Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
[/B].....so, tell me how to go about scientifically assessing the personality of the person who created a particular nut and bolt????
Sorry for not addressing this part of your post sooner. I missed it. Very well then.
Well, these guys seem to think it can be done:
http://studyat.anu.edu.au/courses/PSYC3026;details.html0 -
[/B]
I haven’t contradicted myself….the point that I was making is that Spontaneous Evolution can only be falsified by Creation / ID……..so the Evolutionist must ironically accept the scientific validity of these disciplines as ‘falsifiers’ of Spontaneous Evolution ……or else accept that Spontaneous Evolution cannot be scientifically falsified ……and therefore isn’t a valid scientific hypothesis, in the first place!!!!
….and that is ANOTHER reason why Creation Science and ID research are valid science disciplines!!!0 -
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Seems you missed the crucial caveat:
I mean that you STILL haven't provided an explanation of how Spontaneous Evolution could be scientifically falsified.....except via Creation Science and ID ......which you don't accept as valid sciences!!!!!
Galvasean
Note, I already explained my position. I don't think I need to again.
.....so, do you now accept that Creation Science and ID are valid scientific endeavours that scientifically falsify Spontaneous Evolution????0 -
You STILL haven't provided an explanation of how Spontaneous Evolution could be scientifically falsified.....except via Creation Science and ID ......which you don't accept as valid sciences!!!!!
.....so, do you now accept that Creation Science and ID are valid scientific endeavours that scientifically falsify Spontaneous Evolution????
Actually I never stated that ID isn't science. I just think its very bad science! :P0 -
Originally Posted by J C
I haven’t contradicted myself….the point that I was making is that Spontaneous Evolution can only be falsified by Creation / ID……..so the Evolutionist must ironically accept the scientific validity of these disciplines as ‘falsifiers’ of Spontaneous Evolution ……or else accept that Spontaneous Evolution cannot be scientifically falsified ……and therefore isn’t a valid scientific hypothesis, in the first place!!!!
….and that is ANOTHER reason why Creation Science and ID research are valid science disciplines!!!
Galvasean
Good old circular reasoning
........it is actually good old LOGICAL deductive reasoning!!!!:D
.....which hoists the Evolutionists on their own petard!!!:)0 -
Advertisement
-
Note, I already explained my position. I don't think I need to again.
I don't see how you have explained your position.
You posted two quotations from JC, but edited one of them to make it appear that he had contradicted himself. (Prompting thanks, agreement and a gratuitous insult from your fellow posters.) So what is your position? Was the editing deliberate or accidental?0 -
Originally Posted by J C
.....so, tell me how to go about scientifically assessing the personality of the person who created a particular nut and bolt????
Galvasean
Sorry for not addressing this part of your post sooner. I missed it. Very well then.
Well, these guys seem to think it can be done:
http://studyat.anu.edu.au/courses/PSYC3026;details.html
......your link certainly doesn't explain how this could be done!!!:D0 -
Originally Posted by J C
You STILL haven't provided an explanation of how Spontaneous Evolution could be scientifically falsified.....except via Creation Science and ID ......which you don't accept as valid sciences!!!!!
.....so, do you now accept that Creation Science and ID are valid scientific endeavours that scientifically falsify Spontaneous Evolution????
Galvasean
Actually I never stated that ID isn't science. I just think its very bad science!
...this is like pulling teeth!!
....anyway ID and Creation Science have to be valid sciences in order that they can validly falsify Spontaneous Evolution.......
.....and if they are not valid sciences.....then Spontaneous Evolution isn't a valid science either!!!0 -
Galvasean
Fighting for the rights of prehistoric creatures since 1986!:pac::):D
.....the pips are squeaking......the pips are squeaking!!!!!!:D0 -
I don't see how you have explained your position.
“One way would be to discover the hypothetical valid alternative, which would in theory negate the need for evolution in the way the world works, thereby falsifying it.”
That’s my two cents on the subject. I think its detailed enough. Feel free to disagree and/or post rebuttals.You posted two quotations from JC, but edited one of them to make it appear that he had contradicted himself. (Prompting thanks, agreement and a gratuitous insult from your fellow posters.) So what is your position? Was the editing deliberate or accidental?
Yeah, the editing was done on purpose. (Sorry J C, I couldn't resist when you put all those full stops after the word ‘falsified’) But bear in mind what I quoted was a full sentence of his (apparently, those full stops are tricky business) and I didn’t change his wording at all. It was supposed to be a joke. I have no control over what others say afterwards. I’m not one to attack posters personally. Anyway as Wolfsbane pointed out, it was tabloidism on my part.[/B].....so, tell me how to go about scientifically assessing the personality of the person who created a particular nut and bolt????
......your link certainly doesn't explain how this could be done!!!:D....anyway ID and Creation Science have to be valid sciences in order that they can validly falsify Spontaneous Evolution............and if they are not valid sciences.....then Spontaneous Evolution isn't a valid science either!!!......aren't you being a little hard on Materialistic Evolutionists by dubbing them 'prehistoric creatures'........wouldn't 'creatures that are threatened with extinction' be more accurate?????:pac::):D
Okay, that was one hell of a leap, even for you. Amazing that you could deduce what I was talking about. Well actually no, not amazing at all considering you missed the point of my signature. It’s actually a joke. The whole point of said joke being you can’t really fight for the rights of prehistoric creatures, what with being dead and all..
(Although I’m glad to see that you are willing to finish your posting tongue-in-cheek. It shows that we have at least a few things in common)
edit: phew, multi quoting is tricky!0 -
Advertisement
-
Okay, this is what I said:
“One way would be to discover the hypothetical valid alternative, which would in theory negate the need for evolution in the way the world works, thereby falsifying it.”
That’s my two cents on the subject. I think its detailed enough. Feel free to disagree and/or post rebuttals.
Okay, perhaps I'm selling you a bit short there. If you want to discuss my position more so I will gladly come back and post more tomorrow if you want when I have more energy to talk about such potentially complex things. I'm quite tired (been in work all day) at the moment.
Until then, enjoy the rest of your Sabbath day!0 -
Originally Posted by PDN
I don't see how you have explained your position
Galvasean
Okay, this is what I said:
“One way would be to discover the hypothetical valid alternative, which would in theory negate the need for evolution in the way the world works, thereby falsifying it.”
That’s my two cents on the subject. I think its detailed enough. Feel free to disagree and/or post rebuttals
The only valid broad alternatives to Spontaneous Evolution are Direct Creation and Theistic Evolution of some kind…..and these two alternatives are currently being scientifically evaluated by Creation Scientists and ID Proponents.
Originally Posted by PDN
You posted two quotations from JC, but edited one of them to make it appear that he had contradicted himself. (Prompting thanks, agreement and a gratuitous insult from your fellow posters.) So what is your position? Was the editing deliberate or accidental?
Galvasean
Yeah, the editing was done on purpose. (Sorry J C, I couldn't resist when you put all those full stops after the word ‘falsified’) But bear in mind what I quoted was a full sentence of his (apparently, those full stops are tricky business) and I didn’t change his wording at all. It was supposed to be a joke. I have no control over what others say afterwards. I’m not one to attack posters personally. Anyway as Wolfsbane pointed out, it was tabloidism on my part.
…..no problem……we're all Human......and its all part of the 'cut and thrust' of debate!!!!:)
Originally Posted by J C
.....so, tell me how to go about scientifically assessing the personality of the person who created a particular nut and bolt????
......your link certainly doesn't explain how this could be done!!!
Galvasean
It does show that there are people out there who scientifically assess people’s personalities and how they affect their behavior. I haven’t taken the course myself. I’m sure one of the other posters might be better articulated to explain psychology than I.
The original point that I made to Wicknight was that we cannot scientifically measure how correct we are in relation to who God is or what He is like (from examining His creation).......just like we cannot scientifically assess the personality of the person who created a particular nut and bolt (from examining the nut and bolt).....
…….my posting wasn’t fully elaborated…..so your answer is understandable…..but it doesn’t rebut my original point to Wicknight in posting 10243.
My main point to Wicknight also stands …… that we CAN definitively conclude that BOTH a bolt and a genome can ONLY be created by the appliance of intelligence......because they both possess the unique 'hallmark' of intelligent design.......SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY!!!!:)
Originally Posted by J C
....anyway ID and Creation Science have to be valid sciences in order that they can validly falsify Spontaneous Evolution.......
Galvasean
Not necessarily. There could be other alternatives that you and I are simply not aware of.
….perhaps……but unless you can come up with some of these possible alternatives…..and they must have logical validity……then Direct Creation and ID / Theistic Evolution are the only current valid falsifiers for Spontaneous Evolution......and their scientific evaluation is scientifically valid!!!
Originally Posted by J C
.....and if they are not valid sciences.....then Spontaneous Evolution isn't a valid science either!!!
Galvasean
That makes no sense. It’s like saying, Sonia O’ Sullivan isn’t a professional footballer, ergo neither is Wayne Rooney!
…….so tell me HOW Spontaneous Evolution can be falsified by other means then????
Galvasean
Okay, that was one hell of a leap, even for you. Amazing that you could deduce what I was talking about. Well actually no, not amazing at all considering you missed the point of my signature. It’s actually a joke. The whole point of said joke being you can’t really fight for the rights of prehistoric creatures, what with being dead and all..
(Although I’m glad to see that you are willing to finish your posting tongue-in-cheek. It shows that we have at least a few things in common)
I’m sorry……I just couldn’t resist!!!
......totally tongue in cheek for my part!!!:D
……we’re all Human…….and our common interests vastly exceed our differences!!!!
……I was once an Evolutionist……and my beliefs and thought processes were exactly like yours.....so I know where you are coming from!!!:)0 -
Okay, perhaps I'm selling you a bit short there. If you want to discuss my position more so I will gladly come back and post more tomorrow if you want when I have more energy to talk about such potentially complex things. I'm quite tired (been in work all day) at the moment.
Until then, enjoy the rest of your Sabbath day!
Thank you for your good wishes.......and I hope that you will have a good, well-earned sleep tonight.
It must be tough working when other people are off.
I'm not a STRICT Sabbath observer myself.....and I am acutely aware that many people have to work, so that I can take my Sunday off.
As Jesus Christ reminded us in Mt 12:1-13 keeping holy the Sabbath Day doesn't preclude us from doing necessary or good work on a Sunday:-
1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
We do need regular rest days....and we should engage in communal worship of God on Sundays.:D0 -
You guys trained in tabloid journalism?
I would have thought that would have been obvious .... perhaps more smile faces next time.
And I would just point out that the bit Galvasean left out doesn't stop JC's post being a contradiction, though in fairness to JC I don't think he has the foggiest what "falsify" means, so he is probably not aware of this.0 -
We deny that it it looks billions of years old.
You can deny it is billions of years old by putting forward a theory (demonstrated to be accurate) that explains how it can look billions of years old but still be very young. But there is no denying what it looks like.For example:
Salty seas
Evidence for a young earth
We aren't talking about the Earth we are talking about the universe, and salty seas (a long ago debunked idea by the way, but that is another matter) has little to do with the age of the universe.0 -
[/B]……..so WHAT are these ‘far easier ways to actually falsify evolution’ then????
Notice the word "prediction", its important you understand that science is about testing models, not telling people what is or was happening (as bonkey has explained)How very convenient
Convenient wouldn't be the word I would use.……..just say “there be dragons over there with that ID stuff”…….and it is currently impossible to judge in any way how accurate intelligent design may be”…..and the Materialist then simply ignores it ……and hopes that it will simply go away!!!!!!
It is impossible to judge in any way how accurate the idea of intelligent design may or may not be, so yes it is ignored from a scientific point of view.
What else can science do?
If it is impossible to test an idea, or even form a theory (a model) around that idea then science can do nothing with that idea. It is basically guessing, with no way to judge if you are accurate or not.I have news for you……you may ignore the current breakthroughs in ID research…….but it won't go away....
Unfortunately I have no doubt that it won't go away, but until one of you guys comes up with scientific model of what you think happened and what you think caused it to happen, a falsifiable model that can be tested with prediction, it will continue to be ignored by science.
And rightly so because, as has been said many times, Intelligent Design (as it is at the moment) is not science......the evidence being assembled is overwhelming and provides unassailable PROOF for an intelligent origin for life!!!!!
That's wonderful JC, but that isn't science.
You have no testable model of what you think happened or what you think caused it to happen, so any "evidence" you assemble is irrelevant because you have nothing to use this "evidence" with. Its not evidence for anything in of itself because you don't have the thing you are supposed to be matching it with (a scientific theory/model).
When you come up with a scientific model you can then collect all the evidence you like and see if this evidence matches the predictions of your model. You can then say that your model appears to be highly accurate (or not accurate at all if the predictions do not match the observations).
But until you actually do that you aren't doing science.
So you can rant all you like about all the conclusions you have drawn from any evidence you like, but it is not science. Its just you, and other Creationists, drawing conclusions (or as I see it, guessing).
As I'm sure you are already aware of, being the highly trained scientist you are :rolleyes:I haven’t contradicted myself….the point that I was making is that Spontaneous Evolution can only be falsified by Creation / ID
You did contradict yourself, though as I said to Wolfsbane it was probably not fair to pick on you as at the time you appeared not to understand what falsifiable meant, and as such you were probably not aware you were contradicting yourself. So apologies for laughing.
I hope you do now understand what falsifiable means from a scientific position, and why your statement about ID being the only way to falsify Darwinian Evolution is a very inaccurate statement.….and that is ANOTHER reason why Creation Science and ID research are valid science disciplines!!!
Even if your statement was true, that ID was the only way to falsify Darwinian biological evolution, that would not make ID a valid science discipline. In fact the two things have nothing to do with each other.
Intelligent Design could falsify Darwinian Evolution (it is certainly not the only thing that could), but you would first have to make Intelligent Design a scientific model, which it currently isn't, and then demonstrate that this model is accurate (which you can't because you don't have a model in the first place)......so every time you see a nut and bolt do you always wonder whether it was spontaneously generated......or was the result of applied intelligence????:eek:
No....and do you ALWAYS have to construct a model of how you believe the nut was created and then test this model against observation.....in order to answer the question of whether the nut and bolt were the result of applied intelligence???
Again, no.
I also wouldn't walk around pretending that I had, as you do with your conclusion of intelligent design.
I don't have a whole lot of problem if you want to conclude that nature must have been intelligently designed, in the same way a person can conclude that a nut and bolt must have been created by Bill down the road. To you, a Biblical literalist, this is probably "common sense".
The problem comes when you start pretending that you have some how supported this conclusion of yours with science. You haven't. You are just concluding things (in a not particularly rational fashion in my opinion). That is not science.0 -
I hope you do now understand what falsifiable means from a scientific position, and why your statement about ID being the only way to falsify Darwinian Evolution is a very inaccurate statement.
Lets overlook the question of whether or not ID is a science for a moment, and concede - until sometime later in this post - that it is.
ID still does not and cannot invalidate evolutionary theory.
One model cannot invalidate another. What can happen is that two models make differing predictions, and that those predictions are at odds with each other, and observation favours one over the other.
Of course, if observation were to favour ID over evolution, then the same observation would falsify evolution in the absence of ID.
Alternately, through our good friend Occam's Razor, ID could supplant evolutionary theory if it was at least as good a fit to observation and was based on fewer assumptions....in other words, if it was (at least) simpler and equally complete explanation. If it was more complex and more complete it would potentially reside side-by-side with evolutionary theory, in the same sense that basic Newtonian Physics are still used for doing stuff like putting up skyscrapers, but not for building the likes of ALICE.
However, it is only through the employment of what is sometimes referred to as Rozar Smacco that one would replace a theory with one which offers (at best) no better a predictive model and which relies on greater assumptions.
This is what replacing evolutionary theory with ID would involve even were ID actually a scientific discipline. ID makes no additional predictions and requires additional assumptions. Rozar Smacco is the only line of reasoning that allows that to supplant
The thing is, of course, that ID isn't a scientific model. ID is a philosophical interpretation of current scientific models. For a start, it doesn't say that Evolutionary Theory (the science) is wrong, but rather that evolution (the observation) is somehow guided in a manner that we cannot distinguish from being random.
In other words, it says that we will see exactly the same stuff that Evolutionary Theory predicts, but it argues that the cause is different-but-indistinguishable from what evolutionary theory says.
Moving further, ID also puts its oar in where abiogenesis is concerned.
Now, although it has been clarified virtually ad infinitum that abiogenesis is seperate to evolutionary theory, some people here inexplicably refuse to acknowledge this fact and continue to conflate the two. I neither know nor care why they repeatedly do this, but lets get things clear from the get-go.
Abiogenesis is seperate from Evolutionary Theory.
Got that? No? Let me try explaining it differently...
Evolutionary Theory is seperate from Abiogenesis.
OK...that should clear it up for at least a post or two. So...moving on.
Science's position regarding abiogenesis is that we don't yet have a model of any level of detail which we can have an confidence in. To those people (who I mentioned in my last post) who interpret scientific models as an explanation of reality, that means that the scientific position on abiogenesis can be summed up neatly as "we don't yet know and may never know how life started".
ID tries to argue that this position is wrong...but again makes no testable predictions in doing so. It attributes a cause for abiogenesis, but not in a manner that would distinguish it from any of the other possibilities. ID proponents argue that we should discard the other possibilities, but doesn't apply the same logic to ID...rather preferring to leave it as the "last man standing" and then declaring that this makes it correct. This, of course, neatly ignores that "we don't know" still remains as a valid answer.
To conclude, ID isn't science. It makes no falsifiable predictions. ID cannot falsify evolutionary theory or abiogenesis and could not do so even were it to be science. The claim that it does falsify Evolutionary theory isn't right. Its so wide of the mark, it isn't even wrong. Its nonsensical and is based either on a misunderstanding or deliberate misconstruing of what falsification entails.
If we overlook the all-too-apparent agenda of many of its proponents, ID is - at best - a religious/philosophical interpretation of science which says that reality looks exactly like the scientific model says it should and then goes on to argue causes.Intelligent Design could falsify Darwinian Evolution
The distinction may fall into the realm that Wolfsbane would refer to as pedantic, but I prefer to see it as the realm of accuracy. Science relies on accuracy. I believe it would be remiss of anyone challenging or supporting science to abandon that reliance.0 -
……I was once an Evolutionist……and my beliefs and thought processes were exactly like yours.....so I know where you are coming from!!!:)
Hi again J C, sorry for showing up late. It was just too sunny today to spend the morning online!
Well, I would go about replying to the rest of your post, but it seems Bonkey has said everything I would have wanted to (except more articulately).
No particular reason for quoting that exact bit of text mind, I just enjoy the common ground.0 -
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.
If they'd known this it would have saved Russell and Whitehead 379 pages of workings
(yea sorry to bring up this old post)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=4010 -
If they'd known this it would have saved Russell and Whitehead 379 pages of workings
(yea sorry to bring up this old post)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401
LOL
Well yes, 1+1=2 is derived from simpiler principles (mainly how we define N), but my point is the same.0 -
Advertisement
-
One model cannot invalidate another. What can happen is that two models make differing predictions, and that those predictions are at odds with each other, and observation favours one over the other.
That is of course quite true.
I meant my statement not so much as referring to the scientific model of intelligent design (which does not and probably cannot exist), more that if an intelligent creator constructed life with magic and placed us all here, and assuming there is detectable evidence of this, then it is theoretically possible that there is an observation within in that could falsify evolution.
If we were all just placed here, as Wolfsbane and JC assert, and we didn't evolve, it is possible that this fact, if it produces observation, could falsify evolution.
I think though that possibly we have different meanings for intelligent design. My understand is that it is basically Creationism, all animal species (or "kinds") were placed here fully formed. Evolution of species simply never happened. You see it as guided, in a supernatural and undetectable fashion, evolution.
I guess that is another problem with ID, it is non-defined to the point where different Creationist groups use it in different contexts.0 -
Its not pedanticism, its accuracy. You seem, at times, far too willing to sacrifice accuracy on the altar of expediency...and then try to make it out to be someone else who is at fault when they correct you.
You and JC both seem to be incapable of understanding, no matter how often that I say it, that a scientific model is not a claim of how reality works. It is a model which claims to produce predictions which will match observation.
Watch...you're about to do it again.....
See? There you go again, confusing a model as being some sort of claim that this is what happened.
They challenge the basis of your interpretation of the Christian faith. Again, you sacrifice accuracy for expediency. There are no shortage of Christians who do not accept that the accounts of Genesis are inerrantly literal. Now, I know that you don't accept that such people are true Christians, but to be honest, you've yet to establish yourself as the definitive authority on what is and is not Christianity, so I hope you'll understand that I'm not willing to accept your definition just on your say-so.
Yes.
I'll repeat myself again.
Its a model. It is not a claim of what happened. It claims only to produce predictions which will match - with a high degree of accuracy - new observations....whether those observations be "repeats" of previous observations (i.e. we see more of the same) or they be something previously unseen.
Every time you, JC or anyone else starts off on this "it claims that X happened" you are misrepresenting things. Science makes no such claims. I readily accept that it is interpreted by some/many to make such claims...both supporters of science, and those like yourself who believe that its only reliable when it says things you agree with....but the problem there lies in the distinction between science and the interpretation of science.
You continuously attack the former, where your ire should be aimed at the latter. It is, in essence, no different to those who fail to make the distinction between the the bible and an individual interpretation of same. If one Christian thinks another is completely taking the wrong message from some section of the bible (like, oh, say....Genesis) this is not a comment on the bible.
Similarly, if you wish to disagree with the interpretation of the evolutionary model as an explanation of what happened then that is fine....but that has nothing to do with the science of said model.
Interestingly, your ability to distinguish between the bible and an interpretation thereof seems to be completely at odds with your inability to do the same when it comes to science. I'm not interested in speculating as to the reason why that is.
But don't you think most of the evolutionist sites ignore your definition? For example, here's a catagorical statement that horses evolved in various ways, in a site that claims to offer mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
Even in this thread, our anti-creationists friends have claimed to be offering scientific argument when they advanced interpretations of the evidence/models. JC and I have accepted such argument as scientific (albeit mistaken).
But we have not understood, nor apparently have the anti-creationists, that we have been guilty of misrepresenting science in doing so.*** Would each scientist here please indicate if bonkey is correct in his definition? ***0 -
Wicknight said:You can't deny it looks billions of years old, because it looks billions of years old. There is no denying that, even websites like AiG concede that fact.You can deny it is billions of years old by putting forward a theory (demonstrated to be accurate) that explains how it can look billions of years old but still be very young. But there is no denying what it looks like.0
-
It may very well be, given that creationists are close to holding a majority on the State Board for Education (see here) which, I believe, controls the THECB.
Meanwhile, some months back, the Texas Educational Agency which looks after primary and secondary schools in the state, fired their Director of Science Curriculum, Chris Comer, for forwarding an email from the National Center for Science Education about an upcoming talk. More on that here.
Ben Stein unaccountably forgot to mention this in his recent, but fast-fading, agitprop piece.
Christians shouldn't be returning evil for evil to the evolutionists. Let the latter do the persecuting. The apostle Paul gave a good example in this: when the heathens whipped him (a Roman citizen) uncondemned, he could have had them executed - but all he required of them was their personal apologies.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2016:36-40%20;&version=50;0 -
Please provide the reference in AiG.
Certainly
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp
In creationists circles it is called the "Starlight Problem", as AiG call it as well. It is well known enough to have a Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem
YEC do not conceed that the universe is actually billion of years old, they believe it is only a few thousand years. What the solutions to the starlight problem attempt to explain is why the universe looks like it is billions of years old, when in fact it isn't.
When I say "looks like", I mean the speed of light looks like it has an upper limit (which most Creationists accept) and the universe looks like it is very very big (again, which most Creationists accept). Therefore the universe looks like it is very old, because the light needed time to get from one point to us. That is what the Creationists don't accept, they believe there is some unknown process or factor that changes this set up so that the universe can fit a Biblical time frame.I can only remember them saying for example, The ‘most perplexing’ such galaxy to date has an apparent age (again according to evolutionary theories) of 3.5 billion years. Note the caveat. You still having bother with caveats?
I have no idea what they mean by "according to evolutionary theories", evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the age of the universe.Just going outside at night and looking at the stars, or going to the observatory, gives no indication of age - either way.
A lot of Creationists, while agreeing the current speed of light limit, work with the idea that the speed of light in the past was different.0 -
Wicknight said:In creationists circles it is called the "Starlight Problem", as AiG call it as well. It is well known enough to have a Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problemYEC do not conceed that the universe is actually billion of years old, they believe it is only a few thousand years. What the solutions to the starlight problem attempt to explain is why the universe looks like it is billions of years old, when in fact it isn't.
When I say "looks like", I mean the speed of light looks like it has an upper limit (which most Creationists accept) and the universe looks like it is very very big (again, which most Creationists accept). Therefore the universe looks like it is very old, because the light needed time to get from one point to us. That is what the Creationists don't accept, they believe there is some unknown process or factor that changes this set up so that the universe can fit a Biblical time frame.
But is it so? Are there no other explanations for a young age and a vast distance light covers? Why assume not, especially in a field that is so uncertain and full of conjecture, a field in which standard physics have had to be set aside in order to explain many aspects of cosmology?
An old universe is not apparent - it is inferential, based upon the idea that the speed of light is the determining factor in calculating the age of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I can only remember them saying for example, The ‘most perplexing’ such galaxy to date has an apparent age (again according to evolutionary theories) of 3.5 billion years. Note the caveat. You still having bother with caveats?
I have no idea what they mean by "according to evolutionary theories", evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the age of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Just going outside at night and looking at the stars, or going to the observatory, gives no indication of age - either way.
Actually it does, because according to general relativity (which most Creationists accept as an accurate model, including the ones I've seen on AiG), light has an upper speed limit, and these stars are very very far away.
A lot of Creationists, while agreeing the current speed of light limit, work with the idea that the speed of light in the past was different.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp0 -
Christians shouldn't be returning evil for evil to the evolutionists. Let the latter do the persecuting. The apostle Paul gave a good example in this: when the heathens whipped him (a Roman citizen) uncondemned, he could have had them executed - but all he required of them was their personal apologies.
More obviously, even if this persecution were happening -- which it most certainly isn't -- I'm fascinated to see that you think that academics are so massively powerful that the few thousand practicing biologists in North America can really "persecute" christians who number in the hundreds of millions.
Perhaps the power of good biology really is god-like in comparison to what creationists bring to the table?0 -
Er, so a director of science education should apologize for forwarding an email with details of a talk concerning a threat to science education? It's a strange world you live in, my friend!
More obviously, even if this persecution were happening -- which it most certainly isn't -- I'm fascinated to see that you think that academics are so massively powerful that the few thousand practicing biologists in North America can really "persecute" christians who number in the hundreds of millions.
Perhaps the power of good biology really is god-like in comparison to what creationists bring to the table?
The persecution by the evolutionists I am referring to is of the Christian scientists, not of the ordinary Christians.
From a current article on the issue:
Here in the U.S., the new film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was panned by America’s “newspaper of record,” The New York Times. A Times’ reviewer expressed doubt that professional people would be expelled if they doubted evolution; that writer also called the film a “conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.”
Here is the letter that The Times chose not to run (just as it did not do when we submitted a letter a few months ago after a Times’ guest writer outlandishly claimed that AiG believes a person had to believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian!).
Editor:
The Times’ movie review of Expelled (April 18) blithely dismissed the possibility that scholars could be persecuted if they doubted evolution. If the several examples presented in the film were not convincing enough of the ruthlessness of some evolutionists, let me offer three additional documented examples of persecution.
A researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute told his supervisor that he did not accept evolution and was expelled; Dr. Nathaniel Abraham’s belief about origins—not his competence—was the reason. In Australia, Dr. Andrew Snelling was the target of professors who attempted to strip him of his geology PhD. Lastly, our attempt to build a Creation Museum—on private property using private funds—was met by vehement opposition from evolutionists.
The movie reviewer—for whatever her worldview bias—needs to be informed that attacks on academic freedom are indeed on the rise.
Sincerely,
Mark Looy
CCO
Answers in Genesis
Petersburg, KY
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/06/leading-newspapers-slight0 -
I took the report to be of an email that promoted an anti-creationist meeting (you read anti-threat-to-science-education).
The persecution by the evolutionists I am referring to is of the Christian scientists, not of the ordinary Christians.
From a current article on the issue:
Here in the U.S., the new film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was panned by America’s “newspaper of record,” The New York Times. A Times’ reviewer expressed doubt that professional people would be expelled if they doubted evolution; that writer also called the film a “conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.”
Here is the letter that The Times chose not to run (just as it did not do when we submitted a letter a few months ago after a Times’ guest writer outlandishly claimed that AiG believes a person had to believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian!).
Editor:
The Times’ movie review of Expelled (April 18) blithely dismissed the possibility that scholars could be persecuted if they doubted evolution. If the several examples presented in the film were not convincing enough of the ruthlessness of some evolutionists, let me offer three additional documented examples of persecution.
A researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute told his supervisor that he did not accept evolution and was expelled; Dr. Nathaniel Abraham’s belief about origins—not his competence—was the reason. In Australia, Dr. Andrew Snelling was the target of professors who attempted to strip him of his geology PhD. Lastly, our attempt to build a Creation Museum—on private property using private funds—was met by vehement opposition from evolutionists.
The movie reviewer—for whatever her worldview bias—needs to be informed that attacks on academic freedom are indeed on the rise.
Sincerely,
Mark Looy
CCO
Answers in Genesis
Petersburg, KY
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/06/leading-newspapers-slight
Oh, the ironing.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement