The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

That the forces of nature that today degrade our DNA

What forces are these?

wolfsbane wrote:

Is it not true that all real processes go with an increase in entropy?

Yes, so does DNA.
The proteins it produces are a decay product. DNA increases local entropy when it forms proteins when forming animals. It causes a decay of atomic energy levels.

Essentially this would eventually lead to animals dying an entropic death, except that Earth is powered by the Sun, which makes Earth an antropic bubble. Short wavelength, low microstate photons enter Earth and high microstate lethargic long wavelength photons leave.
The Sun's light basically takes the entropy from Earth.

Scofflaw

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. 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?

I still can't see why you have such a problem with this one, wolfsbane. After all, you are not a carbon-copy of your parents, nor they of theirs. Are you, then, a degeneration from them?

Consider the breeding of cows. Modern cows are better at giving milk than their ancestors, not worse. They haven't been genetically engineered, they've been bred - very slowly, over the course of hundreds (or thousands) of years. Each generation has been "improved" by the same basic technique - if a cow gives good milk, it is put to stud - if it bears a bull, the bull is put to stud. The cow giving the best milk is preferred by the farmer over other cows - it is likely to have more offspring, and those offspring will be better cared for.

What part of that does not make sense? That's how evolution works - but with the environment in the place of the farmer, millions of years to work with, and no particular goal except survival.

Where in that is your slow degeneration? The farmer does not inject any additional genes into the cows (well, he might, but not to any effect except commission of a crime), but it is clear from the changes in the cows that their genes have changed. Are you suggesting that it didn't happen?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

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.

It's clear you wouldn't even know how. A lot of narrative in historical cultures was presented as history - for a start, they didn't have the same 'empirical' view of history that we do. That Genesis does not say "this is a story" does not mean it isn't, merely that you cannot say for sure that it is, and have therefore chosen to treat it as 'empirical' history.

I would strongly suggest that you do some reading on the nature of history as understood before the scientific age, and on the nature and role of myths, lineages, and 'history' in preliterate cultures. Until then, I don't know that you actually know what you're saying when you say that Genesis is history, or that the genealogies given in the Bible are accurate.

Scofflaw

robindch

> You say their research is rubbish, they say it is authentic.

I say that the utterly miniscule amount of research that they do is worthless because (a) they have already decided on their conclusion beforehand and discard whatever doesn't suit; (b) they do not work according to anything even remotely close to the scientific method; (c) they do not publish in peer-reviewed journals; and (d) as a matter of course, they lie to people like you through their teeth, as I have shown here time and again. And you simply don't know enough about the topic to be able to pick it up as nonsense.

BTW, you'll recall that Behe himself -- the chief architect of ID -- had to admit in the Dover court-case that ID/Creationism was scientifically equivalent to astrology. I can't really put it more simply than that. Do you even accept Behe's own admission of the frivolity of his own topic?

> 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'm sorry to have to point this out to you, but what you've written here about biology shows quite clearly that you have no grasp whatsoever of evolution, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and biology in general. This leaves you at the mercy of frauds like the ones I've mentioned and these guys make their money from fooling people like you and separating you from your money. If you're happy doing that, then that's fine with me, but don't tell me it's science because it's not.

> holding the ordinary evolutionist to be blinded by their materialist
> presuppositions.

You will recall from postings of mine ad meam nauseam, that evolution is a physical theory about a physical process. As such, the close attention it pays to the materials present in the world shouldn't really be a surprise.

BTW, out of interest, when you're sick, do you check out the religious affiliation of the doctors and surgeons you visit and choose accordingly, or, instead, do you try to get to the best medics in the best hospitals in town?

samb

Son Goku wrote:

Essentially this would eventually lead to animals dying an entropic death, except that Earth is powered by the Sun, which makes Earth an antropic bubble. Short wavelength, low microstate photons enter Earth and high microstate lethargic long wavelength photons leave.
The Sun's light basically takes the entropy from Earth.

