The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone

I found these videos on youtube providing the most compelling evidence for evolution. They are well worth watching and he explains why he uses the word 'proof' in part II. Enjoy!

Part I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

Part II

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM

Part III

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11knFKqW4s

Ekancone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

While watching this video, at 8m 43s, have a look at the style of writing in the email response. Is that JC???

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Wicknight
What is a "wum"?

daithifleming
A person whose sole reason for posting is to derail the thread and to be a general nuisance. It is something we are all guilty of from time to time, but JC's sole existance on boards.ie is to post on this thread in order to piss people off.

The only reason I post on this thread is because I have a message for you all from Jesus Christ........He loves you and wants to save you all.

I don't wish to deliberately annoy you.............I love you all .........but it is 'tough love'.......
Telling the truth can sometimes annoy the recipient.........but it is something that must be done!!!!!:eek::rolleyes::D

...and could I gently remind you that this thread would probably have fizzled out long ago ........if I wasn't here dealing with the waves speculative 'baloney' that Evolutionists routinely confuse themselves with on this thread!!!!:eek::):D

.......and getting no thanks for my efforts from anybody....I might add!!!!!!!:eek::):D

wrote:

daithifleming
It is for this reason that I believe that JC is someone's wumming account and is probably someone who posts quite regularly in the Christianity forum under a different alias.......


.......While watching this video, at 8m 43s, have a look at the style of writing in the email response. Is that JC???.

.......they seek him here.......they seek him there........they seek him everywhere.......that elusive JC!!!!!:D
......they see him here......they see him there......they see him everywhere........that elusive JC!!!!!:D

.......it is even possible that I am daithifleming's wum account......
.......I suppose ANYTHING is possible.......with the possible exception of the Yeti.....and Spontaneous Evolution!!!!!~~~~~
........and it is also possible that daithifleming could use a wum account.......to 'straighten out' his thoughts on 'Evolution':D

wrote:

daithifleming
..........have a look at the style of writing in the email response. Is that JC???.

.........I wonder could it be the 'writing style' of the Holy Spirit coming through!!!!:D:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

The only reason I post on this thread is because I have a message for you all from Jesus Christ........He loves you and wants to save you all.

And that has what to do with evolution exactly?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

The only reason I post on this thread is because I have a message for you all from Jesus Christ........He loves you and wants to save you all.

Well, it certainly hasn't been to provide even the merest hint of evidence for creationism! :pac:

Where are we with that list of active creation scientists? Still a big fat duck egg? :rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...and could I gently remind you that this thread would probably have fizzled out long ago ........if I wasn't here dealing with the waves speculative 'baloney' that Evolutionists routinely confuse themselves with on this thread!!!!:eek::):D

I'd call much of what you write here speculative. Some of it is actual fantasy. The worst I've seen from the "Evolutionists" is minor inaccuracies and personal opinions based on good science.

J C wrote: »

.......and getting no thanks for my efforts from anybody....I might add!!!!!!!:eek::):D

Allow me. Thank you for making creationism look irrational, blind to reason and repetitive of its misconceptions in the face of repeated rebuttals. Thank you for only addressing the arguments that you feel you can attack with a stream of half-knowledge and ignorance, whilst ignoring the more significant rebuttals. Thank you, above all, for writing in a style which suggest that your mind is disordered, overly emotional and utterly incapable of the very basic level reason which would open your mind to the possibility that you are quite wrong.

J C wrote: »

.......they seek him here.......they seek him there........that elusive JC!!!!!:D

Frankly, they don't. Nobody cares where you are or who for that matter. We already know that you're not a scientist, nor anything resembling it.

J C wrote: »

.......I suppose ANYTHING is possible.......including the Yeti.....and Spontaneous Evolution!!!!!~~~~~

Take out the word spontaneous and that's the most sensible thing you've written on this thread to date. Well, maybe second to when you agreed that mutation, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift all exist.

So, rather than address our rebuttals, you're back to spouting random crap. When we get bored of this and stop posting, you'll happily cite your victory over us, having still not addressed our arguments.

MooseJam

the stuff on endogenous retroviruses in that vid is very interesting, can creationists explain it away ?

AtomicHorror

MooseJam wrote: »

the stuff on endogenous retroviruses in that vid is very interesting, can creationists explain it away ?

We've made similarly strong points before (the retrovirus thing is great mind you) but the likes of J_C will typically either ignore the very strong points and focus on what he considers to be easier targets or will attack more fundamental aspects of science as a whole, such as semantic accuracy and the philosophies of the scientific method.

wolfsbane

Interesting clips/resources on the censorship in science issue:

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?page=expelled

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Interesting clips/resources on the censorship in science issue:

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?page=expelled

Wolfsbane, Im surprised you have the nerve to provide references to Ben Stein. This is a new low for you guys.

Ciaran500

I wouldn't call that interesting, its just a trailer for Expelled.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Interesting clips/resources on the censorship in science issue:

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?page=expelled

Expelled has been panned as propaganda, not by scientists alone but by the vast majority of film critics and by a majority of random reviewers on the internet. Common criticisms are that the film is grossly misleading and self-contradictory.

There's no big conspiracy in science- just a lot of very human politics which, given the adversarial nature of the publication system, work against each other rather than together. Given the acclaim and personal fortune that would be gained by a scientist following the clear and scientific falsification of evolution, there is simply no motive for such a grand conspiracy. Nor would such an obvious "party line" (as the film puts it) fail to be noticed by the vast majority of scientists who are not in positions of power within the community and who have every motive to attempt to overthrow the hypothetical "establishment".

The reason that Evolutionary Theory has changed and developed so significantly since On The Origin Of Species was first published is because Scientists themselves have been attacking Evolutionary Theory continuously for nearly 150 years. We will continue to do so, because that's how science works.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Well, it certainly hasn't been to provide even the merest hint of evidence for creationism! :pac:

Where are we with that list of active creation scientists? Still a big fat duck egg? :rolleyes:

The long-awaited results of an eight-year, $1.25 million research project have finally been published by the RATE group.

Here's A review of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling and Eugene F. Chaffin
Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, 2005

by Michael J. Oard

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5759

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Expelled has been panned as propaganda, not by scientists alone but by the vast majority of film critics and by a majority of random reviewers on the internet. Common criticisms are that the film is grossly misleading and self-contradictory.

There's no big conspiracy in science- just a lot of very human politics which, given the adversarial nature of the publication system, work against each other rather than together. Given the acclaim and personal fortune that would be gained by a scientist following the clear and scientific falsification of evolution, there is simply no motive for such a grand conspiracy. Nor would such an obvious "party line" (as the film puts it) fail to be noticed by the vast majority of scientists who are not in positions of power within the community and who have every motive to attempt to overthrow the hypothetical "establishment".

The reason that Evolutionary Theory has changed and developed so significantly since On The Origin Of Species was first published is because Scientists themselves have been attacking Evolutionary Theory continuously for nearly 150 years. We will continue to do so, because that's how science works.

As I've repeatedly explained, modifications of the evolutionary theory are acceptable, but not its overthrow. In fact, it seems that any modification that admits even a Designer who uses evolution is prohibited.

Of course the followers of the religion (materialism) will pan any exposure of their religion as propaganda. They will use many tactics - including misrepresentation, misquoting, 'mis-speaking' to protect their faith. :pac::D

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

The long-awaited results of an eight-year, $1.25 million research project have finally been published by the RATE group.

Here's A review of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling and Eugene F. Chaffin
Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, 2005

by Michael J. Oard

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5759

Have they attempted to submit this to a scientific journal?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Wolfsbane, Im surprised you have the nerve to provide references to Ben Stein. This is a new low for you guys.

Stein seems to me to be making a fair point. He's not a believer, but that doesn't mean he can't speak the truth. And of course, he is not the only one in the film making the same claims. Are they all liars?

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Stein seems to me to be making a fair point. He's not a believer, but that doesn't mean he can't speak the truth. And of course, he is not the only one in the film making the same claims. Are they all liars?

Yes, he is a liar. This has been shown to be the case with both him, and the makers of this movie.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I've repeatedly explained, modifications of the evolutionary theory are acceptable, but not its overthrow.

Of course it would be acceptable. It would even be desirable as it would be a massively important scientific discovery. There would naturally be opponents to such a shift in thinking, but the scientific community would be failing if there were not a challenge. To date, despite 150 years of intense scrutiny, the theory has held without any challenge on this scale.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In fact, it seems that any modification that admits even a Designer who uses evolution is prohibited.

It's not prohibited at all. There's simply nothing to suggest that one is required in the theory. The theory accurately predicts everything we have so far observed without needing to invoke an intelligent intervention.

It would be unscientific to assume the existence of something without it being required my the observed information.

In fact, it would complicate the theory, violating the principle of Occam's Razor and require us to explain the origins of the intelligence in question.

There is a clear circular nature to the assertion that "intelligent life was created by intelligent life."

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Stein seems to me to be making a fair point. He's not a believer, but that doesn't mean he can't speak the truth. And of course, he is not the only one in the film making the same claims. Are they all liars?

The assertion the film is making is that the entire scientific community is lying. It seems far more likely to me that the relatively small number of people involved in making the film (by comparison to the size of the scientific community) are lying.

That said, I don't think that all of the people involved are knowingly lying. Some of them simply don't understand evolution, don't understand scientific method, or both. The rest fear the perceived threat that science poses to their faith and are reacting as such. A combination of lies and misunderstanding.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

In fact, it seems that any modification that admits even a Designer who uses evolution is prohibited.

Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you kidding me?

695 pages and you still are going on about this. Did you listen to anything myself, bonkey, robin or a host of others posted about the nature of science and what science actually is.

As soon as one of you guys comes up with a way to scientifically model the designer you hark on so much about and believe must be there, it can be included in science. One you guys come up with a way to form a theory of an intelligent designer that is testable and falsifiable, then it can be included in science.

Complaining that science ignores your idea when your idea is at the moment completely and utterly unscientific, is ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous is to blame science for this, and shout "censorship!!" at every chance.

You guys (Creationists) have not done even the bare minimum required to have an idea investigated by science, yet you complain that science is ignoring you.

Yes you are darn right they are ignoring you. And with very very good reason!

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The long-awaited results of an eight-year, $1.25 million research project have finally been published by the RATE group.

Here's A review of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling and Eugene F. Chaffin
Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, 2005

by Michael J. Oard

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5759

I read through the analysis.

I frankly lack the grounding in nuclear physics to comment on the specifics (perhaps you can explain it to me?) however I firstly note that the results have never been accepted to any peer-reviewed journal. After three years one would expect such revolutionary findings to have been published in a low impact journal at the very least (remember that the journals are not controlled by any unified movement but are instead in competition to publish the most important and far-reaching data). That they are not published in even the most permissive journals speaks volumes regarding the quality of the work. Especially given that the smaller journals are under pressure to accept weaker science with more flamboyant claims in an effort to attract a following and compete with the bigger journals.

Secondly, good evidence of a young Earth would still leave some troubling questions regarding the age of the universe since the elements which they show in reactions can only themselves be formed over millions of years, irrespective of their eventual integration into the matter of Earth (whatever its age).

Thirdly I note that the researchers in question are not trained in the field of experimental geochronology, upon which their assertions are based.

Finally, the notion that the old earth theory is yet another conspiracy by scientists raises this question: What is the motive for claiming that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old if the evidence shows that it is not?

The creationist has a very clear motive for either editing, falsifying or misinterpreting data. The scientist does not. If the scientists world view were tomorrow shown to be utterly and irrefutably false, his philosophy would require him to simply start from scratch. The creationist would set about discrediting and disproving the irrefutable. That is what they are currently trying to do.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Stein seems to me to be making a fair point.

Up to the point at which one becomes familiar with the facts, though.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And of course, he is not the only one in the film making the same claims. Are they all liars?

Yes. Disgracefully so. You should be embarrassed that you are fooled by such an obvious piece of propaganda.

2Scoops

robindch wrote: »

Up to the point at which one becomes familiar with the facts, though..
--
Yes. Disgracefully so. You should be embarrassed that you are fooled by such an obvious piece of propaganda.

Having seen this film, it seems more like these people (the scientists involved at least; not the makers of the film) have a sincere persecution complex and want to blame something or someone to explain why they didn't get tenure. Over 50% of scientists don't get tenure... ever. But, of course, if you're a creationist then that is the only reason. :rolleyes:

If these people were performing fundable science, with a strong publication and teaching record, they would not have been let go. End of story.

Stein's movie is awful - trying to link various ideas together in a ham-fisted scattergun approach. It reminds me of wolfsbane's Pink Swastika post from yesterday. :pac:

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

The long-awaited results of an eight-year, $1.25 million research project have finally been published by the RATE group.

Here's A review of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling and Eugene F. Chaffin
Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, 2005

by Michael J. Oard

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5759

As we have already discussed - a recapitulation of the known limitations of radiometric dating does not creation science make! :pac: Perhaps if they were a little more forthcoming with their evidence for a young Earth we could talk business. Alas, that part is in the 'pay-per-view' section.

I imagine that if they really found actual evidence of a young Earth, they would be screeching it from the rooftops, getting it published in top class journals [or showing that top class journals refused it!!] and making sure everyone knew about it - not hiding it in the back pages of an expensive and obscure tome.

robindch

2Scoops wrote: »

Having seen this film

Ugh, what a waste of time, but anyhow, where did you see it?

2Scoops

robindch wrote: »

Ugh, what a waste of time, but anyhow, where did you see it?

Call it morbid curiosity, I suppose, but I saw it at a press pre-screening event with journalist friend of mine months ago. At least I didn't have to pay and support the for-profit ID/creationism industry! :pac:

I'm sure it available through internet sources, but I can't honestly recommend watching it, even if you think you would find it amusing. It's poorly put together, lacks a logical narrative and it's incredibly frustrating to hear the same old flawed arguments being trotted out except now you have no right to reply.

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

The long-awaited results of an eight-year, $1.25 million research project have finally been published by the RATE group.

Here's A review of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling and Eugene F. Chaffin
Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, 2005

by Michael J. Oard

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5759

Right. Despite the fact that accelerated nuclear decay has implications for fusion of elements in the Sun and melting of the entire planet - does this not seem a tad unlikely to you?

How about this interesting link, "RATE's ratty results":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

"...The rules of the scientific method do not allow individuals to invoke miracles to eliminate scientific data (i.e., U/Pb dates) and questions that they don't like. Because miracles by definition don't obey natural law, are only limited by an individual's subjective imagination, and can be readily remolded to explain away any failures, any "models" based on the supernatural can never be scientifically evaluated for accuracy or predictability." - Dr Kevin Henke

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Unless that's a typo I think you also made up one of the words.

Nope, its supposed to be a made up word. I checked dictionary.com just to be sure I wasn't accidentally making sense.

Zombrex

Eschatologist wrote: »

How about this interesting link, "RATE's ratty results":

The problem with RATE is that it is a group searching for some way, any way, to make data fit their already accepted conclusion, that there must be some reason why radiometeric is giving dates much older than what they "know" the age of the Earth is (10-6,000 years old).

That is the exact opposite to what honest scientists are supposed to do, and why they end up with nonsense from a scientific point of view. The fact that RATE appear to invoke "miracles" to explain away any problems with their assertion is really just the icing on the cake in terms of laughing my ass off at them

Galvasean

2Scoops wrote: »

Call it morbid curiosity, I suppose, but I saw it at a press pre-screening event with journalist friend of mine months ago. At least I didn't have to pay and support the for-profit ID/creationism industry! :pac:

I'm sure it available through internet sources, but I can't honestly recommend watching it, even if you think you would find it amusing. It's poorly put together, lacks a logical narrative and it's incredibly frustrating to hear the same old flawed arguments being trotted out except now you have no right to reply.

I'd be interested in seeing it. Call it sheer morbid curiosity on my part. I've seen a few snippets and watched a lot of press releases and found myself easily capable of discounting all of the arguments Stein put forward (Now, imagine what fun someone with a proper scientific background could have!). Now unless he's saving all the really good ones (highly unlikely, the purpose of a trailer is to show the good bits and entice people to watch), it doesn't say much for the overall quality.