The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Gegerty said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Some people have.

But many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept.
This is not true.

Sorry - what's not true? My statement, But many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation or the evolutionist Dr. Scott Todd's, Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

Many astronauts are devout Christians, some becoming born again Christians after being in space. If you watch "In the Shadow of The Moon" you'll see all the Apollo astronauts talk about looking down on the Earth and feeling a sense of divinity. They even read passages from the bible when first orbiting the moon. This does not interfere in their scientific pursuits, because basically its got nothing to do with it.

Or even because nature declares the glory of God::)
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

btw, interestingly enough they got sued by an American woman for mixing state and religion :-)

Yes, the liberal facism that pervades America, perverting the original intention of the drafters of the constitutional seperation of Church & State. They meant to stop the State empowering a particular religion, the present liberal elite want to deny freedom of religious expression.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

the present liberal elite want to deny freedom of religious expression.

Who are these 'liberal elite'?

wolfsbane

rockbeer wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous wolfsbane, or so paranoid - you know as well as I do that there is scarcely an atheist on the planet who wouldn't instantly believe in god, santa and the tooth fairy if only there were some actual evidence for these things. Scientists are no exception. There may be a few intransigent diehards here and there, but on the whole, given reasonable evidence, you must acknowledge that the vast majority of scientists would accept it gladly. The problem you repeatedly fail to engage with when arguing your delusional case is the absence of evidence.

Don't forget that biblical literalism used to be scientific orthodoxy. It is primarily an increased level of scientific knowledge and evidence that has changed that orthodoxy. Against, let me remind you, the ignorant refusal of the church to accept much of the new evidence as it posed such a threat to faith. But let me remind you that even the church had to bow, by degrees, to the inevitable in the end. All this tells me that you would really like nothing better than to wind back the clock to some pre-renaissance dark age. In that sense, bizarrely, you are in fact a sort of Lazarus taxon, an evolutionary relic like the Coelacanth.

Forget it Wolfsbane, it's not going to happen.

You don't know your own heart, then. Evidence is not what keeps you from knowing God - inate hostility to Him is. But rather than just defy Him, our consciences find it easier to deny Him.

Since it was biblical literalists who led so much of scientific advance, it seems that is not a hinderance to science:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4985/

May I also suggest that the Coelacanth and similar 'relics' are an evidence that millions of years are what's missing, rather than their fossil record.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

Who are these 'liberal elite'?

Essentially, the leaders of academia and the judiciary. But all the rich and powerful usually have a finger in the pie - including the elite clergy.

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since it was biblical literalists who led so much of scientific advance, it seems that is not a hinderance to science:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4985/

Believing a creator is not the same as being a creationist.

Was it not 2 pages ago that you implied most scientists were atheists...

wolfsbane

Gegerty wrote: »

But are there not creationists who are trying to debate with the scientific community? They aren't seriously using this as their argument?!!

Correct - they are not using this as a scientific argument. It is a tenet of their faith, a statement of their religious beliefs.

I've seen this misunderstood here before, and it really is down to the reader not paying attention as to whether the creationist site is discussing science or religion. Being a creationist site, it will have both elements. When it comes to scientific argument, they do not advance religious arguments.

wolfsbane

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Believing a creator is not the same as being a creationist.

Was it not 2 pages ago that you implied most scientists were atheists...

If you read the article, you would see they made the distinction between merely believing in a Creator and believing in the Genesis account.

As the article was titled, Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator, how does that contradict my statement about present scientists?

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Essentially, the leaders of academia and the judiciary. But all the rich and powerful usually have a finger in the pie - including the elite clergy.

Of course it is much easier to say everyone is out to get you, rather than try face them in an argument where you don't have a leg to stand on.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the liberal fascism.

Yes, the atheist Christians too.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

You don't know your own heart

I imagine if anyone does, he does.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

As the article was titled, Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator, how does that contradict my statement about present scientists?

What difference does make what their occupation was? If medieval chimney sweeps believed in creationism, would it make it any more true or, indeed, not true?

All that matters is the evidence. Where is the evidence for a young Earth? Where is the evidence for God? Where is the creation science? And come to think of it, where are the active creation scientists?? :pac:

wolfsbane

Gegerty wrote: »

Thanks for the link. First up, I have to admit to being an amatuer scientist (call me an athiest if you like but I prefer to think of myself as a scientist). Alot of people of similar beliefs tend to laugh at creationism so I thought I should actually look into what it is actually saying, instead of jumping on the band wagon.

One thing I think stands out as obvious to me is that creationists sometimes tend to misunderstand science. To say that scientists prove that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted is incorrect. What scientists say is that there is no evidence and therefore it cannot be taken as fact. Until there is evidence it cannot be debated in the scientific world. The link points out a few animals that still exists that were thought to have been extinct for millions of years, I would like to see some scientific data on these before believing it. I'm guessing they are either descendants or some kind of mutation.

Another thing I have noticed is that Creationists sometimes give the same arguments as scientists, only they come to different conclusions. For example the argument that biodiversity is due to micro-evolution, man adapting to his environment. Well this is the same as evolution and leads me to another point, that creationists are incapable of fathoming just how long 4.5 billion years is or even 65 million years. It is actually physically impossible to fully understand how long that is but scientists would have the ability to understand that millions of years of adpating to your environment and survival of the fittest can lead to physical advances in creatures.

I think if there are serious creationists out there they need to come out with scientific evidence in order to be taken seriously.

On your last point, creationist fully agree. That's why they labour to do so, in organisations like:
The Creation Research Societyhttp://creationresearch.org/

The Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/

The Center for Origins Research
http://www.bryancore.org/

You will find plenty of serious research/evidence there.

On micro-evolution: no-one has ever observed a change beyond the boundary of an organism's essential identity. That is, no fly or bacteria has 'evolved' into anything other than a fly or bacteria. I know lack of time is pleaded, but the fact remains that extrapolation of change within an organism to change into another organism is pure speculation. Proof of one is not proof of the other.

I agree that the more accurate statements from evolutionists do not use the term proof, but the assertion that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted is usually stated as fact, rather than something that relies on absence of evidence.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Please! :rolleyes:

Biblical literalists do not have exclusive rights to the term "Creationist". They don't even have exclusive rights to the term "Young Earth Creationist" (plenty of religions believe in a young Earth who aren't Christian or Jewish)

Quite so. But if we want to debate outside of definition used by JC, me, and the creationist sites we refer to, then you and we will have to specify every time we use the word creationist specifically what we mean by it.

Seems a crazy way of doing things.:eek:

In discussions/debates, one normally agrees the definitions at the start. I thought JC and I had made it perfectly clear long ago exactly what we meant by creationism.

Or are you just time-wasting?:(

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

You don't know your own heart, then. Evidence is not what keeps you from knowing God - inate hostility to Him is. But rather than just defy Him, our consciences find it easier to deny Him.

I won't dignify this patronizing tosh with a reply other than to say I fail to see the relevance to the present discussion.

I would point out, however, the widely recognized dangers inherent in encouraging people to believe in anything without evidence. Dangers that don't seem to concern you, it should be added.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since it was biblical literalists who led so much of scientific advance, it seems that is not a hinderance to science:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4985/

That's just a list of names, virtually none of whom are around to defend themselves. If I said the same list of people believed in a flying teapot, in how many cases could you demonstrate otherwise? Besides, even if it's accurate, what does it prove? The point is that religion and science are entirely compatible until the point where scientific discovery contradicts religious belief, at which point every person on that list had to make a choice. In general, scientists tend towards trusting the evidence. I don't have a graph to hand plotting the proportion of scientists who believe in a creator against time since 1600, but I bet my mortgage that it would form a fairly sharp downward slope, possibly levelling off towards the present. No doubt you would explain this desertion of faith by scientists as a conspiracy while the rest of us recognize it as the result of knowledge and evidence.

wolfsbane wrote: »

May I also suggest that the Coelacanth and similar 'relics' are an evidence that millions of years are what's missing, rather than their fossil record.

*Sigh* You can suggest it but that won't make it true.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

On your last point, creationist fully agree. That's why they labour to do so,
...
You will find plenty of serious research/evidence there.

Couldn't find any serious research/evidence at those websites. A whole lot of essays and conjecture, but no data. Maybe you could point out the specific links to serious creation research/evidence?

I've asked this before, but why is it such a big deal for creationists to adopt the mantle of science? Why not just be satisfied that your position is faith-based (and evidence is irrelevant anyway, if AiG are anything to go by)? Or at the very least supply some actual evidence or do some actual science - otherwise it's just preaching and political maneuvering.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

May I also suggest that the Coelacanth and similar 'relics' are an evidence that millions of years are what's missing, rather than their fossil record.

The Coelacanth species that are still in existence are not any kind of problem for Evolution, any more than sharks or any other species conserved over long time spans. Natural selection will act to conserve or modify under differing circumstances and that has been understood since Darwin. The absence of selection where it occurs causes genetic drift which itself causes a gene pool to once again come into contact with selective pressures which re-assert the boundaries. This is basic stuff.

You still haven't addressed my comments on the lack of motive possessed by atheists, agnostics or theists to dishonestly or misleadingly discredit Creation.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since it was biblical literalists who led so much of scientific advance, it seems that is not a hinderance to science:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4985/

In the interest of balance I think I should put you onto Project Steve, a similar list but one of scientist who support the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

So far it has 884 names on it, and if that sounds small, you should realise only people named "Steve," "Stephanie," "Stefan," or some other form of "Stephen" can sign it. Other things to note is that all these scientists are alive (as of 2003) and you can see what degrees they have and their positions on the official page

Gegerty

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the liberal facism that pervades America, perverting the original intention of the drafters of the constitutional seperation of Church & State. They meant to stop the State empowering a particular religion, the present liberal elite want to deny freedom of religious expression.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Essentially, the leaders of academia and the judiciary. But all the rich and powerful usually have a finger in the pie - including the elite clergy.

It's not religious expression when you are teaching kids in school that evolution is BS and teaching creationism as fact with no evidence at all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct - they are not using this as a scientific argument. It is a tenet of their faith, a statement of their religious beliefs.

I've seen this misunderstood here before, and it really is down to the reader not paying attention as to whether the creationist site is discussing science or religion. Being a creationist site, it will have both elements. When it comes to scientific argument, they do not advance religious arguments.

Please show me some evidence, that site certainly does not show any!! Creationists would make good politicians the way they manage to dodge this question all the time

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

In discussions/debates, one normally agrees the definitions at the start. I thought JC and I had made it perfectly clear long ago exactly what we meant by creationism.

JC has NEVER made anything perfectly clear about anything on this forum and has changed definition of both Creationism and Intelligent Design to suit his arguments when backed into a corner (along with a whole load of other phrases)

So no Wolfsbane, it is in fact you guys who are wasting time ... in fact getting you guys to define what you say properly is what half this thread has been about.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quite so. But if we want to debate outside of definition used by JC, me, and the creationist sites we refer to, then you and we will have to specify every time we use the word creationist specifically what we mean by it.

Seems a crazy way of doing things.:eek:

In discussions/debates, one normally agrees the definitions at the start. I thought JC and I had made it perfectly clear long ago exactly what we meant by creationism.

Or are you just time-wasting?:(

At least you admit there are other meanings of the word. Excellent progress.

Hey I'm sure we are all aware of yours and JCs belief at this stage, just because you two are the only regular creationist posters doesn't mean other Christians on this forum (who apparently read this thread, but don't respond; who can blame them?!), should be ostracised.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But all the rich and powerful usually have a finger in the pie

And by rich and powerful I assume you mean the Creationist/Christian fundamentalist movement?

The Discovery Institute receives between 2 and 4 million dollars a year!! in grants and funding, which is more that a small universities. And that is only what they declare on their tax returns, and we all know how Creationists feel about paying taxes! :rolleyes:

And they receive this mostly from 20 or 30 very rich (and one assumes very powerful) donors such as Howard Ahmanson. Heck Bill Gates' foundation gave them $1 million in 2000 and has pledged $10 million over the next 10 years. And they don't come much more rich and powerful than Bill Gates.

In 2004 Answers In Genesis received $7.5 million in donations, though this dropped to $4 million in 2005. The previous year they got $7 million in 2003, $6 million in 2002.

So can we cut the nonsense about the "rich and powerful" ... Creationism is big business, these organizations have a lot of money and are funded by people with a heck of a lot of money.

The problem is they spend most of it on PR and political lobbing, rather than, you know, scientific research! They know themselves that the science itself is a dead end because they will never be able to produce the scientific models they need to actually be part of science. So why waste your money on science when you can just fund and bribe politicians to get your nonsense into schools.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept.

Although its been mentioned already, wolfsbane, I'd like to ask...

do you honestly believe that the quote actually supports the allegation you make?

The author says that science deals with naturalistic things, and thus by definition cannot include concepts which invoke the non-naturalistic. This is a self-evidently true statement.

Dr. Todd does not say that there is no possibility other than a naturalistic explanation, he says that science can only offer a naturalistic explanation. He does not say whether he personally believes in other explanations, or accepts the possibility thereof.

Its like saying that one cannot be a Christian without believing in the Christian God. It isn't a statement on which religion is the true one, nor any comment on the beliefs of the person making the statement. It is a self-ebvidently true statement regarding what Christianity is. I have no doubt, but hose you consider the most ardentrly atheist (or non-Christian) here will agree that one cannot be a Christian without believing in the Christian God. Does this agreement indicate their Christianity? Does it indicate their rejection of all other possibilities but that Christianity is true?

All Todd really says is "Science deals with science", and you (apparently) read this to mean "I don't believe in God, nor does any real scientist".

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

Did you note it said not naturalistic - not, not scientific? But of course you want to define science as naturalistic.

Its not what I or anyone here wants to do, wolfsbane. Science is naturalistic by definition.

Others don't.

Well, yes. Those insisting that something is science which is non-scientific (partly on account of being non-naturalistic) want to redefine science to include their non-science.

And, as you seem to be once-again arguing, there's a big "conspiracy" to prevent them from doing this.

Imagine the following situation...

Someone starts arguing that they don't believe in the Christian God, but are a Christian. They start saying that certain things are Christian, such as the rejection of the bible, and even the embracing of concepts that would be anathema to any real Christian. You (calmly) respond that they are talking nonsense, because Christianity is belief in God, and in the truth of the bible. Their response is to say that this is how you want to define Christianity, but that they (and others) do not, and wish to have a different definition.

Would you see that as a reasonable argument?

What if they went on to dismiss your stance as a typicaly holier-than-thou conspiracy of philosophical elite who want to stamp out any dissent and who refused to allow the printing of articles explaining why there was no God in their Christian works, thus showing that Christianity can and should allow the embracing of non-Christian things.

Would you see that as a reasonable argument?

What if they wanted to introduce concepts you see as anathema into religious teachings? Sunday school, or even religion class (as we have in Ireland)? As long as one accepts that Christians who meet the currently-accepted definition aren't allowed have a monopoly on defining what Christianity is, thats all perfectly reasonable stuff, right?

Because if its not, then your argument about "others" disagreeing with science only dealing with the naturalistic is equally unreasonable. What you are, in effect, saying is that its unreasonable that Creationists are not allowed redefine science as they see fit.

It is unreasonable.

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

So no Wolfsbane, it is in fact you guys who are wasting time ... in fact getting you guys to define what you say properly is what half this thread has been about.

Kind of reminds me of a bad football team holding out for a draw, running down the clock by trying to hold up the ball beside the corner flag.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

JC has NEVER made anything perfectly clear about anything on this forum and has changed definition of both Creationism and Intelligent Design to suit his arguments when backed into a corner (along with a whole load of other phrases)

He created the Theory Of Spontaneous Evolution and discredited it in the same thread. At least we all agree that Spontaneous Evolution is crap.

Sadly, J_C has also admitted to the existence of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and mutation. The only element of evolution that remains for him to attack is time (he believes there's less of it). Oh and reproduction- he hasn't addressed that one yet either.

So, Wolfsbane, do you believe in any of the above mechanisms?

AtomicHorror

What happened to this thread? By J_C's measure of things, the scientists have roundly defeated the creationists...

Ekancone

Nah, JC likes to let them build up before delivering his flurry of exclamation marks, smileys and full stops.

Ciaran500

daithifleming wrote: »

Nah, JC likes to let them build up before delivering his flurry of exclamation marks, smileys and full stops.

That way he can pick and chose what to answer without being called on for skipping posts.

Ekancone

Ciaran500 wrote: »

That way he can pick and chose what to answer without being called on for skipping posts.

That and JC is the wum account of one of the regular posters in the Christianity forum, and it would be an awful pain to keep logging in and out all the time.

Ciaran500

?

Do tell.