Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1353354356358359822

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 44 aggresso


    J C wrote: »
    ......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!!!!!
    This is a very classy version (not) of the very silly "argument from personal incredulity". Answer: Speak for yourself. My imagination is a little more creative than yours, it seems.
    J C wrote: »
    ......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 !!!!
    Ditto
    J C wrote: »
    ......your faith in 'Agressive Atheism' is indeed on very shaky ground......and the downside if you are wrong is also very serious!!!
    I have no faith in the sense you mean. I'm an atheist, as it happens. The reference to "aggressive" in my blog URL is an ironic reference to a comment made by our former Taoiseach about people like me. Don't worry, I'm not going to hit you.
    J C wrote: »
    ....my faith is well grounded in the observable Universe.....and there is no downside if I am wrong and there is no God!!!!!
    Your faith is (sadly for you) grounded in nothing but your own personal selective credulity. The very idea of believing for insurance purposes is just too cheap and tawdry to be taken seriously.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    J C wrote: »
    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!!!:)

    You can't show that god exists but that doesn't stop you believing in him. By your logic his non-appearance proves his non-existence. Anyway, you're wrong: evolution theory provides a perfectly plausible mechanism for the development of complex organisms from simple ones based on processes the existence of which you have already acknowledged. Maybe you should go and read some actual science books.

    J C wrote: »
    ...but Evolutionists DO claim that it occurred spontaneously.......i.e with no external intelligent input!!!!

    You propose a false dichotomy - either high genetic complexity arose fully formed or was created by the application of intelligence. There are alternatives you don't include which have been explained at length on this thread - hence my suggestion that you either admit you are winding us up or admit you don't understand the theory of evolution.

    J C wrote: »
    .....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

    And again this is quite simply not what evolutionary theory proposes. It is far from a random process, and operates according to mechanisms which you have already acknowledged exist. So once again you demonstrate that you don't understand the theory you claim to be able to disprove.

    As I say this really is the same old ground. You say what you say, it is comprehensively rebutted, then you just say it again. You don't even have the decency to come up with new ways of phrasing your multiple errors. You don't even have the shame to admit you don't know what you're talking about. It's really quite extraordinary how somebody who claims to be a scientist has failed so utterly to come up with a single piece of credible science, or even a clue that they understand what science actually is, in over 500 pages. Aren't you ashamed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 44 aggresso


    J C wrote: »
    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!!!
    That's exactly what Darwin did show. That's what's all the fuss is about, don't you know?
    J C wrote: »
    ...but Evolutionists DO claim that it occurred spontaneously.......i.e with no external intelligent input!
    You're right there, genetic mutations are generally spontaneous and are the engine of evolution, but what evolutionary theory can very easily do is provide a model for explaining how such spontaneous mutations can over time lead to seemingly purposeful structures.
    J C wrote: »
    .....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!!!!
    Now you're waffling. (Do you really need to use all those exclamation marks? The effect is like a panting dog)

    J C wrote: »
    .....and I will graciously refrain from identifying whose stamina is floundering on this thread!!!
    It's easier to keep repeating yourself without reading your opponents' views properly and padding everything out with exhausting emoticons and exclamation marks than it is to be at the other end of your effusion and keep from having an epileptic fit.

    Speaking of exhaustion. I'm off to bed. Write whatever rubbish you like, with as many emoticons and exclamation marks you like. It won't win you converts. It'll just succeed in boring half to death the people (like myself) unfortunate enough to blunder into it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...but Evolutionists DO claim that it occurred spontaneously.......i.e with no external intelligent input!!!!
    No they really don't JC.

    This has been explained to you already

    (really Wolfsbane, this is who you turn to for the stuff that is over your head?)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    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
    Rubbish. Even using your own completely-made-up statistics, that's completely false.

    You've said that over 80% of scientists are creationists who stay silent, while a "very brave" 1% speak up. That means that around 1.2% of creationists overall are brave, while the remaining 98.8% of creationists -- yourself included -- are too frightened to speak their minds in public, even though (bizarrely) you say that you are in a massive majority anyway.

    If you're right about the 80%, then creationists are a pack of scaredy-cats. If you're wrong, then the noisy 1% (it's far less than that, btw) are the same kind of people who would deny the Holocaust, were they historians.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


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

    Kinda looks like it's you man, since you seem to be ignoring my posts and recycling points which I and others have already refuted (to no response from you)... muck to man abiogenesis, "spontaneous evolution", functional intermediates (I'll give you a hint on that one- they don't need to be functional and they can even be detrimental and survive multiple generations), badly misunderstood notions on probability and recombination... all old hat really. All refuted before.
    J C wrote: »
    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!!!:)

    As many faithful will gleefully declare, absensce of proof is not proof of absence. Despite this, various parts of abiogenesis have been demonstrated on even very short time spans. Here we are back to abiogenesis though, which is quite separate from evolution. Evolution doesn't say that muck turned into man or even into basic life. Whatever "muck" is.
    J C wrote: »
    ...but Evolutionists DO claim that it occurred spontaneously.......i.e with no external intelligent input!!!!

    That's not what spontaneous means. It means without external influence. It says nothing about intelligence. We maintain that external influence is essential to evolution. So once again- we don't believe in "spontaneous evolution". Can we stop talking about it now?
    J C wrote: »
    .....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:

    Once again, this ignores that random recombination of proteins does not occur and is not a part of evolutionary theory. Nor does random recombination of genetic material occur in evolution. Mutation works on a single-nucleotide level. Proteins are translated from genetic material. You have grossly over-stated the probabilities associated with the evolution of function. I addressed all of this several pages ago and you never responded. Care to respond now?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭Eschatologist


    J C wrote: »
    [/b]The God of the Bible is indeed transcendent.....and therefore not amenable to science........

    Thank you.
    J C wrote: »
    [/b]BUT His actions during Creation Week ARE NOT transcendent......and the results of these actions ARE therefore amenable to scientific evaluation

    Oh but the evidence has been evaluated (not necessarily God's evidence though) and so far found to be consistent with old Earth, old Universe - you know, actual science. What you post here is not considered any kind of accepted scientific thought process - not when you keep reiterating the same forgone conclusion without providing any evidence.

    You up to discussing something that's actually been peer-reviewed yet? It's tiring re-reading what is esentially is your delighted incredulity at why we won't accept the wonderful 'explanatory' power of creationism that's based on no rational evidence whatsoever; fancy that :eek:
    J C wrote: »
    [/b]......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::)

    Somehow I really don't think you're in a position to discuss the definition of science...
    J C wrote: »
    [/b]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

    That's fine, belief is belief, it doesn't require evidence. How easy it is though, to accept things with belief and faith without looking at what science can actually tell us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    aggresso wrote: »
    That's exactly what Darwin did show. That's what's all the fuss is about, don't you know?

    Not exactly, evolution works with or without abiogenesis. It's an independent theory. Abiogenesis is still mostly in the realms of hypothesis- just due to a lack of experimental data and the variety of conditions that may have allowed the process (it seems we're somewhat spoiled for choice in that regard). The evidence building towards a nice theory, but it's not there yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 44 aggresso


    Not exactly, evolution works with or without abiogenesis. It's an independent theory. Abiogenesis is still mostly in the realms of hypothesis- just due to a lack of experimental data and the variety of conditions that may have allowed the process (it seems we're somewhat spoiled for choice in that regard). The evidence building towards a nice theory, but it's not there yet.
    You're right of course. The very first step is still missing. But you're also right that it things seem to be going in the right direction.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    J C wrote: »
    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!!!:)

    Oh.. your... God... I actually agree with you!
    Of course the theory of evolution by means of natural selection never once referred to muck evolving into men, or anything for that matter.
    For the umpteenth time, evolution does not state the origin of life, but rather the progression of life.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    J C wrote: »
    .....I suppose NOTHING counts if Evolutionists use self-serving defintions of the words Scientist, Creationist and Journalist

    Perhaps you would like to share with us the definitions of these words that you would prefer evolutionists to use.

    Please be as precise as you can manage in your choice of language (and if at all possible, please resist the temptation to use emoticons).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    rockbeer wrote: »
    Perhaps you would like to share with us the definitions of these words that you would prefer evolutionists to use.

    Please be as precise as you can manage in your choice of language (and if at all possible, please resist the temptation to use emoticons).

    Indeed, and dots only to be used at the ends of sentences, please.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    rockbeer wrote: »
    Perhaps you would like to share with us the definitions of these words that you would prefer evolutionists to use.

    Please be as precise as you can manage in your choice of language (and if at all possible, please resist the temptation to use emoticons).

    A definition of "Evolutionist" would be nice too. The term seems to suggest a philosophy rather than a science. Or some form of equality with creationism...

    J C play word games? Unpossible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    A definition of "Evolutionist" would be nice too. The term seems to suggest a philosophy rather than a science. Or some form of equality with creationism...