This is very interesting, perhaps you could expand on it. In what forms does energy leave the earth? Radiation of longer wavelength radiation. Surely it leaves in other forms?

samb

wolfsbane wrote:

samb said:

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 are supposing that the gap between organic and inorganic is black and white. All you would require is a molecule that is capable of replicating itself, there are many examples of these.
Most of the process that cause dead organic matter to rot are not physical/chemical but biological. This is why life from complex replicating molecules is unlikely to occur again, because all the micro-organisms would quickly consume them. These early replicators had no such pressures. They also had about 900,000,000 years and the entire oceans of the world. An experiment of this scale can hardly be carried out, but it illustrates that the 'amazing sequence of events' and 'chance' is not unfathomable, not at least for any imaginative descendant not blinded will delusions of grandeur.

Scofflaw

samb wrote:

This is very interesting, perhaps you could expand on it. In what forms does energy leave the earth? Radiation of longer wavelength radiation. Surely it leaves in other forms?

Radiation is certainly the main method, but there is also escape of high-energy gas molecules from the top of the atmosphere. It's also worth noting that the Earth also radiates as a result of core heat.

Have a look here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

What forces are these?

Cosmic radiation.

Essentially this would eventually lead to animals dying an entropic death, except that Earth is powered by the Sun, which makes Earth an antropic bubble. Short wavelength, low microstate photons enter Earth and high microstate lethargic long wavelength photons leave.
The Sun's light basically takes the entropy from Earth.

So cosmic radiation, while adding heat to the earth and so making the earth negatively entropic, also overall does good things to life-forms? This is bad news for the sun-block lotion industry.

See, I thought the Sun's radiation provided helpful energy to already existing complex things (like plants, by way of photosynthesis, or humans in production of certain vitamins), but at the same time introducing harmful mutations to their DNA, giving a long term degeneration. And for the first life-forms, it would have been virtually all bad effects from the start.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I still can't see why you have such a problem with this one, wolfsbane. After all, you are not a carbon-copy of your parents, nor they of theirs. Are you, then, a degeneration from them?

Yes, I would think so. I doubt if any genetic mutations I have passed on to my children were an increase of helpful information. That would have applied to my parents and their's also. Do you think your genetic code is the same, better or worse than your ancestors? Why?

Where in that is your slow degeneration? The farmer does not inject any additional genes into the cows (well, he might, but not to any effect except commission of a crime), but it is clear from the changes in the cows that their genes have changed. Are you suggesting that it didn't happen?

The higher yield of milk from the cow is beneficial - to man. The unnaturally large udders are definitely not an improvement for the cow; left to its own devices such cows will suffer greatly. The genetic change does not represent an increase of complexity or helpful information, but a specialization by reduction of information - and in this case not in the interests of the cow.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Cosmic radiation.

Although technically true, the effect is miniscule.

wolfsbane wrote:

So cosmic radiation, while adding heat to the earth and so making the earth negatively entropic, also overall does good things to life-forms? This is bad news for the sun-block lotion industry.

What?
The Sun's light while adding heat to the earth and so making the earth negatively entropic, does do good to life forms, by heating the earth and reducing entropy.
UV sunlight can cause skin cancer, but so what?

wolfsbane wrote:

See, I thought the Sun's radiation provided helpful energy to already existing complex things (like plants, by way of photosynthesis, or humans in production of certain vitamins), but at the same time introducing harmful mutations to their DNA, giving a long term degeneration. And for the first life-forms, it would have been virtually all bad effects from the start.

It can degrade DNA, but the effect is no where near large enough to pose any serious threat to any animals genome.

The Sun reduces entropy and can cause cancers and damage DNA.
The benefits of reducing entropy far, far out weigh the negatives of the other two.
Harmful mutations are easily breed out. Are you actually suggesting that the Sun is slowly annihilating the gene pool?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I would think so. I doubt if any genetic mutations I have passed on to my children were an increase of helpful information. That would have applied to my parents and their's also. Do you think your genetic code is the same, better or worse than your ancestors? Why?

No, it is simply different. Whether it is better or worse depends on the environment.

wolfsbane wrote:

The higher yield of milk from the cow is beneficial - to man. The unnaturally large udders are definitely not an improvement for the cow; left to its own devices such cows will suffer greatly. The genetic change does not represent an increase of complexity or helpful information, but a specialization by reduction of information - and in this case not in the interests of the cow.

Okay what exactly does information mean in this context. Can you point to something and specify a change in it that corresponds to an increase or decrease in information.

There is information in DNA, but not in the immediate sense of the word.
For instance Ferns have more genetic information in their DNA than human beings.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

It's clear you wouldn't even know how. A lot of narrative in historical cultures was presented as history - for a start, they didn't have the same 'empirical' view of history that we do.

What heathen cultures did is of no concern to what the Old Testament and New Testament people of God thought. Their perversions in ideology and practice were specifically counter to godly culture. Anytime the people of God meddled with such thinking, God punished them for it. The NT Christians were warned not to engage in anything but the plain truth:
Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
1 Timothy 4:7 But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.

The whole Bible boasts itself as being the truth of God, inerrant, totally reliable. That is how the Church has always taken it. They were well aware of the fantastic legends the heathen believed, but Bible history was not treated as anything but history.

Your comments would be valid if the OT and NT people of God were just like the nations around them - but they were not. I can see how an unbeliever would say they were, but that is not what any Christian could accept.

What we would need to hear from Christians who hold the Genesis account as a myth, is what bits of the OT (or NT for that matter) they regard as actual history and why. Start with Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Seth, Enoch, etc. Just let us know where myth left off and history began - and how they can tell the difference.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

And you simply don't know enough about the topic to be able to pick it up as nonsense.

That may indeed be the case. I wouldn't be able to know that of course. So I have to reply on some sense I have of detecting delusion/propaganda and the comparative credibility of the two camps.

BTW, you'll recall that Behe himself -- the chief architect of ID -- had to admit in the Dover court-case that ID/Creationism was scientifically equivalent to astrology. I can't really put it more simply than that. Do you even accept Behe's own admission of the frivolity of his own topic?

I think you are misrepresenting him. I have read the transcript and direct you to the portion that ends,
Well, that s what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I m not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense. See http://www.beliefnet.com/story/177/story_17774_4.html

See also: http://www.godspy.com/reviews/After-Dover-An-Interview-with-Professor-Michael-Behe-about-Intelligent-Design-by-Angelo-Matera.cfm for an enlightening interview on the distinction between ID and YEC.

You will recall from postings of mine ad meam nauseam, that evolution is a physical theory about a physical process.

You will recall my points that their interpretation of the evidence is guided by materialistic presuppositions.

BTW, out of interest, when you're sick, do you check out the religious affiliation of the doctors and surgeons you visit and choose accordingly, or, instead, do you try to get to the best medics in the best hospitals in town?

Normally the best. Maybe not if I was old and very sick, as I don't fancy being euthanized without my consent. But let me ask you the same question. Would a Creationist physician at Good Shepherd Hospital be suspect as not a real physician?

wolfsbane

samb said:

not at least for any imaginative descendant not blinded will delusions of grandeur.

Imaginative is certainly the key word.:)

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

It can degrade DNA, but the effect is no where near large enough to pose any serious threat to any animals genome.

The Sun reduces entropy and can cause cancers and damage DNA.
The benefits of reducing entropy far, far out weigh the negatives of the other two.
Harmful mutations are easily breed out. Are you actually suggesting that the Sun is slowly annihilating the gene pool?

So the cumulative effect of such degradation over millions of years would be negligible??? How is entropy in the life-form reduced? I can see how it is for the planet; not for living things, not for an upward move in complexity/order.

Yes, I would think the gene-pool is on a downward slope.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Okay what exactly does information mean in this context. Can you point to something and specify a change in it that corresponds to an increase or decrease in information.

There is information in DNA, but not in the immediate sense of the word.
For instance Ferns have more genetic information in their DNA than human beings.

From my layman's knowledge, I gather the ability for a cow to develop in certain ways will have been eliminated by the selection that occurred - specialization involves loss from the gene pool. Am I wrong in that assumption?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:

So the cumulative effect of such degradation over millions of years would be negligible??? How is entropy in the life-form reduced? I can see how it is for the planet; not for living things, not for an upward move in complexity/order.

Yes, I would think the gene-pool is on a downward slope.

Well, to be frank, it isn't really. There is nothing to support that.
The cumulative effect of degradation over millions of years would be pretty much negligable. It is swamped by other shifts in the genome.
Stellar radiation hardly ever effects the genetic material in reproductive cells and even then it can only effects a select few, which will have a negligable chance themselves of being passed on.
You can be riddled with skin cancer and still have kids with perfect genetics. That is why we have sex cells. Cells which pass on genes, isolated from whatever genetic damage may have occured to your other cells.

robindch

> I think you are misrepresenting him.

I wish that I were, but unfortunately, I'm not. The relevant bit from Judge Jone's judgement is this bit, which I've quoted before:

[...] lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology

On the following page, the judgement continues:

Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. [...] Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science

...then finishes up with this quote from the USA's National Academy of Sciences:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

So, given that all the relevant scientific organizations claim that creationism is not science, do you accept the word of scientists on science?

> You will recall my points that their interpretation of the evidence is
> guided by materialistic presuppositions.

Again, so what? We are dealing with physical processes which involving atoms, molecules, electromagnetism, etc, etc. The explanations and reasoning behind these processes is going to involve considerations of the same atoms, molecules, forces etc.

If, however, you want to discuss the evolution (or creation) of the ineffable and immaterial soul, rather than biochemistry, then you're welcome to introduce ineffable and immaterial deity/deities required, but biochemistry doesn't need a deity to make it all work any more than your car does.

> Would a Creationist physician at Good Shepherd Hospital be suspect
> as not a real physician?

Yes, in case he followed any biblical treatments for anything (see my post anon about the biblical treatment for leprosy). In exactly the same way that I'd be concerned if the pilot of the plane I was in thought that the earth was flat because the bible says it is. Or if an astronaut decided that the sun went around the earth, as implied elsewhere in the bible. Or if the chemist who makes up my panadol spends his spare time trying to turn "base metals" into gold. And if I saw my doctor settling down for a prayer session before operating upon me, I can assure you that I'd be out the door as quick as I could to find somebody who's concerned with me and not his religion.

And, FYI, euthanasia has nothing to do with evolution.

> specialization involves loss from the gene pool. Am I wrong in
> that assumption?

Yes, you are wrong in this assumption. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

...for further details on this.

Yes, in case he followed any biblical treatments for anything (see my post anon about the biblical treatment for leprosy). In exactly the same way that I'd be concerned if the pilot of the plane I was in thought that the earth was flat because the bible says it is. Or if an astronaut decided that the sun went around the earth, as implied elsewhere in the bible. Or if the chemist who makes up my panadol spends his spare time trying to turn "base metals" into gold. And if I saw my doctor settling down for a prayer session before operating upon me, I can assure you that I'd be out the door as quick as I could to find somebody who's concerned with me and not his religion.

...reminds me very much of
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/blueywolf/db051218.gif
Sorry, nothing useful, but still.

John Doe

wolfsbane wrote:

their interpretation of the evidence is guided by materialistic presuppositions.

'Materialism' seems to be quite a good alternative name for 'science'. I wish you would stop trying to fight this battle on such weird quasi-scientific grounds. When within the field of science, one should use the laws of science as much as one knows them. Beyond that point, one should interpret the opinions of those who are expert in the field in a scientific manner.
This means accepting the opinions of the majority over the minority. The majority in question are biased towards science, that is all. It is not an unreasonable bias, given their profession. I don't know enough about ancient religious texts to interpret them. I don't, therefore, accept the interpretations of them that I like the most. Instead I accept the interpretations that are favoured by the majority of experts in the field, as far as I know.
I might as well not say this, as it has been said so many times before. Oh well, maybe we'll get through eventually.

robindch

> 'Materialism' seems to be quite a good alternative name for 'science'.

Complete piffle -- you are falling into the one-word/two-meanings language traps set up by our religious colleagues.

To scientists, a material is something that you can touch and do something with. Scientific explanations consist of explaining how these materials interact with each other, using these materials and the relevant forces only. "Materialism" as you seem to use it here has no meaning within science.

To a religious believer (and I think I'm on solid ground including all religious people here; any dissenters, please make yourself known), materialism is a poisonous philosophy which denies the existence of that particular religion's god or gods.

The two word-concepts have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but you will still find plenty of people actively willing to mix them up in order to condemn what they seem unwilling to put the time into understanding. For examples of this, see our creationist brethrens' postings here over the last few months concerning the weird, unnatural concept "morality of evolution"

samb

wolfsbane wrote:

samb said:

Imaginative is certainly the key word.:)

Agreed. We use our ability to imagines 'visualisations' in order to comprehend. Do you have difficulties with this?
I can imagine some God up in some fluffy cloads looking down judging us all and going tut tut etc.--the difference is it doesn't fit with the reality we observe.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

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:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..

The court has prohibited free speech by not allowing the teaching of creationism. Even where the majority would want it taught

robindch wrote:

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?..

Sorry Robin but the USA is not run by fundamentalist Christians. The USA school system is run by the American teachers Association, the most powerful union in the US, which sets curriculum and is hostile to Christianity. If they were Christian the cases in PA and Kansas would never have gotten to the courts. Why would Christian parents have needed to go teh route they did if fundies ran the show as you claim?

robindch wrote:

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.

So you are advocating keeping them ignorant of creationism, because you don't agree with it, and this ignorance will allow them to pursue free-thought?
Absolutely, teach them about the flying spaghetti monster, they will see how ridiculous some ideas can be.

Son Goku

Brian do you think we should teach children every single creation myth ever so as not to restrict their free thought?

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

Brian do you think we should teach children every single creation myth ever so as not to restrict their free thought?

Within reason. In our neighbourhood for example, we have a large native reservation on th eoutskirts of the city, I would propose teaching native North American religion which would include their origins.

We also have a sizable Muslim population and then the majors, Buddhism and Hinduism. We also learnt Roman and Greek in our literature classes in High School.

Jesus tells us to search for the truth. The only way to find it is through dialogue. When you search with an open heart you will find the truth in Jesus. However, people are taught such negatives about Christianity when a relationship with Christ is the best most positive life you can live.

Why do evolutionists and atheists have such a problem with teaching Christianity as a part of our school curriculums? (Among other religions.) Their seems to be quite an intolerance of such a proposal.

Son Goku

Within reason. In our neighbourhood for example, we have a large native reservation on th eoutskirts of the city, I would propose teaching native North American religion which would include their origins.

We also have a sizable Muslim population and then the majors, Buddhism and Hinduism. We also learnt Roman and Greek in our literature classes in High School.

Jesus tells us to search for the truth. The only way to find it is through dialogue. When you search with an open heart you will find the truth in Jesus. However, people are taught such negatives about Christianity when a relationship with Christ is the best most positive life you can live.

Okay, fair enough. I won't be pedantic, I understand it has to be within reason.

Why do evolutionists and atheists have such a problem with teaching Christianity as a part of our school curriculums?

I'd have a problem with Genesis and other Creation Myths being thought as science, but if it is in a comparitive religion class or litrature classes as you said above then I'd have no problems at all.

ISAW

BrianCalgary wrote:

Within reason. In our neighbourhood for example, we have a large native reservation on th eoutskirts of the city, I would propose teaching native North American religion which would include their origins.

We also have a sizable Muslim population and then the majors, Buddhism and Hinduism. We also learnt Roman and Greek in our literature classes in High School.

Jesus tells us to search for the truth. The only way to find it is through dialogue. When you search with an open heart you will find the truth in Jesus. However, people are taught such negatives about Christianity when a relationship with Christ is the best most positive life you can live.

Why do evolutionists and atheists have such a problem with teaching Christianity as a part of our school curriculums? (Among other religions.) Their seems to be quite an intolerance of such a proposal.

They dont! Indeed in the most catholic country in the world - Ireland religion is on the curriculum. Various faiths' schools also get funded by the the State. to say that creationism should be a central feature of that is not acceptable however. Jesus never commented on the Earth being created 6000 or so years ago.

I would also like to point out the Genetic Fallacy i.e. the confusion of the origin or gebnesis of something with the cause. Just because Hindus American natives or Christians first came up with a particular version does not mean that is the primary cause.
In the same way when someone first said the earth moved that did not mean it began moving when they said it did.

Finally there is a problem with Biblical Fundamentalism. Some people believe that everything in the bible is literally true. this includes killing witches, stoning homosexuals and adulterers, the Earth being created 4004 BC and so on. These beliefs are not compatible with scientific evidence or with social values. It isnt a case of toleration. You nay believe the Moon is made of cheese if you like but dont expect NASA to fund a mission on the basis that you are collecting Holy cheese created by God.

On a related issue there is the non written Christian tradition which is usually rejected by fundamentalists. What did the early christians do for the first five centuries for example? They didnt have bible texts. They also had things other than the bible to go by - namely the oral tradition.

John Doe

robindch wrote:

To scientists, a material is something that you can touch and do something with. Scientific explanations consist of explaining how these materials interact with each other, using these materials and the relevant forces only.

Yes....So what does science concern itself that isn't material? Surely scientists should only be interested in what they can measure? What I was trying to say is that accusing a scientist of being preoccupied with materials is meaningless, because that's his/her job description really.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

So, given that all the relevant scientific organizations claim that creationism is not science, do you accept the word of scientists on science?

Certainly not, for the obvious reason that they are defending their materialist orthodoxy. They are not unbiased witnesses.

Again, so what? We are dealing with physical processes which involving atoms, molecules, electromagnetism, etc, etc. The explanations and reasoning behind these processes is going to involve considerations of the same atoms, molecules, forces etc.

But that gives no excuse to rule out an intellient creator of these material processes. It is this insistence of that matter itself is the only permissible originator of matter and its processes that is both illogical and prejudiced.

Yes, in case he followed any biblical treatments for anything (see my post anon about the biblical treatment for leprosy). In exactly the same way that I'd be concerned if the pilot of the plane I was in thought that the earth was flat because the bible says it is. Or if an astronaut decided that the sun went around the earth, as implied elsewhere in the bible. Or if the chemist who makes up my panadol spends his spare time trying to turn "base metals" into gold. And if I saw my doctor settling down for a prayer session before operating upon me, I can assure you that I'd be out the door as quick as I could to find somebody who's concerned with me and not his religion.

You have erred in thinking ceremonial cleansing was directly medicinal; likewise that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat or that the Sun goes around it. And nowhere does the Bible teach that we can turn base metals into gold. Finally, some unbelievers would be glad to know a surgeon regarded his work so seriously that he prayed for God's help for it.

Yes, you are wrong in this assumption.

That too is disputed by qualified scientists.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

You can be riddled with skin cancer and still have kids with perfect genetics. That is why we have sex cells. Cells which pass on genes, isolated from whatever genetic damage may have occured to your other cells.

The damage from solar radiation is not confined to skin cells. You know that radiation from the sun and from rocks (eg. radon gas) can damage to the core. The combined effects of natural forces has introduced genetic degradation over time, not genetic enhancement. With a mere 6000 years since the perfect genepool, we are in fair condition. But what would we be like after, say 200,000 years? We do pass on the defects in our genes, witness the hereditary disorders around us. Do you not think Selafield endangers not only the present population of the east coast of Ireland but also its children by genetic disorders?