to answer the implied criticism that the creationist case was only made by a 'someone', a 'journalist' or whatever, not a qualified scientist.

I understand, my point was that it doesn't matter even if it is made by a scientist.

What matters is the science, not the person making the claim. There is nothing stopping a scientist from being a moron, being a scientist simply means that someone works in the field of science.

Science itself recognises this fact, which is why all scientific work stand as an body of work independent of the person who made it. Which is where falsifiability and repeatability come in.

You claimed that something like Flat Earth is obviously nonsense because there are only a few "proper scientists" who subscribe to it, where as there are a lot more who subscribe to Creationism.

That isn't the way it works, nor is it a particularly good way of looking at it (though understandable if one comes from a religious back ground). A scientist can subscribe to the Flat Earth theory, or the Young Earth theory, it doesn't matter to the validity of the theory.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

We have explained what science required -- the notion of falsifiability. Creationists deny that it applies to them, therefore they are not scientists and you seem quite unable to tell the difference.

It might be helpful if you checked what creationists actually say, not what you would like them to say.

Here's a good place to start, seeing it gives both sides to the argument:
Skeptics vs Creationists - Hosted by The Sydney Morning Herald - A formal debate
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/skeptics_vs_creationists.pdf

From that:
It’s silly when some, including Gould and the NAS (USA), claim that
creation is not scientific because it’s not falsifiable or testable, then turn
around and claim that creationist claims have been examined (i.e. tested)
and proven false (i.e. falsified).2 In reality,3 both paradigms have led to
fulfilled and failed predictions; in each case the models are refined, but the
underlying axioms (unprovable beliefs) remain the same.
In any case, creation v evolution is about the truth of one-off events in history.
One can’t scientifically prove that Hannibal won the Battle of Cannae;
this is proven historically (e.g., eye-witness records). But our opponents
dogmatically reject the eye-witness account of our Creator, like Lucy in
the Parable of the Candle.4 Instead they rely on methods that they agree
are ‘corrigible’, so by definition they can never be ultimate truth. Despite
our opponents’ caricature of creationists’ positions as immutable dogma,
all science, including that used to support creation, is subject to change.
In reality: both evolutionists and creationists often adjust their models and
submodels to accommodate new data.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I understand, my point was that it doesn't matter even if it is made by a scientist.

What matters is the science, not the person making the claim. There is nothing stopping a scientist from being a moron, being a scientist simply means that someone works in the field of science.

Science itself recognises this fact, which is why all scientific work stand as an body of work independent of the person who made it. Which is where falsifiability and repeatability come in.

You claimed that something like Flat Earth is obviously nonsense because there are only a few "proper scientists" who subscribe to it, where as there are a lot more who subscribe to Creationism.

That isn't the way it works, nor is it a particularly good way of looking at it (though understandable if one comes from a religious back ground). A scientist can subscribe to the Flat Earth theory, or the Young Earth theory, it doesn't matter to the validity of the theory.

I don't recall basing my rejection of Flat-Earthism on the fact little or no scientists believe it. I do so primarily on the basis that it can be demonstrated to be false. Or better, a round earth can be shown to be correct.

But again, my point was in answer to the criticism that creationism was not presented by qualified scientists. I did not raise the issue, just answered it.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

In an online debate, if you're not prepared to make the mental effort required to read up on, understand and summarize your own point of view, then it should not be surprising to you that your point of view is not taken seriously.

You mistake my point of view then. I am not here to scientifically defend creationism or even to scientifically criticise evolutionism. I am here to point out that evolutionism is challeged by scientists qualifed in the revelant fields, and to give those interested in the debate access to the sites where they can follow up the technical argument. As I said to someone else, maybe this freedom of access is what troubles you - do you fear for the minds of inquisitive evolutionists?

JC, on the other hand, is challenging you all on the scientific level, and well as theologically. But it seems there is no pleasing you, his arguments are likewise dismissed as unscientific. It appears the only science you are willing to acknowledge as worth considering is that which tells you what you want to hear.

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

You have yet to identify a single creation scientist working in the field. Where exactly is the scientific debate as opposed to the philosophical?? Where is the science?

Here's something to be going on with:

Dr. Todd Wood
http://www.bryancore.org/wood.html

Dr. Roger Sanders
http://www.bryancore.org/sanders.html

Some of their work:
http://www.bryancore.org/currentresearch.html

http://www.bryancore.org/researcharticles.html

Other scientists/creation research:
http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

wolfsbane

bonkey wrote: »

Delighted, and terrified.

Delighted at the progress science has made.

Terrified that many will see this as meaning that God has ceased to be supernatural, and instead has become merely a falsifiable part of reality, that can be scientifically addressed and thus (potentially, at least) scientifically understood. God will have become part of the framework, and thus, no longer be capable of being the 'ultimate' that is claimed, thus opening the question of who created the framework within which God exists.

Personally, I can't think of something that would be ultimately more damaging in the eyes of countless faithful, than to have Creationism or Intelligent Design succeed in being recognised as a science. Science would, naturally, benefit, because it would mean it had gained another useful facet....but the implications for religion, based on the understanding that many have of what science means would be quite-literally horrific.

I would additionally point out that immediately prior to your post, I will have (once again) stressed that science does not say what is, nor what is likely to be. Science produces a model which matches observation. I do not see that as the definition of reality, but rather as an approximation of it. It is no more a definition reality than the 'physics' produced in a computer game are real physics.

But God wouldn't be reduced to scientific theory. Scientific theory would have indicated that His word is true concerning the creation account - making science itself subject to His sovereign control, for the Bible makes clear the sort of God who created us 6000 years ago. Not part of the framework, but the Creator of the framework.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

2Scoops said:

Here's something to be going on with:

Dr. Todd Wood
http://www.bryancore.org/wood.html

Dr. Roger Sanders
http://www.bryancore.org/sanders.html

Some of their work:
http://www.bryancore.org/currentresearch.html

http://www.bryancore.org/researcharticles.html

Gee, thanks for the wild goose chase! These are all essays, not scientific investigations and I think you know the difference by now despite your repeated protestations that you are not knowledgeable in matters scientific. Messrs. Wood and Sanders are journalists, not scientists.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Other scientists/creation research:
http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

More essays and few bits and pieces on the known limitations of some radiometric dating techniques. Is this it then? No actual 'creation science?' Where are the experiments and the results? And no evidence of censorship or suppression of information to explain their absence, either ? :pac:

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They would be obliged to say that piece of evidence appears to contradict their theory.

Which they don't do, strangely.

I gathered they did - just as evolutionists do. Not that either just accepts the contrary case; they look for additional data that will solve the problem. But they just can't pretend the apparent contradiction isn't there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If they believed it actually contradicted it, they would have to abandon it.

Which they have already determined cannot happen. Ergo, not science, not falsifiable.

Their theology has to be taken whole or not at all, but either can happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If you found a piece of evidence that falsified any date older than 6000 years, would you not do the same? Is that not science?

Yes, but where are you getting the idea that Creationists are prepared to "believe" that something can contradict the Bible?

I said appears to contradict.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. So they took rhodopsin gene sequence from 30 living vertebrates, fiddled about with it and are amazed they ended up with functioning rhodopsin? Did any of their computer analyses produce non-functioning rhodopsin? Or did they only select what worked for their results? I ask as a layman, but it seems to me that they were determining a viable gene sequence for the supposed ancestor, and of course that would produce functioning rhodopsin.

Am I missing something?

That is not how science works. This has been explained to you a billion times, stop acting as if you don't know this.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Gee, thanks for the wild goose chase! These are all essays, not scientific investigations and I think you know the difference by now despite your repeated protestations that you are not knowledgeable in matters scientific. Messrs. Wood and Sanders are journalists, not scientists.



More essays and few bits and pieces on the known limitations of some radiometric dating techniques. Is this it then? No actual 'creation science?' Where are the experiments and the results? And no evidence of censorship or suppression of information to explain their absence, either ? :pac:

Hmm. So scientific papers are not scientific investigations? The scientists who gather year by year to present scientific papers at conferences are just doing a bit of journalism?

Or are you asking for books published on a particular research, or the lab. notes, or what?

Please give me an example of what you classify scientific research and I'll know what you're after.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

That is not how science works. This has been explained to you a billion times, stop acting as if you don't know this.

Then tell me how they went about it. What assumptions had they? What parameters? It's all very well claiming science is carried out in an unbiased, non-presuppostional way, but I would like the details.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Then tell me how they went about it. What assumptions had they? What parameters? It's all very well claiming science is carried out in an unbiased, non-presuppostional way, but I would like the details.

I provided a link to the actual journal paper, you can find all the information you want there. Its time you actually started reading some science papers, you may learn what it is scientists actually do and see why your creation websites are considered to be unscientific.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It would require such a hermeneutic that all of the bible could be made to mean anything. Once we allow what appears to be historical narrative to be taken as poetic/symbolic, we must in honesty apply the same standard to the birth, life, death, or resurrection of Christ, for example. And it has so been applied by liberal theologians. But if Christ is not raised, then your faith is in vain - or maybe Paul meant that poetically too? No doctrine can be determined, no event known as history.

With one or two minor edits, I could have written this myself.

Wolfie -- I'm impressed. You've made a considerable intellectual leap in realizing that what you have assumed is literally true may not be literally true.

The realization that one may not be right is the start of real wisdom.

No leap - I've long understood that one can't arbitarily treat historical narrative as metaphor without opening one to the conclusion that no historical narrative can be insisted upon as literal.

It of course applies to what we post here - once a normal grammatical-historical interpretation is abandoned, our communications can be taken to mean anything.

Quite how that constitutes real wisdom is beyond me. Sounds like intellectual nihilism.

wolfsbane

daithifleming said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It would require such a hermeneutic that all of the bible could be made to mean anything. Once we allow what appears to be historical narrative to be taken as poetic/symbolic, we must in honesty apply the same standard to the birth, life, death, or resurrection of Christ, for example. And it has so been applied by liberal theologians. But if Christ is not raised, then your faith is in vain - or maybe Paul meant that poetically too? No doctrine can be determined, no event known as history.


to me, the only sensible response to the conclusion that evolution is the 'how it happened' is agnosticism. Maybe God exists, but we cannot know anything about Him. All we can know is what we find out by science.
Does it really have to be that black and white, all or nothing? Could you pick a couple of passages from the bible that gives you this dichotomous belief? I'm just curious.

The Bible is either the infallible word of God, or it's the fallible word of man. If it's the latter, then of course any bits can be right or wrong. One must pick what one thinks best. But what one can't do is claim to be a Christian in the Biblical sense of the word, and not hold the Bible to be God's word.

wolfsbane

daithifleming said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
bonkey said:

That's all very good, and I especially appreciated you going on to acknowledge how individuals sometimes fail to put it into practise.

But let me put the missing ingredient into the mix:
Your discovery not only overturns years of consensus scientific opinion on the matter, but it also totally supports the Christian claim that God made the universe 6000 years ago and we are the descendants of the original couple.

Now your scientific view takes on a society-challenging implication. You are seen as not only being an innovative scientist but as one who has given credibility to Christian 'fundamentalists'.

Still happy to be the innovator? Still think your colleagues would be queuing-up to celebrate your discovery?
I am astonished that you could come to this conclusion from that excerpt from Bonkey's post, I really am. I know you already admitted that you will twist whatever evidence is out there to suit your beliefs, but wow. This is something else.

I'm puzzled about what you refer to. Is it this, and if so why? - I especially appreciated you going on to acknowledge how individuals sometimes fail to put it into practise.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. So scientific papers are not scientific investigations? The scientists who gather year by year to present scientific papers at conferences are just doing a bit of journalism?

These 'scientific papers' you are referring to are, at best, review articles. Review articles can be considered journalism, of a technical sort. Good review articles present balanced arguments. Scientists who gather at conferences are there to present the results of novel and original research investigations.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Please give me an example of what you classify scientific research and I'll know what you're after.

An investigation with an introduction/rationale/hypothesis, description of methods used, the results and a discussion on them. But here's the kicker: to be 'creation research' it has to be about creation. :pac: