The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.......the scientific observations of ID proponents and Creationists are particularly unneeded in the minds of Militant Atheists .....and they are therefore also particularly unwelcome......as this thread amply attests!!!!!:eek::)

Where are these militant atheists? I've never met one, have you?

Scientists will welcome (or at least listen to) scientific criticism. ID and creationism are not science as they fail the very first test for a scientific hypothesis. They are not falsifiable.

Creationists begin with an assumption from which it is not possible to move them. Many scientific hypotheses have been abandoned for want of evidence. Since creationists would never accept evidence of the non-existence of the creator, even if that were conclusively possible, they are not scientists. They have an agenda which permeates every level of their thinking and explorations. They also have a clear motive to mislead themselves and others, whereas scientists have every motive to tear each others work apart if it has weaknesses.

Giblet

AtomicHorror wrote: »

For someone who writes in a barely-comprehensible stream of consiousness, you talk an awful lot about other people writing like Joyce.

Maybe he is a girl after all. Molly Bloom!

AtomicHorror

AtomicHorror wrote: »

...whereas scientists have every motive to tear each others work apart if it has weaknesses.

And almost as if on cue...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/26/bird-evolution.html

...our understanding of the evolutionary history of birds is challenged. It's likely that this will divide the scientific community (at least in the relevant fields) until the work can be either refuted or confirmed.

Egos and careers may well be threatened by these findings. PhD students working on the old model will find themselves in a tricky position. Books will need to be re-written (yet again). Does any of this stop the publication of new data? Absolutely not.

The primary paper on this:

RT Kimball, S Reddy et al. (2008) Science 27 June, Vol. 320. no. 5884, pages 1763 - 1768

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And almost as if on cue...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/26/bird-evolution.html

...our understanding of the evolutionary history of birds is challenged. It's likely that this will divide the scientific community (at least in the relevant fields) until the work can be either refuted or confirmed.

Damnit! I couldn't be bothered relearning everything. I'm gonna just deny it all.

But seriously, it's about time someone did this. For far too long we have made assumptions about evolutionary relationships between birds. Its good to see some proper data shake things up a bit.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

"Is not eternal death a happier prospect than eternal life?"

......YES.....if you are destined for Hell
......and NO.....if you are destined for Heaven!!!

.......anyway, you don't have the choice between eternal death and life.....

......God has decided that everyone WILL have an eternal existence......
.......and whether you spend eternity in Heaven or Hell will be determined by whether YOU decide to believe on Jesus Christ to save you....or not!!!

J C

robindch wrote: »

Yes indeed, and as I said above, I have no idea why you keep obsessing about the obviously daft idea that life suddenly showed up "spontaneously".

....could I gently point out the significant differerence between the words 'suddenly' and 'spontaneously'......Spontaneous Evolution doesn't postulate that things evolved 'suddenly' (which I agree is impossible)......it postulates that they evolved 'spontaneously' i.e. using the normal physical and chemical laws and without any intelligent input (which is ALSO impossible)!!!!:):D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.......yes Robin seems to be 'all shook up' about many things.......he is even fantasising that I am a WOMAN!!!!!

Robin
I can assure you JC, that I do not fantasize about you at all! At all!!

.......methinks that Robin protests too much.......

.......just my luck to have a man fantasising about me being a WOMAN!!!

.........if somebody MUST fantasise about me, why oh why ......could it not have been a beautiful woman fantasising about my manly prose?????? :):D

MooseJam

what happened to Scofflaw ?, has he given up this thread ?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....could I gently point out the significant differerence between the words 'suddenly' and 'spontaneously'......Spontaneous Evolution doesn't postulate that things evolved 'suddenly' (which I agree is impossible)......it postulates that they evolved 'spontaneously' i.e. using the normal physical and chemical laws and without any intelligent input (which is ALSO impossible)!!!!:):D

And can we, for at least the third time, gently remind you that spontaneous means "occurring without apparent external influence", intelligent or otherwise. Your use of the term "spontaneous evolution", whatever you intend it to mean, is incorrect and misleading. Your definition of "spontaneous", given that you have been corrected many times, is a conscious lie.

"Spontaneous" also has common-use implications which suggest rapidity, suddenness and perhaps even randomness. While you've made clear that this is not your meaning, unless you would make this clear every time you use this phrase of your invention, you should stop using it.

AtomicHorror

MooseJam wrote: »

what happened to Scofflaw ?, has he given up this thread ?

Yep.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And almost as if on cue...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/26/bird-evolution.html

...our understanding of the evolutionary history of birds is challenged. It's likely that this will divide the scientific community (at least in the relevant fields) until the work can be either refuted or confirmed.

Egos and careers may well be threatened by these findings. PhD students working on the old model will find themselves in a tricky position. Books will need to be re-written (yet again).

.........yes egos may be threathened, etc.......but the ONE THING that will never be questioned is whether life evolved!!!!!

.......Evolutionists are like medieval theologians arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.......they will argue over the number of angels and the size of the pin (i.e. the DETAILS of Evolution)........but they will never argue over the existence of the angels and pin (i.e. the EXISTENCE of Evolution as the progenator of all living organisms).

David Berlinski explains the dilemma faced by the Scientific Atheist very well in the following quote (emphasis in the original):-
"Neither scientific credibility nor sound good sense is at issue in any of these declarations (about evolution). They are absurd; they are understood to be absurd; and what is more, assent is demanded just because they are absurd. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs," the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked, "in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravigant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories."

Why should any discerning man or woman take the side of science, or anything else, under these circumstances? It is because, Lewontin explains, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If one is obliged to accept (such) absurdities for fear of a Divine Foot, imagine what prodigies of effort would be required were the rest of the Divine Torso (to be) found wedged at the door and with some justifiable irritation demanding to be let in?"

......and that is why such enormous amounts of energy and verbage are being expended by Atheists and such patent absurdities are being accepted by them.......in order to exclude Creation Science (and the entire person of God and His Creation) from entering the 'door' to scientific discussion and evaluation!!!:pac::):D

.......and the Atheists will deploy as much, and possibly even more, energy and vitrol against any Theistic Evolutionist who allows even a Divine Toe in the door.....and such is the unhappy fate for Evolutionists who even suggest that living organisms show evidence of being Intelligently Designed.

......the ONLY way that a Theistic Evolutionist will not incur the wrath of the Materialists is by accepting that the entire process from the so-called 'Big Bang' to the supposed evolution of Humans from Pond Slime was a purely 'natural' process with NO supernatural input at ANY STAGE during the process......
.....and apparently many 'Theistic' Evolutionists have 'signed on' to such a scenario......
.......one wonders why they still bother calling themselves Theists ......when Deists or Agnostics would be a much more accurate descriptor of their current philosophical outlook!!!!!:eek::pac::):D

Zombrex

MooseJam wrote: »

what happened to Scofflaw ?, has he given up this thread ?

Do you blame him.

JC appears to have turned into a parody of himself, and the other Creationists posters only pop up everyone once in a while.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.........yes egos may be threathened, etc.......but the ONE THING that will never be questioned is whether life evolved!!!!!

On the contrary, this was questioned extensively and contested frequently until the 1930s. A period of over 70 years. It was only then that a consensus was reached.

J C wrote: »

.......Evolutionists are like medieval theologians arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.......they will argue over the number of angels and the size of the pin (i.e. the DETAILS of Evolution)........but they will never argue over the existence of the angels and pin (i.e. the EXISTENCE of Evolution as the progenator of all living organisms).

As stated above, this is untrue. It is merely that we have questioned it enough to have confidence in it. We don't question the basic design of the wheel, it has been tested enough and so now we expend our efforts upon the "details" as you put it.

Do creationists question the existence of the creator? Do you, for that matter J C?

J C wrote: »

David Berlinski explains the dilemma faced by the Scientific Atheist very well in the following quote (emphasis in the original):-
"Neither scientific credibility nor sound good sense is at issue in any of these declarations (about evolution). They are absurd; they are understood to be absurd; and what is more, assent is demanded just because they are absurd. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs," the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked, "in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravigant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories."

Berlinski is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. An intelligent design proponent. His quoting of a geneticist's personal opinion has no bearing on a scientific discussion.

J C wrote: »

Why should any discerning man or woman take the side of science, or anything else, under these circumstances? It is because, Lewontin explains, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If one is obliged to accept (such) absurdities for fear of a Divine Foot, imagine what prodigies of effort would be required were the rest of the Divine Torso (to be) found wedged at the door and with some justifiable irritation demanding to be let in?"

Who spoke of fear? Only you. The "divine foot" has no place in science, since science is the practice of building rules upon the observable. The divine foot, torso and other parts are not observable. What absurdities that exist in science are shared by religions. The difference is that science strives at its core to do away with the unreasonable. It is imperfect, as are humans, but it is the better way by far.

J C wrote: »

......and that is why such enormous amounts of energy and verbage are being expended by Atheists and such patent absurdities are being accepted by them.......in order to exclude Creation Science (and the entire person of God and His Creation) from entering the 'door' to scientific discussion and evaluation!!!:pac::):D

Rubbish, they've been evaluated. You are merely hurt at how easily creationism was brushed aside by the most casual examiniation. All that rhetoric to support a house of cards that fell apart at the first breath of science.

You now seek to convince the undecided masses that we scientists are... what? Afraid to see? Afraid to see a happy world in which there is a loving creator God? An afterlife for us and our loved ones? An objective purpose for us all? To see such wonderful things that every human would love to accept? What possible motive could we have to reject any findings which showed that beautiful world to be reality? Our duty is to the truth, be it unpalatable or otherwise.

You're the one who is afraid J C. You and others like you. You are afraid that if you let the Rational Foot in the door... evolution... that it will leave you no option but to face the uncomfortable, frightening possibilities that come with the rest of the Rational Body.

If your God is real, no construction or realisation of man can destroy Him. Live in your dream if you must, but let others find the truth without having to sift through the lies you would spread.

robindch

MooseJam wrote: »

what happened to Scofflaw ?, has he given up this thread ?

For the moment, I believe -- there's only so many times that one can point out that white really is white, before repetition suggests that the writer is dumber than the reader!

On and off, he's been battling the rabble over in the EU forum, and I suspect he may be around http://www.politics.ie too.

.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by MooseJam
what happened to Scofflaw ?, has he given up this thread ?

AtomicHorror
Yep.

........Scofflaw is obviously afraid to discuss many of the issues arising on this thread.......he appears to have made commitments to persons unknown to express no opinion on certain subjects......

.......and Scofflaws absence as well as a few people 'on ignore' brings down my active opponents on this thread to about one hundred!!!!:eek::)

J C

robindch wrote: »

For the moment, I believe -- there's only so many times that one can point out that white really is white, before repetition suggests that the writer is dumber than the reader!

On and off, he's (Scofflaw) been battling the rabble over in the EU forum, and I suspect he may be around http://www.politics.ie too.

.

..........MESSAGE....Scofflaw and Robin (being Evolutionists) are the 'Elite'.......everyone else is the 'rabble'......

.....I guess that puts us all 'in our place'!!!:D

robindch

J C wrote: »

Scofflaw is obviously afraid to discuss many of the issues arising on this thread

I sense a slight touch of pots and kettles here, given that you're too frightened to read AH's post above which thoroughly demolishes some of your more extravagantly unhinged ideas! :):eek::):)

robindch

J C wrote: »

Scofflaw and Robin (being Evolutionists) are the 'Elite'.......everyone else are the 'rabble'.

Nope, just less uninformed. :rolleyes: Nothing "elite" about it at all, my dear! :cool::cool:

(btw, it's "everyone else is the 'rabble'"; 'one' is singular in English :))

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And can we, for at least the third time, gently remind you that spontaneous means "occurring without apparent external influence", intelligent or otherwise. Your use of the term "spontaneous evolution", whatever you intend it to mean, is incorrect and misleading. Your definition of "spontaneous", given that you have been corrected many times, is a conscious lie.

My definition (and use) of the word 'spontaneous' to describe Materialistic Evolution is indeed both accurate and correct.
Could I gently point out that I AGREE with you that spontaneous means "occurring without apparent external influence", intelligent or otherwise.....
.....and as the ONLY entity ever proposed as external to the Material Universe is it's TRANSCENDENT God my use of the word 'spontaneous' describes evolution WITHOUT the involvement of any such external influence.....

......which is precisely what the Materialists claim to have occurred......

......the reason you 'bristle' and react to the use of the term 'Spontaneous Evolution' is because it shows how preposterous the idea of pondslime 'lifting itself up by its own 'materialist bootstraps' to become Man truly is !!!!!!

Materialistic or Darwininian Evolution may sound 'better'.....but they are ACTUALLY both describing Spontaneous Evolution!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

"Spontaneous" also has common-use implications which suggest rapidity, suddenness and perhaps even randomness. While you've made clear that this is not your meaning, unless you would make this clear every time you use this phrase of your invention, you should stop using it.

....the supposed 'motive force' behind Darwinian Evolution is mutation.....and mutations CAN PRODUCE rapid, sudden and random results......so the term 'Spontaneous' can be correctly used to describe Materialistic Evolution without the need for any further qualification!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.........yes egos may be threathened, etc.......but the ONE THING that will never be questioned is whether life evolved!!!!!

AtomicHorror
On the contrary, this was questioned extensively and contested frequently until the 1930s. A period of over 70 years. It was only then that a consensus was reached.

............a 'consensus' was reached about the 'validity' of many things during the 1930s (Communism and Nazism being obvious examples)......but 'further review' found many aspects of such 'consensus' to be UNFOUNDED!!!:)
.....when it comes to Evolution the only thing that changed in the 1930s was that Evolutionists gained substantive control of all educational institutions.....and proceeded to suppress any further discussion about the validity of Evolution!!!!

.....so what you claim to be 'consensus' is actually the denial of any further questioning of Evolution!!!!:D

wrote:

Atomic Horror
Do creationists question the existence of the creator? Do you, for that matter J C?

.....I question my Creator, Jesus Christ, every day....and His Holy Spirit gently assures me that He was there at the Creation of the World.....and will also be there at it's end!!!!

......equally, the objective scientific evidence proclaims the ultimate source of all to be a God of infinite, power, beauty and intelligence!!!:)

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
David Berlinski explains the dilemma faced by the Scientific Atheist very well in the following quote (emphasis in the original):-
"Neither scientific credibility nor sound good sense is at issue in any of these declarations (about evolution). They are absurd; they are understood to be absurd; and what is more, assent is demanded just because they are absurd. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs," the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked, "in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravigant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories."

Atomic Horror
Berlinski is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. An intelligent design proponent. His quoting of a geneticist's personal opinion has no bearing on a scientific discussion.

....Berlinski describes himself as a 'Secular Jew'...........so he is NOT the stereotypical 'Biblical Christian' that Atheists conjur up when describing Creationists!!!!
.....equally, Richard Lewontin was expressing his SCIENTIFIC opinion when he said that Atheists take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs:
For example. logic would dictate that Creation by an omnipotent and omniscient God is possible.........while 'nothing spontaneously blowing up into everything' in the Big Bang......is indeed a PATENT ABSURDITY!!!

.....equally, the Creation and Intelligent Design of life-forms that are observed to contain gargantuan levels of tightly specified and highly interactive INFORMATION.....logically dictates that it was Created by an omnipotent and omniscient Intelligence of God-like proportions......while the idea that Pondslime spontaneously pulled itself up by its own 'bootstraps' to become Man is another one of the patent absurdities....to which Richard Lewontin refers!!! :pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

........Scofflaw is obviously afraid to discuss many of the issues arising on this thread.......he appears to have made commitments to persons unknown to express no opinion on certain subjects......

Afraid no... tired, yes. Thats the only way you actually "win". Congrats on that, you bore people into submission.

J C wrote: »

.......and Scofflaws absence as well as a few people 'on ignore' brings down my active opponents on this thread to about one hundred!!!!:eek::)

Or about five opponents. Exaggerate much?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

..........MESSAGE....Scofflaw and Robin (being Evolutionists) are the 'Elite'.......everyone else are the 'rabble'......

.....I guess that puts us all 'in our place'!!!:D

Do you recognise sarcasm when you see it?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

My definition (and use) of the word 'spontaneous' to describe Materialistic Evolution is indeed both accurate and correct.
Could I gently point out that I AGREE with you that spontaneous means "occurring without apparent external influence", intelligent or otherwise.....
.....and as the ONLY entity ever proposed as external to the Material Universe is it's TRANSCENDENT God my use of the word 'spontaneous' describes evolution WITHOUT the involvement of any such external influence.....

Rubbish. In chemistry, we have countless non-spontaneous reactions that occur safely within the confines of the observable universe. We do not look at the universe as separated into observable and supernatural parts when considering this. Even were we to accept your definition, if it takes a paragraph for you to fully qualify the meaning of a phrase you have made up, you should not use it. A casual reader can find texts on Darwinian evolution, but not "spontaneous evolution".

Do one or other thing for us please:

1) Stop using the term "spontaneous evolution" or
2) Fully qualify it with each and every use.

J C wrote: »

......which is precisely what the Materialists claim to have occurred......

And which has a name. Darwinian Evolution. Why are you so reluctant to use that term which anyone and everyone can look up in Wikipedia? Ah of course, because it has no emotive qualifiers attached to it.

J C wrote: »

......the reason you 'bristle' and react to the use of the term 'Spontaneous Evolution' is because it shows how preposterous the idea of pondslime 'lifting itself up by its own 'materialist bootstraps' to become Man truly is !!!!!!

I object to it because its meaning is ambiguous and misleading. I object to it because your intent in using it is to mislead. Even the "preposterous" summary you provide is written in ignorance of the complexity of the theory and what it actually says.

J C wrote: »

Materialistic or Darwininian Evolution may sound 'better'.....but they are ACTUALLY both describing Spontaneous Evolution!!!

Numerous processes, spontaneous and non-spontaneous (in both the scientific meaning of the terms and the common-use meaning) contribute to Darwinian Evolution. Thus, to equate Darwinian Evolution to "spontaneous evolution" is inaccurate at best.

J C wrote: »

....the supposed 'motive force' behind Darwinian Evolution is mutation.....and mutations CAN PRODUCE rapid, sudden and random results......so the term 'Spontaneous' can be correctly used to describe Materialistic Evolution without the need for any further qualification!!!:D

Wrong. At best the above would allow you to describe some forms of mutation as spontaneous and only if you stated which forms and qualified that you mean "spontaneous" in it's common and non-scientific usage. It would not allow you to blanket an entire theory with that adjective.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

............a 'consensus' was reached about the 'validity' of many things during the 1930s (Communism and Nazism being obvious examples)......but 'further review' found many aspects of such 'consensus' to be UNFOUNDED!!!:)

Communism is not a science. Nazism is not a science. Convenient timing does not connect ideas or their validity. Your thinking appears to be astoundingly simplistic at times.

J C wrote: »

.....when it comes to Evolution the only thing that changed in the 1930s was that Evolutionists gained substantive control of all educational institutions.....and proceeded to suppress any further discussion about the validity of Evolution!!!!

What changed in the 1930's, if you could be bothered to check, was the development of population genetics. This was a science based upon Mendelian inheritance but which did not consider evolution. During the mid 30's to early 40's it became apparent that Mendelian inheritance and population genetics were consistent with Darwinian evolution. This realisation lead to what is called "the modern synthesis" of evolution. The combination of what we understood about genetics with what we understood about evolution. The fit was remarkably easy and the two, very detailed, theories were combined into one in a decade. Rapid movement for scientists.

J C wrote: »

.....so what you claim to be 'consensus' is actually the denial of any further questioning of Evolution!!!!:D

Questions are asked and answered. It can't be helped if you don't like the answers. I suggest you take it up with your creator.

J C wrote: »

.....I question my Creator, Jesus Christ, every day....and His Holy Spirit gently assures me that He was there at the Creation of the World.....and will also be there at it's end!!!!

Very good. But as a scientist, when have you scientifically questioned the existence of a creator?

J C wrote: »

......equally, the objective scientific evidence proclaims the ultimate source of all to be a God of infinite, power, beauty and intelligence!!!:)

Why then, given that they have no motive to deny God (for reasons I stated in a post you have ignored), do the majority of scientists merely find that there is no scientific evidence to support His existence?

J C wrote: »

....Berlinski describes himself as a 'Secular Jew'...........so he is NOT the stereotypical 'Biblical Christian' that Atheists conjur up when describing Creationists!!!!

I never called him a creationist. I called him an ID proponent. That is what he is. I am aware that he is a "secular Jew" and that he has also claimed to be agnostic at times. He has gone so far as to call himself a "crank" on occasion. He is also a mathematician and not a physical scientist, which to me suggests his objections may be based on incomplete information.

J C wrote: »

.....equally, Richard Lewontin was expressing his SCIENTIFIC opinion when he said that Atheists take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs:
For example. logic would dictate that Creation by an omnipotent and omniscient God is possible.........while 'nothing spontaneously blowing up into everything' in the Big Bang......is indeed a PATENT ABSURDITY!!!

He was expressing an opinion on the philosphy of science. That's quite far from a scientific opinion. As to your big bang analogy... not at all my field, but I have never assumed that something came from nothing, but rather that the nature of reality prior to the big bang event is not understood. A god is certainly possible, but not probable, since it requires us to explain it's nature and origins. Occam's razor.

J C wrote: »

.....equally, the Creation and Intelligent Design of life-forms that are observed to contain gargantuan levels of tightly specified and highly interactive INFORMATION.....logically dictates that it was Created by an omnipotent and omniscient Intelligence of God-like proportions......while the idea that Pondslime spontaneously pulled itself up by its own 'bootstraps' to become Man is another one of the patent absurdities....to which Richard Lewontin refers!!! :pac::):D

Ah I see, but the eternal existence of this highly complex supernatural creator intelligence is self-evident and not at all an absurd assumption to make? The origins of life by abiogenesis is a much simpler system and yet it is the absurd option of the two.

And once again we are presented with the false dilemma, the bull**** dichotomy. Even were Lewontin correct in stating that our theory of evolution were an absurdity, how would this make the existence of a creator any less absurd?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by JC
..........MESSAGE....Scofflaw and Robin (being Evolutionists) are the 'Elite'.......everyone else is the 'rabble'......

robindch
Nope, just less uninformed. :rolleyes: Nothing "elite" about it at all, my dear! :cool::cool:

.....I agree that there is nothing 'elite' about people who think they are descended from Pondscum.....and they certainly are less informed.......but they do think they are 'elite'.....and you did state that everyone else is 'rabble'.

wrote:

robindch
(btw, it's "everyone else is the 'rabble'"; 'one' is singular in English :))

.....nitpicking by a 'Goo to You Evolutionist' over a typo which I made while rapidly writing a posting reminds of the following verses of Scripture:-
Mt 7:3 And why do you look on the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?
4 Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the splinter out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?
5 Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.

Mt 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Lu 6:41 And why do you look at the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not see the beam that is in your own eye?
42 Or how can you say to your brother, Brother, let me pull out the splinter in your eye, when you yourself do not see the beam that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First cast out the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to pull out the splinter that is in your brother's eye.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.......and Scofflaws absence as well as a few people 'on ignore' brings down my active opponents on this thread to about one hundred!!!!

AtomicHorror
Or about five opponents. Exaggerate much?

.....there certainly have been over one hundred Evolutionists who have contributed to this thread since it started......and so far, just ONE Creation Scientist, myself!!!!!
......so my active opponents on this thread DO number over one hundred!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
..........MESSAGE....Scofflaw and Robin (being Evolutionists) are the 'Elite'.......everyone else is the 'rabble'......

.....I guess that puts us all 'in our place'!!!

AtomicHorror
Do you recognise sarcasm when you see it?

........tuché......with bells on it!!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Do one or other thing for us please:

1) Stop using the term "spontaneous evolution" or
2) Fully qualify it with each and every use.

.......Materialistic Evolution is SPONTANEOUS Evolution is Darwinian Evolution......and all three terms are interchangable!!!!!!!
....and I will continue to use either or all terms, as I see fit!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And which has a name. Darwinian Evolution. Why are you so reluctant to use that term which anyone and everyone can look up in Wikipedia? Ah of course, because it has no emotive qualifiers attached to it.

.....Darwinian Evolution has MANY emotional qualifiers attached to it as well........
.......Materialistic, Spontaneous and Darwinian Evolution are all interchangable terms.......
....and I will continue to use any or all of these terms, as I see fit!!!:D

.......you may continue to object........but your objections are not founded in reality!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....there certainly have been over one hundred Evolutionists who have contributed to this thread since it started......and so far, just ONE Creation Scientist, myself!!!!!
......so my active opponents on this thread DO number over one hundred!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

I'm confused... Scofflaw is no longer posting so that's one less opponent but you're still counting the other 90-odd people who have also left? Those you vanquished because they got bored of repeating themselves.

I'm curious, you say you're a creation scientist... what are you researching?

J C wrote: »

.......Materialistic Evolution is SPONTANEOUS Evolution is Darwinian Evolution......and all three terms are interchangable!!!!!!!
....and I will continue to use either or all terms, as I see fit!!!:D

You are being deliberately misleading and I find it remarkable that you are allowed to do so. I've stated many times why the above is untrue.

J C wrote: »

.....Darwinian Evolution has MANY emotional qualifiers attached to it as well........

What emotive qualifiers does the term "Darwinian evolution" have. Name me one please.

J C wrote: »

.......Materialistic, Spontaneous and Darwinian Evolution are all interchangable terms.......
....and I will continue to use any or all of these terms, as I see fit!!!:D

.......you may continue to object........but your objections are not founded in reality!!!!

So we'll play word games rather than debate the topic? You're an idiot J C.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Communism is not a science. Nazism is not a science. Convenient timing does not connect ideas or their validity. Your thinking appears to be astoundingly simplistic at times.

Interestingly, both Communism and Nazism claimed to be scientifically based philosophies.....and a key part of their claim to scientific legitimacy relied on Evolution.....to justify their racist and eugenics policies in the case of the Nazis....and to justify their Atheism in the case of the Communists!!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What changed in the 1930's, if you could be bothered to check, was the development of population genetics. This was a science based upon Mendelian inheritance but which did not consider evolution. During the mid 30's to early 40's it became apparent that Mendelian inheritance and population genetics were consistent with Darwinian evolution. This realisation lead to what is called "the modern synthesis" of evolution. The combination of what we understood about genetics with what we understood about evolution. The fit was remarkably easy and the two, very detailed, theories were combined into one in a decade. Rapid movement for scientists.

What changed from the 1930s onwards was the ascent of Atheism in its various guises.....and its inflitration within many leading educational establishments to produce what is called "the modern synthesis" of evolution......which is overtly hostile to ANY questioning of the validity of Spontaneous Materialistic Darwinian Evolution (SMDE)......and this hostility will be visited upon EVERY challenge to SMDE from either Intelligent Design Evolutionists or Creation Scientists!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Questions are asked and answered. It can't be helped if you don't like the answers. I suggest you take it up with your creator.

...........I haven't had the time to take it up with my Creator......
....I have been far too busy taking up the invalid assumptions and conclusions of Spontaneous Materialistic Darwinian Evolutionists with themselves on this thread for the past two years!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Very good. But as a scientist, when have you scientifically questioned the existence of a creator?

......I haven't had to bother.......there has been plenty of questioning of the existence of God by Spontaneous Materialistic Darwinian Evolutionists on this thread for the past two years.....
.....I have confined myself to merely pointing out the invalidity of their assumptions and conclusions!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why then, given that they have no motive to deny God (for reasons I stated in a post you have ignored), do the majority of scientists merely find that there is no scientific evidence to support His existence?

.......the guys claiming that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God are either Atheists or Agnostics........and perhaps some Deists.....
.....the Theists are either ID Proponents or Creation Scientists who know that the Universe and all life decare the glory.......and the existence of God !!!!:D