    Evolutionist? Too easy... someone who believes muck turned into man! Spontaneously!!!!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No they really don't JC.

    This has been explained to you already

    (really Wolfsbane, this is who you turn to for the stuff that is over your head?)
    You need to speak to aggresso so you can get your story straight. :pac: He said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ...but Evolutionists DO claim that it occurred spontaneously.......i.e with no external intelligent input!

    You're right there, genetic mutations are generally spontaneous and are the engine of evolution, but what evolutionary theory can very easily do is provide a model for explaining how such spontaneous mutations can over time lead to seemingly purposeful structures.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    rockbeer wrote: »
    Evolutionist? Too easy... someone who believes muck turned into man! Spontaneously!!!!!!
    Or more formally:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist

    Don't you guys know about dictionaries? Or do your copies have all the words you feel uncomfortable with blacked out?

    Hmm, the latter seems more likely, given evolutionist's partiality to censorship. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Don't you guys know about dictionaries? Or do your copies have all the words you feel uncomfortable with blacked out?

    Hmm, the latter seems more likely, given evolutionist's partiality to censorship. :D

    What censorship? Creation science isn't being censored in scientific journals (unless you know something I don't know) and science is not being censored in science class. The bible is freely available and religion is studied in religous schools. Again, what censorship? :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    aggresso wrote: »
    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.
    I thought it would be obvious, but it seems I was mistaken - I of course meant you to refer to non-PE evolutionists, not you personally.

    So I happily admit our joint scientific ignorance. What we shouldn't be ignorant about is that Gould believed the non-PEers were seeing something that wasn't there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Or more formally:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist
    Don't you guys know about dictionaries? Or do your copies have all the words you feel uncomfortable with blacked out?

    Don't 'you guys' understand when a joke's being made?

    I've no problem with any of your formal definitions (what exactly am I supposed to feel uncomfortable about?) - but I do wonder in what way JC (or yourself for that matter) might claim that actual evolutionary scientists use 'self serving definitions' that differ from those you refer to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I thought it would be obvious, but it seems I was mistaken - I of course meant you to refer to non-PE evolutionists, not you personally.

    So I happily admit our joint scientific ignorance. What we shouldn't be ignorant about is that Gould believed the non-PEers were seeing something that wasn't there.

    No offence, but since you freely admit ignorance to the science, exactly what point do you think the quote serves? It nothing more than a good example of cherry-picking.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    2Scoops wrote: »
    What censorship? Creation science isn't being censored in scientific journals (unless you know something I don't know) and science is not being censored in science class. The bible is freely available and religion is studied in religous schools. Again, what censorship? :pac:
    Ah, yes, science is for science classes, creation science for seminaries, and only evolutionary science gets taught in the schools. A brilliant way of censoring under the pretence of reason.

    If it was science is for science classes, evolutionary science for institutes of ideological indoctrination, and only creation science gets taught in the schools - would that be reason? No, it would be censorship.

    Anything contrary to your theory is to be thrashed, but you boast in your open-mindedness.:(


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Ah, yes, science is for science classes, creation science for seminaries, and only evolutionary science gets taught in the schools. A brilliant way of censoring under the pretence of reason.

    As soon as the story of creation gets an evidential basis, it will be welcome in science class. But there is no creation science - you still haven't been able to provide a single example of it for crying out loud! :eek: So what exactly is being kept out of science class? Not science, that's for sure.

    Anyway, it still not censorship if it's freely available! Where on Earth do you get your crazy conspiracy theories? :)
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Anything contrary to your theory is to be thrashed, but you boast in your open-mindedness.:(

    An impressive degree of self awareness you have there. :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    iUseVi wrote: »
    No offence, but since you freely admit ignorance to the science, exactly what point do you think the quote serves? It nothing more than a good example of cherry-picking.
    The quote serves to show that one evolutionist (a PEer) does not see what his non-PE colleages claim is obvious. Hence proving my point that it is quite possible for evolutionists to be utterly deluded about their scientific ideas, while still claiming their overall claims about evolution must be accepted as well-established and beyond debate.

    The Theory of Evolution is as fragile as the evolutionary scientists' opinions about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Ah, yes, science is for science classes, creation science for seminaries, and only evolutionary science gets taught in the schools. A brilliant way of censoring under the pretence of reason.

    If it was science is for science classes, evolutionary science for institutes of ideological indoctrination, and only creation science gets taught in the schools - would that be reason? No, it would be censorship.

    Anything contrary to your theory is to be thrashed, but you boast in your open-mindedness.:(

    Yeah but only the best-supported (by evidence) and most widely supported theories are taught. If you look over the text-books over the last 10 years, you'll easily notice how they change and adapt to include recent science.

    If creation "science" could produce evidence for a theory and publish in peer-reviewed journals, etc...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The quote serves to show that one evolutionist (a PEer) does not see what his non-PE colleages claim is obvious. Hence proving my point that it is quite possible for evolutionists to be utterly deluded about their scientific ideas, while still claiming their overall claims about evolution must be accepted as well-established and beyond debate.

    The Theory of Evolution is as fragile as the evolutionary scientists' opinions about it.

    Yes but PE is only a small change to the theory. It was/is debated furiously by many scientists on both sides. PE only has problems with the constant rate of change. That is all. Not the time frame, or the general theory of evolution.
    Hardly a great example. What it really shows is how little there is to really argue about. Not whether it happened, but rather how it happened, specifically.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    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?
    Looks to me like they are doing creation science - that is, science investigating creationist models of life's origins and development.

    It seems just as clear to me that you are operating a Catch-22 on creation science. Hardly intellectual honesty.

    If you want to classify creation science as non-science, you need to show why. Ideological mantras will not suffice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Yes but PE is only a small change to the theory. It was/is debated furiously by many scientists on both sides. PE only has problems with the constant rate of change. That is all. Not the time frame, or the general theory of evolution.
    Hardly a great example. What it really shows is how little there is to really argue about. Not whether it happened, but rather how it happened, specifically.
    Of course. But if they are ignorant of their blindness on one part of the theory, why not on any or all parts? It is not just that they differed on debatable points, but that they insisted the evidence was plain.

    So when faced with creation scientists who claim the evidence can be interpreted in support of a recent creation, the evolutionists' ridicule holds little weight for me. I see how they operate even among their own.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Of course. But if they are ignorant of their blindness on one part of the theory, why not on any or all parts? It is not just that they differed on debatable points, but that they insisted the evidence was plain.

    So when faced with creation scientists who claim the evidence can be interpreted in support of a recent creation, the evolutionists' ridicule holds little weight for me. I see how they operate even among their own.

    Yes, scientists differ between themselves. But this is how the bad theories are discarded, and the good theories remain. Good theories are supported by evidence and experiments can be devised to test the theories in a repeatable manner. This was explained, many, many post ago.

    As far as creation "science" is concerned where are the alternate theories that match observable phenomenons? Saying "God did it!" is analogous to "Magic!" This is not science.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Looks to me like they are doing creation science

    As a self-confessed non-science expert, on what basis do you make that conclusion?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It seems just as clear to me that you are operating a Catch-22 on creation science. Hardly intellectual honesty.

    If you want to classify creation science as non-science, you need to show why. Ideological mantras will not suffice.

    What catch22? - what are you talking about? We have already discussed this. To recap: science involves novel or confirmatory investigations, where a study design is implemented to test (i.e. falsify or not falsify) a specific hypothesis. Creation science, if such thing exists, would test hypotheses related to the creation story.

    I haven't moved the goalposts, wolfsbane; I've been asking you for just this for months. Aren't you even slightly frustrated at the fact you can't find even a single example? Not even one? What are all these so-called creations scientists doing with their time? They are writing essays, speculation, opinion, NOT SCIENCE, and you know it. :D

    EDIT: my interest in this thread is not atheism vs. creationism, it is science vs. non-science. You claim science's authority but don't have any science. Science is, at best, irrelevant to your beliefs so why do you seek to claim it so aggressively? And why, given your obsession with science, have you not decided to read up on and learn about the current state-of-play in the several years that have gone by since this thread started? Are you happy to remain a non science expert as you so frequently refer to yourself as? Are you willing to take the word of J C and others instead of finding out for yourself?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Yeah but only the best-supported (by evidence) and most widely supported theories are taught. If you look over the text-books over the last 10 years, you'll easily notice how they change and adapt to include recent science.

    If creation "science" could produce evidence for a theory and publish in peer-reviewed journals, etc...

    See the sites I gave for the evidence, for example:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radioisotopes-earth

    As to peer-review, it sort of begs the question: it seems an a priori assumption is made that creation science is religious and therefore cannot be considered regardless of its scientific argument. The creation scientists have set up their own peer-review system and publish peer-reviewed journals, for example:
    CRS Quarterly
    http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement