The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Mena wrote: »

Can you quote a source for these stats or are they simply made up like all creationist propoganda?

I was simply agreeing with marco_polo's contention that most conventional scientists are 'creationists' of some type!!!
Please ask marco_polo for his stats!!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by marco_polo
I reckon most of them are creationists who are afraid to come out of the closet.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

For someone so curiously skeptical of mainstream science, I find it interesting that wolfsbane isn't even slightly perturbed at his and J C's collectively inability to provide even one example of creation science or an active creation scientist or evidence that it is being vetoed at the journal level. [Might I suggest it is because no creation science exists because none is being performed?]

This debate cannot progress further along the 'science' theme until wolfsbane or J C realize and accept this glaring discrepancy.

I have already pointed to the active creation scientists and their research. Those who are genuinely interested can find it for themselves on the creationist sites, but here's a start:

Examples:
ICR Scientists and Facultyhttp://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/
Research Papershttp://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

Dr. Kevin Anderson
http://creationresearch.org/speakers/bio_anderson.htm
Eugene Chaffin
Ph.D. Physics
http://creationresearch.org/speakers/bio_chaffin.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm
Van Andel Creation Research Center
http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

Dr. Todd Wood
http://www.bryancore.org/wood.html
Dr. Roger Sanders
http://www.bryancore.org/sanders.html
CORE Research Projects
http://www.bryancore.org/currentresearch.html

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Unlike sensible creationists who believe that dogs and wolves devolved from a common Dog Kind within a few hundred years of leaving Noah's Ark? And plenty of science to back up as well, I assume...? :pac:

.......you don't need to go back hundreds of years........just put a Wolf into a pen with a bitch on heat......and come back two months later .....and count the puppies!!!!:)

iUseVi

J C wrote: »

I was simply agreeing with marco_polo's contention that most conventional scientists are 'creationists' of some type!!!
Please ask marco_polo for his stats!!!!:D

I'm pretty sure he/she was joking. Even so, that doesn't explain where you got 80% from. You can't just pluck numbers out of thin air.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' REFUSE to accept that the existence of God can be determined by objective scientific means means.......
......by hiding behind a self-serving definition of 'science' which excludes the most likely hypothesis (that there was an intelligent designer of life) from scientific consideration!!!!

AtomicHorror
No, it's just scientists in general who say that while we might well be able to measure the influence of a greater intelligence, perhaps even a creator of life on Earth, and to identify it and observe it directly, it would not be possible to scientifically identify such an entity as the God of the abrahamic religions. That would require us to measure traits which the bible describes as transcendent of the observable universe.

Essentially, following the hypothetical positive identification of a creator intelligence it would be a matter of faith as to whether one accepted this being as God.

As a Christian, you're meant to already have faith enough to believe that God exists without science being a threat to you. Your faith is weak, J_C.

The God of the Bible is indeed transcendent.....and therefore not amenable to science........BUT His actions during Creation Week ARE NOT transcendent......and the results of these actions ARE therefore amenable to scientific evaluation......and the ONLY thing standing in the way of ALL scientists examining this evidence is their unquestioning acceptance of a limited self-serving definition of 'science' by Atheists and other assorted Materialists!!!!!!!!:eek::)

wrote:

AtomicHorror
As a Christian, you're meant to already have faith enough to believe that God exists without science being a threat to you. Your faith is weak, J_C.

Yes indeed my spirit is often willing......and my body weak.......
I believe that the God of the Bible exists through the spiritual inspiration of the Holy Spirit.......and I have physical PROOF that an inordinate Intelligence of God-like proportions Created all life!!!:D
......it's what is known as a 'double whammy'.......generously provided by God to those who love Him!!:D

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In another thread (post 119) on this board, wolfsbane made this alleagtion against evolutionists. Questions where made of this claim, but PDN said (and rightly so) that we shouldn't drag arguments from other threads into that one, so I am asking the question here. Can you please give some examples of this "scientifically valid evidence for creationism".

See the post I sent previous to this.

I forgot to include the latest completed research project:
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radioisotopes-earth

But it would help you get an introduction to creationism's evidences if you looked at this:
‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/

And here's an article on the recent platypus story:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5783
Dr Robert W. Carter
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4843

J C

robindch wrote: »

HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! ROFL :D:D:D:D:D

Let me get this straight -- you think that even though 80% of scientists are creationists, the remaining ~19% still manage to run the kind of apartheid system that Ben Stein's tanked agitprop piece imagined?

Clearly, you have finally realized that creationists are not only a bunch of scardey-cats who are too frightened to stand up for what they believe in, but that their Darwinian brethren are more than four times stronger too. Magnificent!

Most people go with the flow.......and a few Young Earth Creationists who are top scientists RESIST!!!!!:D:)
Creation Scientists are not 'scaredy cats'......they are very brave people who risk professional 'life and limb' to bring the truth to a Fallen World that prefers to think of themselves as 'miracle muck' rather than to love the God who Created them!!!!

aggresso

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionist and Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University (as quoted J C's signature)

The late great Stephen Jay Gould did indeed say this, but he never, repeat never, argued for anything other than traditional Darwinian evolution. His version of evolutionary history was called "punctuated equilibrium". He argued that there were short periods (short in geological terms, lasting say only a couple of million years) when there was very rapid (in geological terms) evolution, and that between these periods were much longer periods of relative stability.

What he said should not give any comfort to creationists, ID posers or any other sort of pseudoscientific poseurs. He made this clear at every opportunity while he was alive.

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

I was simply agreeing with marco_polo's contention that most conventional scientists are 'creationists' of some type!!!
Please ask marco_polo for his stats!!!!:D

Not to mention Wicknight's belief that Theistic Evolutionists are Creationists. :D:D

J C

aggresso wrote: »

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionist and Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University (as quoted J C's signature)

The late great Stephen Jay Gould did indeed say this, but he never, repeat never, argued for anything other than traditional Darwinian evolution. His version of evolutionary history was called "punctuated equilibrium". He argued that there were short periods (short in geological terms, lasting say only a couple of million years) when there was very rapid (in geological terms) evolution, and that between these periods were much longer periods of relative stability.

What he said should not give any comfort to creationists, ID posers or any other sort of pseudoscientific poseurs. He made this clear at every opportunity while he was alive.

You are correct that Professor Gould held to a belief in "punctuated equilibrium"......presumably in absolute desperation ......because the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, IS ALSO a persistent and nagging problem for punctuated accounts of evolution!!!!!:pac::):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......put a Wolf into a pen with a bitch on heat......and come back two months later .....and count the puppies!!!!:)

And will the puppies be dachshunds, danes or dalmatians? :pac:

aggresso

J C wrote: »

You are correct that Professor Gould held to a belief in "punctuated equilibrium"......presumably in absolute desperation ......because the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, IS ALSO a persistent and nagging problem for punctuated accounts of evolution!!!!!:pac::):D

"presumably" is the operative word. You're presuming a lot. I'm willing to bet you can't give me a rational argument why this absence is "a persistent and nagging problem for punctuated accounts of evolution." It's all just presumption.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

and I have physical PROOF that an inordinate Intelligence of God-like proportions Created all life!!!:D

It's a little selfish to keep it yourself, don't you think? Care to furnish us with this physical proof? Some science, perhaps?

wolfsbane

aggresso wrote: »

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionist and Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University (as quoted J C's signature)

The late great Stephen Jay Gould did indeed say this, but he never, repeat never, argued for anything other than traditional Darwinian evolution. His version of evolutionary history was called "punctuated equilibrium". He argued that there were short periods (short in geological terms, lasting say only a couple of million years) when there was very rapid (in geological terms) evolution, and that between these periods were much longer periods of relative stability.

What he said should not give any comfort to creationists, ID posers or any other sort of pseudoscientific poseurs. He made this clear at every opportunity while he was alive.

Creationists never implied he thought otherwise. We are merely pointing out that the unchallengably obvious to you was unchallengably absent for Gould. You accuse creationists of ignoring the implications of the fossil record - but Gould, like us, finds it gives a different message than yours.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have already pointed to the active creation scientists and their research. Those who are genuinely interested can find it for themselves on the creationist sites, but here's a start:

Examples:
ICR Scientists and Facultyhttp://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/
Research Papershttp://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

Dr. Kevin Anderson
http://creationresearch.org/speakers/bio_anderson.htm
Eugene Chaffin
Ph.D. Physics
http://creationresearch.org/speakers/bio_chaffin.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm
Van Andel Creation Research Center
http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

Dr. Todd Wood
http://www.bryancore.org/wood.html
Dr. Roger Sanders
http://www.bryancore.org/sanders.html
CORE Research Projects
http://www.bryancore.org/currentresearch.html

Scientists who are creationists but don't do creation science do not count. Creation journalists who don't do creation science do not count. Science that is not creation science does not count. Didn't we go over this already?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I was simply agreeing with marco_polo's contention that most conventional scientists are 'creationists' of some type!!!
Please ask marco_polo for his stats!!!!i

UseV
I'm pretty sure he/she was joking. Even so, that doesn't explain where you got 80% from. You can't just pluck numbers out of thin air.

.......but Evolutionists like marco_polo are allowed to pluck percentages out of thin air without any challenge????:eek::)

wrote:

Originally Posted by marco_polo
I reckon most of them are creationists who are afraid to come out of the closet.

aggresso

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists never implied he thought otherwise. We are merely pointing out that the unchallengably obvious to you was unchallengably absent for Gould. You accuse creationists of ignoring the implications of the fossil record - but Gould, like us, finds it gives a different message than yours.

Are you a mind reader? What have you detected that I see as "unchallengably obvious"?

How do you know I disagree with Gould on punctuated equilibrium? I don't. I don't know enough about paleontology, geology or genetics to be able to adjudicate between his view and (say) Richard Dawkins' ideas about the same subject.

I bet you don't either. If I'm wrong, you'll be willing to explain what you mean. But be careful, I have read a little bit on the arguments on both sides, and you could get caught out.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...and I have physical PROOF that an inordinate Intelligence of God-like proportions Created all life!!!

2Scoops
It's a little selfish to keep it yourself, don't you think? Care to furnish us with this physical proof? Some science, perhaps?

You see this proof every morning when you look in the mirror.......and every day when you look down a microscope!!!!:D

Such vast quantities of specified complexity are mathematically impossible to produce via spontaneous processes and they require an initial input of effectively infinite intelligence!!!:D

aggresso

J C wrote: »

[/b]You see this proof every morning when you look in the mirror.......and every day when you look down a microscope!!!!:D

Such vast quantities of specified complexity are mathematically impossible to produce via spontaneous processes and they require an initial input of effectively infinite intelligence!!!:D

You obviously need to learn some maths. The maths of the new synthesis evolutionary theory is very well-developed and reliable.

Your ugly green and hugely overused smilies don't substitute for an argument.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

[/B]You see this proof every morning when you look in the mirror.......and every day when you look down a microscope!!!!:D

Such vast quantities of specified complexity are mathematically impossible to produce via spontaneous processes and they require an initial input of effectively infinite intelligence!!!:D

So no actual science, then? Thought not!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.......put a Wolf into a pen with a bitch on heat......and come back two months later .....and count the puppies!!!!


2Scoops
And will the puppies be dachshunds, danes or dalmatians? :pac:

It all depend on whether the 'hot bitch' was a dachshund, a dane or a dalmatian!!!!:pac::):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

It all depend on whether the 'hot bitch' was a dachshund, a dane or a dalmatian!!!!:pac::):D

Well let's just speculate that it's one of the original or an early example of Dog/Wolf kind. What would 'pop out' after they did 'it' wolfie-style? :pac:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
You are correct that Professor Gould held to a belief in "punctuated equilibrium"......presumably in absolute desperation ......because the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, IS ALSO a persistent and nagging problem for punctuated accounts of evolution!!!!!

aggresso
"presumably" is the operative word. You're presuming a lot. I'm willing to bet you can't give me a rational argument why this absence is "a persistent and nagging problem for punctuated accounts of evolution."

......because of the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design.....and indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases!!!!!:pac::):D

......poor Professor Gould must have had such doubts about the validity of ANY form of Evolution when he realised that missing links were not only missing in practice .......but they were also totally impossible to imagine even in theory !!!!:pac::):D

......your faith in 'Agressive Atheism' is indeed on very shaky ground......and the downside if you are wrong is also very serious!!!:eek:

....my faith is well grounded in the observable Universe.....and there is no downside if I am wrong and there is no God!!!!!:)

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

[/B]You see this proof every morning when you look in the mirror.......and every day when you look down a microscope!!!!:D

Such vast quantities of specified complexity are mathematically impossible to produce via spontaneous processes and they require an initial input of effectively infinite intelligence!!!:D

How often do we have to go over the same old ground? The fact that you can't understand how something could have happened isn't proof that it didn't happen. And there you go with that word spontaneous again, throwing it in as though it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about. Darwinian evolution makes no claim that such complexity arose 'spontaneously', as has been covered time and time again throughout the thread, yet still you keep repeating the erroneous claim.

Seems to me you have three choices:

1. Withdraw the 'spontaneous' allegation
2. Admit you're winding us up
3. Admit you have no clue what the theory of evolution really is or how it works.

I've no doubt you'll run with option 4: keep spouting the same old nonsense as though it means something.

This has long-since stopped being a discussion in the generally accepted sense of the word and become instead a trial by stamina.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Well let's just speculate that it's one of the original or an early example of Dog/Wolf kind. What would 'pop out' after they did 'it' wolfie-style? :pac:

......another Dog/Wolf Kind puppy......or a mongerel ........or even a Great Dane after a number of generations of Selectve breeding from the original Dog/Wolf Kind !!!!:)

.....I guess 'wolfie-style' also adds a whole new meaning to the phrase 'wolfing into it'!!!:pac::):D

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Scientists who are creationists but don't do creation science do not count. Creation journalists who don't do creation science do not count. Science that is not creation science does not count. Didn't we go over this already?

.....I suppose NOTHING counts if Evolutionists use self-serving defintions of the words Scientist, Creationist and Journalist!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

aggresso wrote: »

Your ugly green and hugely overused smilies don't substitute for an argument.

........I thought they were very cute actually!!!:D:D:D.....and they aren't all green!!!!!!!:pac::);)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....I suppose NOTHING counts if Evolutionists use self-serving defintions of the words Scientist, Creationist and Journalist!!!!!:pac::):D

I see nothing self-serving about defining creation science as science about creationism or scientists as people who perform science. Perhaps you think I'm being unreasonable??

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

How often do we have to go over the same old ground? The fact that you can't understand how something could have happened isn't proof that it didn't happen.

The fact that NOBODY can show how muck could evlove into Man using purely Materialistic processes......is actually quite a good proof that it DIDN'T happen!!!:)

rockbeer wrote: »

And there you go with that word spontaneous again, throwing it in as though it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about. Darwinian evolution makes no claim that such complexity arose 'spontaneously', as has been covered time and time again throughout the thread, yet still you keep repeating the erroneous claim.

...but Evolutionists DO claim that it occurred spontaneously.......i.e with no external intelligent input!!!!

.....and the idea that specified complexity can arise by using a random generator and selecting from the resultant material is a 'pipe dream'......because the quantity of non-functional material would be effectively infinite and the functional material so rare as to require all of the time and material in the 'Big Bang' Universe to spontaneously generate the sequence for just one small protein molecule!!!!:eek:

rockbeer wrote: »

This has long-since stopped being a discussion in the generally accepted sense of the word and become instead a trial by stamina.

.....and I will graciously refrain from identifying whose stamina is floundering on this thread!!!:):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....and I will graciously refrain from identifying whose stamina is floundering on this thread!!!:):D

Finish the job, J C! Provide some the creation science proof you keep mentioning and shut these evolutionists up for good! :pac: