The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

No-one is denying that there are Creationist arguments. It's just that so far, they're not just refutable, but easily refutable. No twists or contortions are required to do so, no conspiracy required, just a reasonable amount of scientific knowledge and a bit of logic. Occasionally the ability to detect snake-oil is also handy.

Why do we have to keep reiterating this very basic point?

Because it is not self-evident. It is your take on the matter, the majority view certainly - but not one shared by scientists just as qualified as the majority, and whose moral character is held in high esteem by their fellow Christians. You believe their arguments are bogus, smelling of snake-oil. They are more inclined to see your views as being blinded by your materialistic presuppositions, so that you interpret the evidence accordingly. Of course some evolutionists may deliberately lie to support the case - eg. Haeckel: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp

By the way, is the CSF Statement of Faith still in use?

I don't know. But I can see no difficulty with it - it merely sets the conditions for membership of this group and what they are about. It gives no warrant to lie about the science. If a Christian found that the evidence seemed to contradict creationism, he should say so. He would obviously continue to hold to creationism and say that future light will show how the evidence fits with creationism. Just like evolutionists do with problems they face for evolution.

The term covers anyone from astrophysicists to chemists - whichever works best in any given context is what is assumed to be being used. You can also throw it at Old Earth Creationists ('theistic evolutionists').

I can't see your problem with this either. Am I crazy for describing anyone who believes in evolution as an evolutionist? Must it refer only to those scientists studying the scientific case for evolution?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

If you want to replace evolution you have to beat that level of explanatory power, not give out about how unfair they are for not allowing the debate in the first place.

I agree with the first part, but it is valid to object to one's attempts to give the explanations being censored. 'They are not up to scientific standards of argument' may sound fine, but it is just the sort of evasion propagandists would also use. It would therefore be wise to look at the creationist case.

That’s the empirical evidence, you either explain it or you don't.
If Creationism says the solar system is 6,000-12,000 years old then it just doesn't fit the evidence, then end of story.
If you escape out of this by saying maybe it was created old, then that isn't science.

I don't know much about dating methods, but let me point out that being created old is what the Bible actually says. Adam and Eve and the rest of creation were made fully mature and functioning. There must be an appearance of age, so scientific dating cannot determine actual age, only apparent age.

Also, your latter comment that this is not science depends on your definition of science. Laymen like me can take it to include all facts relating to the physical world. You may want to restrict it to all testable facts. I'm just pointing out that a thing is true whether we can prove it to be so or not. And holding such a thing to be true does not mean that all the other testable theories that flow from it are not science.

For Creationism to be right the on of the following two sets would have to be wrong:

SET A:
1. Dating Techniques.
2. Quantum Mechanics.
3. Thermodynamics.
4. Statistical Mechanics.
5. A lot of post-ferric chemistry.
,e.t.c. ,e.t.c. ,e.t.c. ,e.t.c. ,e.t.c.

SET B:
The world actually tells the truth in measurements.

Creationist scientists argue that these things do not contradict creationism. Indeed I as a layman can see the support for creationism offered by thermodynamics. I have read the evolutionist denial that the Second Law precludes evolution and can see no sense to it: the argument that earth is not a closed system depends soley on it receiving heat and radiation. That would allow non-living changes to occur, but how would it give rise to life - and increasingly complex life over billions of years? Heat and radiation have effects on living things - but in the opposite direction to evolution. A steady climb from non-life to where we are now? A direct contradiction to the law of entropy.

The truth in measurements, OK - but it is the interpretation of the measurements that is the issue.

As far as Science is concerned that is dreadful.

Yes, your straw-man case of creationism is truly dreadful.

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

The judge said that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science, and that teaching it alongside evolution violates the separation of church and state.

And now we have that unbiased verdict from such an infallible source, Americans will be protected from anything but the Truth being told to their kids. Isn't it wonderful to have heresy suppressed. :rolleyes:

I can't wait for other nuggets of truth to be defined and protected by the Judiciary. Remember, 'When the orders are given, no need to think. The thinking has already been done.' All hail, our Knowlegeable Elite.

BrianCalgary

The judge said that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science, and that teaching it alongside evolution violates the separation of church and state.

It's too bad the judge doesn't quite get the idea of church / state sepearation.

Church / state sepearation is not allowing one religious organization to dictate to the state or run the state. Unfortunately the phrase is run out any time someone wants to teach 'Christian religion' in schools. It's OK to teach other religions as long as it's not Christianity.

Teaching ID in schools is offering another viewpoint on the discussion of life's origins. I fail to see a problem that any person would have in pursuing thought and truth in our schools.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

The judge said that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science, and that teaching it alongside evolution violates the separation of church and state.

It's too bad the judge doesn't quite get the idea of church / state sepearation.

Church / state sepearation is not allowing one religious organization to dictate to the state or run the state. Unfortunately the phrase is run out any time someone wants to teach 'Christian religion' in schools. It's OK to teach other religions as long as it's not Christianity.

Teaching ID in schools is offering another viewpoint on the discussion of life's origins. I fail to see a problem that any person would have in pursuing thought and truth in our schools.

I'm not aware that anyone else is asking to have their religious dogma taught in science classes, as science. ID/Creationism has utterly failed to make a case for treatment as science that the scientific mainstream accepts. Until you can do that, your claims are religious ones, and remain in religion class where they belong.

regards,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, your straw-man case of creationism is truly dreadful.

No, that is exactly what Creationism is like. I've read their papers. I've actually tried to listen to its arguments. I guarantee you that I know more Creation Science than most people, possibly more than most Creation Scientists.

And that is what it's like, it's no straw-man. I wish it was a straw-man, I wish I was parodying.

Have you read their papers?
Have you seen them compared to standard scientific papers?

...,because I have and they're abysmally vague, pre-emptive and ultimately always resort to nihilism and conspiracy theories.

I agree with the first part, but it is valid to object to one's attempts to give the explanations being censored. 'They are not up to scientific standards of argument' may sound fine, but it is just the sort of evasion propagandists would also use. It would therefore be wise to look at the creationist case.

Despite a few papers, which I've read, Creationist Science consists of giving out about evolution and unless you criticise something in a meaningful manner, then your criticisms are pointless.

Also, your latter comment that this is not science depends on your definition of science.

No it doesn't. Science = testable. End of story.
There is absolutely no room for discussion on that one.

You may want to restrict it to all testable facts. I'm just pointing out that a thing is true whether we can prove it to be so or not. And holding such a thing to be true does not mean that all the other testable theories that flow from it are not science.

It's not that I want to restrict it to all testable facts, it's that it's methodology isn't defined outside the testable.
If everything looks like it's old, then science will say it's old.

Creationist scientists argue that these things do not contradict creationism. Indeed I as a layman can see the support for creationism offered by thermodynamics. I have read the evolutionist denial that the Second Law precludes evolution and can see no sense to it: the argument that earth is not a closed system depends soley on it receiving heat and radiation. That would allow non-living changes to occur, but how would it give rise to life - and increasingly complex life over billions of years? Heat and radiation have effects on living things - but in the opposite direction to evolution. A steady climb from non-life to where we are now? A direct contradiction to the law of entropy.

The law of entropy?
You mean the law that states that the amount of unusable energy is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant times the natural logarithm of the current number of possible microstates?
The law that has next to no influence on biological systems?
That law?

I know how entropy works and there is in no way it prevents evolution. The "complexity", and I use the word very loosely, that it effects is completely different from the complexity of life.


Ultimately science will go with what the evidence says.
A certain view of Genesis say the world is 6,000-12,000 years old, the Vedic scriptures say it is 155 trillion years old and evidence says it 13.7 billion years old.
General Relativity actually predicts the final answer.
So scientists will pick the theory which matches observation and can you give me a good reason why they shouldn't?

This is getting really annoying, the fact that I'm still a truth-suppressing atheist who makes straw man arguments, despite the fact that I probably know Creationist Science better than you do and have actually attempted to understand it.

samb

samb wrote:

Why should it matter that it is not an ancient religion. I find it strange that in schools religious people can get away with things like crosses and head-scarfs becsuse it is 'a religious thing' yet I cant wear what I like because I BELIEVE I shouldn't be able to. My belief I should be allowed to wear a pink fluffy hat is not as valid because It is not a Religious belief. Can't I call it a religion of my own?
Are we not entitled to hold up any belief we may have or indeed pretend to have (not based on evidence) and expect to be treated like everyone else who holds such a belief.

What on earth are you talking about?

robindch

> It's too bad the judge doesn't quite get the idea of church / state
> sepearation. Church / state sepearation is not allowing one religious
> organization to dictate to the state or run the state.

With due respect, you don't seem to get the idea of church/state separation as practiced within the USA. The judge acted exactly as he should have, and exactly in accordance with the USA's Bill of Rights, available here:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

> Unfortunately the phrase is run out any time someone wants to
> teach 'Christian religion' in schools. It's OK to teach other religions
> as long as it's not Christianity.

Complete rubbish. Firstly, I can't think of anybody brave enough to have suggested, let alone succeeded, in getting other religions taught as truth in American schools. Secondly, wouldn't the fact that fundamentalist christianity effectively now runs the USA, controlling the Presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate and many, many other places, suggest to you that perhaps christianity doesn't need to be injected into one of the few places it doesn't already control?

> Teaching ID in schools is offering another viewpoint on the discussion of life's origins.

From which I assume that you're also in favour of teaching kids about the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is another creation theory, just as valid as ID/Creationism?

> I fail to see a problem that any person would have in pursuing thought and truth in our schools.

The reason that religion is kept out of school is so that kids *can* pursue thought and truth.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

And that's the crux of the matter. There are people out there who argue against evolution. But such arguments do not automatically challenge the immense veracity of evolution, as *none* of them have the facts to beck them up. But don't take my word for it.... Start posting up individual arguments and watch as they are corrected.

Your response to each would no doubt be instructive. But it would get me no further than where we are now - conflicting arguements presented by scientists from the respective camps. Each side claiming the facts do back them up. I would not be the person to argue the detail with. For those who want to follow the argument the sites I gave provide both the creationist arguements and links to anti-creationist responses.

Oh, and you still haven't said why Genesis must be taken literally. As far as I know, Jesus only extracts moral lessons from Genesis, not historical ones.

How can Jesus ask us not to divorce our wives, based on a metaphoric event? What lesson or demand on us would that have? I can divorce my wife literally, so long as I don't do it metaphorically? Or Paul's command to the church forbidding women eldership - did he mean they could be literal pastors, so long as they weren't so metaphorically?

No, the appeal to Genesis was on the basis of it being history - God made us one man for one woman, united and not to be separated. God made man first and gave him headship over the woman. God expects us to literally put that into practice today.

samb

wolfsbane wrote:

God made man first and gave him headship over the woman. God expects us to literally put that into practice today.

So do you think we should obey him. Or should we not do what is best and not be so sexist. Are you saying it is right because god said it-do you ever think independantly?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

How can Jesus ask us not to divorce our wives, based on a metaphoric event? What lesson or demand on us would that have? I can divorce my wife literally, so long as I don't do it metaphorically? Or Paul's command to the church forbidding women eldership - did he mean they could be literal pastors, so long as they weren't so metaphorically?

No, the appeal to Genesis was on the basis of it being history - God made us one man for one woman, united and not to be separated. God made man first and gave him headship over the woman. God expects us to literally put that into practice today.

I think you misunderstand the nature of myth, and the role of teaching stories. Why did Jesus use parables?

Paul is a somewhat different matter, since he was sending letters to communities of the faithful, rather than preaching to the public.

Scofflaw

robindch

> Your response to each would no doubt be instructive. But it would get me no
> further than where we are now - conflicting arguements presented by
> scientists from the respective camps. Each side claiming the facts do
> back them up.

Not really. As we've shown quite clearly, unlike other scientific debates where there are genuine arguments and questions raised by supporters of various interpretations of the agreed facts, the creationist "debate" is one where, upon the creationist side, no research is done, no papers are published, where unhelpful facts are ignored as required, where an unbelieveable level of scientific illiteracy abounds, where pre-judgemental religious "belief statements" are the norm and where unlimited public dishonesty is permitted in the name of a "higher calling".

This isn't public science, this is public farce -- see this report in the LA Times on Ken Ham's latest manipulations of 6,000 of New Jersey's gullible and uninformed, all-in for $25 per family. A nice earner, if you've the stomach for it.

> God made us one man for one woman, united and not to be separated.
> God made man first and gave him headship over the woman.

Just out of interest -- when you write things like this, why do you never phrase them in 21st century prose like everything else you write, but instead resort to the words and grammar of four hundred years ago?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Despite a few papers, which I've read, Creationist Science consists of giving out about evolution and unless you criticise something in a meaningful manner, then your criticisms are pointless.

Hmm - doesn't that first bit nullify your previous comments about them being abysmally vague, pre-emptive and ultimately always resort to nihilism and conspiracy theories.?

No it doesn't. Science = testable. End of story.
There is absolutely no room for discussion on that one.

Since we can't observe either evolution or creation in action we depend on inferences drawn from the data around us and the known laws of science. Both creation and evolution models make predictions about what we should expect. Those predictions are testable. The event of creation or evolution is not. So then by your definition, evolution is not a scientific fact, is that right? It is a fact (so you believe), but not a scientific fact. Likewise for my claim for creation.

If everything looks like it's old, then science will say it's old.

If any present dating method said something was 10 million years old, but later or other dating methods showed it to be 20 million years old, does that mean the tests were not science - or that the inferences drawn from them were not?

The law of entropy?
You mean the law that states that the amount of unusable energy is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant times the natural logarithm of the current number of possible microstates?
The law that has next to no influence on biological systems?
That law?

The law that we observe in action daily - the one that means biological things like the remains of last night's meal don't evolve into superior life-forms, just rot away. I've yet to notice any improvement. Maybe you think an apple can evolve into a more complex organism if we irradiate it and keep it warm? You certainly do concerning the simplest life-forms in your evolutionary scenario. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics has only the narrow application you suggest, can I get my name on the discovery of a law that has all life-forms deteriorate, lose complexity and die?

So scientists will pick the theory which matches observation and can you give me a good reason why they shouldn't?

Yes: they should consider that other theories may also fit the observation. Just because any theory seems to 'fit' the frame, doesn't mean it is the right one. Evolutionism has its problems, as has creationism. The problems may be resolvable, or they may show the theory is false.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Just out of interest -- when you write things like this, why do you never phrase them in 21st century prose like everything else you write, but instead resort to the words and grammar of four hundred years ago?

They're old-fashioned sentiments. They don't translate into modern.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

samb said:

So do you think we should obey him.

Yes.

Or should we not do what is best and not be so sexist.

His way is best.

Are you saying it is right because god said it

Yes.

-do you ever think independantly?

I try not to. Sometimes I stray into seeing things my way and not God's - but it always ends in grief. Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmm - doesn't that first bit nullify your previous comments about them being abysmally vague, pre-emptive and ultimately always resort to nihilism and conspiracy theories.?

Well, I wouldn't say so. Creationist Science consists of giving out about evolution and unless you criticise something in a meaningful manner, then your criticisms are pointless - and most of the criticisms are abysmally vague, pre-emptive and ultimately always resort to nihilism and conspiracy theories.

wolfsbane wrote:

Both creation and evolution models make predictions about what we should expect. Those predictions are testable. The event of creation or evolution is not. So then by your definition, evolution is not a scientific fact, is that right? It is a fact (so you believe), but not a scientific fact. Likewise for my claim for creation.

The only prediction that I have seen is that things will be young rather than old. The only attempts I've seen to verify these predictions rely on lying about dating methods (see earlier post), and then saying "well, if it isn't 50 million, it must be exactly 6400."

wolfsbane wrote:

If any present dating method said something was 10 million years old, but later or other dating methods showed it to be 20 million years old, does that mean the tests were not science - or that the inferences drawn from them were not?

It would show that there was a discrepancy, for which an explanation needed to be sought.

wolfsbane wrote:

The law that we observe in action daily - the one that means biological things like the remains of last night's meal don't evolve into superior life-forms, just rot away. I've yet to notice any improvement. Maybe you think an apple can evolve into a more complex organism if we irradiate it and keep it warm? You certainly do concerning the simplest life-forms in your evolutionary scenario. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics has only the narrow application you suggest, can I get my name on the discovery of a law that has all life-forms deteriorate, lose complexity and die?

That isn't even a straw man version of evolution.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes: they should consider that other theories may also fit the observation. Just because any theory seems to 'fit' the frame, doesn't mean it is the right one. Evolutionism has its problems, as has creationism. The problems may be resolvable, or they may show the theory is false.

Thus far, the problems with "evolutionist" theories of the world have been resolved scientifically, while the problem with Crreationism remains that it is fundamentally anti-scientific. I cannot imagine more difference than that.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmm - doesn't that first bit nullify your previous comments about them being abysmally vague, pre-emptive and ultimately always resort to nihilism and conspiracy theories.?

No. How does it?
Their papers are abysmally vague, pre-emptive and ultimately always resort to nihilism and conspiracy theories.
However most of what they do isn't writing scientific papers, it consists of attacking evolution, but these attacks aren't presented in peer review papers.

Since we can't observe either evolution or creation in action we depend on inferences drawn from the data around us and the known laws of science. Both creation and evolution models make predictions about what we should expect. Those predictions are testable. The event of creation or evolution is not. So then by your definition, evolution is not a scientific fact, is that right? It is a fact (so you believe), but not a scientific fact. Likewise for my claim for creation.

My point is that Creationism, and I'm going to make this clear as possible, makes very little testable predictions. The few it does make have already been refuted with observational evidence.

If any present dating method said something was 10 million years old, but later or other dating methods showed it to be 20 million years old, does that mean the tests were not science - or that the inferences drawn from them were not?

No, the tests would still be scientific.
Your point?

The law that we observe in action daily - the one that means biological things like the remains of last night's meal don't evolve into superior life-forms, just rot away. I've yet to notice any improvement. Maybe you think an apple can evolve into a more complex organism if we irradiate it and keep it warm? You certainly do concerning the simplest life-forms in your evolutionary scenario. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics has only the narrow application you suggest, can I get my name on the discovery of a law that has all life-forms deteriorate, lose complexity and die?

Entropy doesn't have narrow definition, just a specific one and it doesn't prevent evolution. Entropy strips away higher order atomic energy levels, thats its main effect on chemials. It doesn't destroy "complexity".

If entropy worked as you suggested then how could cells undergo mitosis.
In fact why don't you tell me exactly how entropy prevents evolution.

Yes: they should consider that other theories may also fit the observation. Just because any theory seems to 'fit' the frame, doesn't mean it is the right one. Evolutionism has its problems, as has creationism. The problems may be resolvable, or they may show the theory is false.

Working with theories that fit the evidence has been massively succesful in science so far. Creationism doesn't fit the evidence as perfectly as evolution. Right now, there is no theory which matches evolution.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I think you misunderstand the nature of myth, and the role of teaching stories. Why did Jesus use parables?

He used parables to instruct the humble, and to blind the proud. For the former, they were illustrations of the truth He was communicating - similes. He did not base the ethical demand upon the parable. For example, in the Parable of the Rich Fool, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:13-21%20;&version=50;, He did not forbid the people from building bigger barns - rather He made the point about getting our priorities right.

Paul is a somewhat different matter, since he was sending letters to communities of the faithful, rather than preaching to the public.

How does that lessen the point that he appeals to Genesis as the historical example?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

As we've shown quite clearly,

No, you haven't.

This isn't public science, this is public farce -- see this report in the LA Times on Ken Ham's latest manipulations of 6,000 of New Jersey's gullible and uninformed, all-in for $25 per family. A nice earner, if you've the stomach for it.

I've checked the link and the manipulations of the gullible and uninformed seemed to me to be straight-forward teaching at appropriate levels of children, teens and adults. So no charges are made for evolutionist events? Museum's, etc? But of course you guys have the Establishment, the Governments, Media, most of the rich of this world. But maybe some charges are levied even so?

Just out of interest -- when you write things like this, why do you never phrase them in 21st century prose like everything else you write, but instead resort to the words and grammar of four hundred years ago?

Which bit was archaic? 'Headship'? Would 'leadership' be better?

Excelsior

wolfsbane wrote:

How can Jesus ask us not to divorce our wives, based on a metaphoric event?

I think he argues that marriage is a covenant relationship instituted by God from before the Fall and that this pure type of relationship holds. It matters not whether the events of Genesis 1-3 are literal for Jesus to claim that God invented a thing called marraige that ought to be entered into on the premise that it is indisolvable. (<-- is that a word?)

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:
I

think he argues that marriage is a covenant relationship instituted by God from before the Fall and that this pure type of relationship holds. It matters not whether the events of Genesis 1-3 are literal for Jesus to claim that God invented a thing called marraige that ought to be entered into on the premise that it is indisolvable.

So the marriage covenant relationship instituted by God was not literally between a real man and a real woman, just a metaphoric concept in God's mind? Christ was saying that God gave us this story, not an actual event, and we must let it guide our relationships?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Excelsior said:
I
So the marriage covenant relationship instituted by God was not literally between a real man and a real woman, just a metaphoric concept in God's mind? Christ was saying that God gave us this story, not an actual event, and we must let it guide our relationships?

Are you saying that we do not draw lessons from the parables? If Genesis is a 'parable' of the Creation, then it remains a valid place to draw conclusions about God's wishes.

Scofflaw

robindch

> No, you haven't.

Sadly, we have. And your response of a bald "no" doesn't really demo much more than the established fact that you seem to think that something is true, just because you believe it is. If you wish to address any of the many deficiencies I listed -- dishonesty, lack of research, preying on the gullible, etc, etc -- then please do.

> you guys have the Establishment, the Governments, Media, most of
> the rich of this world

Can you not do something more positive than to produce (again) that tired old paranoid conspiracy theory?

samb

wolfsbane wrote:

can I get my name on the discovery of a law that has all life-forms deteriorate, lose complexity and die?
.

When an organism dies it deteriorates and loses complexity. This is what biologists know. Their offspring may however live on, life goes on. It is the religious who find it hard to accept this reality, hence the motivation for deluding themselves into believing in theories that are not based on evidence.
If you put your apple in the ground you may be surprised to find a new one will grow, its called reproduction:rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Are you saying that we do not draw lessons from the parables? If Genesis is a 'parable' of the Creation, then it remains a valid place to draw conclusions about God's wishes.

If Christ used it as a parable - but He used it as history:
Matthew 19: 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. [emphasis mine].

Genesis is presented as history, not parable. The genealogies of the gospels likewise. Check out the examples of the faithful given in Hebrews 11. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011;&version=31;49;47;9; They stretch back to Abel, the son of Adam. If this is parable, how to we tell what is history?

Was there an actual Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David, the prophets? Was there a real Jesus Christ? Paul? Is the Acts of The Apostles an historical account by Dr. Luke, or a parable by some unknown scribe?

For the Christian, the authority of the Bible is supreme. We cannot just pick and choose what parts of the narrative to treat as history.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Sadly, we have. And your response of a bald "no" doesn't really demo much more than the established fact that you seem to think that something is true, just because you believe it is. If you wish to address any of the many deficiencies I listed -- dishonesty, lack of research, preying on the gullible, etc, etc -- then please do.

Your interpretations of all this is totally different to mine and that of the scientific creationists. You say their research is rubbish, they say it is authentic. After I make as much of the scientific arguements as I can grasp, it is down to who I'm inclined to believe more. I know some of these creationist scientists personally and am convinced of their integrity and ability. Many more are vouched for by my friends whose judgement I trust. I have also noted the attempts to gag creationism and that brings me to a deeper level of suspicion as to the honesty of the leaders of evolutionism, as well as holding the ordinary evolutionist to be blinded by their materialist presuppositions. See this for an example of how prejudice against creationism is just assumed to be The Truth: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0212USA_Today.asp

I have just watched a good debate on DVD between Dr. Carl Weiland and Dr. Paul Willis. Reminded me of the exchanges here, only more focussed because of the time constraints. The scientific arguements were batted back and forth and it was helpful at least in identifying each others positions more accurately. See a report on it at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

Can you not do something more positive than to produce (again) that tired old paranoid conspiracy theory?

No conspiracy needed for the mere fact of where the money and power lies. Some of the leaders consciously work to stop creationism, but most of the rest support evolutionism because they genuinely believe it.

wolfsbane

samb said:

When an organism dies it deteriorates and loses complexity. This is what biologists know. Their offspring may however live on, life goes on. It is the religious who find it hard to accept this reality, hence the motivation for deluding themselves into believing in theories that are not based on evidence.
If you put your apple in the ground you may be surprised to find a new one will grow, its called reproduction

Imagine the very first lifeform. By some amazing sequence of events and chance non-life became life. It was exposed to the radiation and other physical/chemical forces that nature displays. You want us to believe that it not only preserved the complexity it had and passed that on by reproduction, but that each generation added to that information/complexity. That the forces of nature that today degrade our DNA and end our individual lives somehow added layer upon layer of new information/complexity so that the whole world of living things we have today arose from that first lifeform? Do we see today seeds changing into more complex versions of their parents? Is it not true that all real processes go with an increase in entropy?

You sound like creationists don't try to suppress evolution :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

You sound like creationists don't try to suppress evolution

I come from a variety of Christianity that isn't into suppressing heresy in the world. We seek to do so in the Church, since it is God's command that we be pure in doctrine and practice. But the world is free to say what it likes. I'm afraid good Christians have erred in this matter in the past, confusing the role of the State and the Church.

As a general rule, I think one should have free expression of beliefs. There are limitations that seem necessary - incitement to hatred, promotion of criminal behaviour, for example.

Parsley

wolfsbane wrote:

Imagine the very first lifeform. By some amazing sequence of events and chance non-life became life. It was exposed to the radiation and other physical/chemical forces that nature displays. You want us to believe that it not only preserved the complexity it had and passed that on by reproduction, but that each generation added to that information/complexity.

And you want us to believe a magical Pixie in the sky is perfect and all knowing without ANY sort of evidence or basis in science? For ****'s sake man, you're retarded. I'm trying to put it as politely as I can but your argument is just a pile of shite.