The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What power do they gain from support of the theory of evolution? What respect? The respect of evolutionary biologists? That isn't worth much in terms of power or money. As a scientist, were I motivated by money and power, evolutionary biology would be very, very low on my list of research areas.

You haven't noticed the ridicule Creationism faces from virtuallly ALL the media and academia, and the rich and powerful of this world? It's one thing to ban contraception while turning a blind-eye to its practise, but quite another to insist the world was created by God in 6 days, some 6000 years ago.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

You haven't noticed the ridicule Creationism faces from virtuallly ALL the media and academia, and the rich and powerful of this world?

Don't try to bring up that old lark again. You tried it before and were put in your place. The people pushing Creationism are quite rich and powerful indeed.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You haven't noticed the ridicule Creationism faces from virtuallly ALL the media and academia, and the rich and powerful of this world?

As do the Flat Earthers and those who think the Lizard People exist and run America

What is your point?

I wouldn't call not being nuts a power :rolleyes:

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

You haven't noticed the ridicule Creationism faces from virtuallly ALL the media and academia

Have you ever considered that there actually might be a good reason for pointing and laughing at people like Ken Ham?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

You haven't noticed the ridicule Creationism faces from virtuallly ALL the media and academia, and the rich and powerful of this world? It's one thing to ban contraception while turning a blind-eye to its practise, but quite another to insist the world was created by God in 6 days, some 6000 years ago.

That would be because it's ridiculous.

Many of the rich and powerful in the world - American republican political leaders, for instance - are creationists.

J C wrote: »

.....OK....so Evolution is unproven and unprovable......and the evidence indicates that it NEVER occurred.......makes one wonder why 'fallen' Humanity keeps parroting away about it as if it is a fact that it occurred!!!!!!:D

The evidence, if you don't ignore parts of it and misinterpret parts of it and attack what remains with ill-informed and unscientific arguments, indicates that evolution occurred.

......please note that Sir Arthur Keith said that the ONLY ALTERNATIVE to Evolution is Special Creation......NOT that there were many alternatives to Evolution!!!!!:eek::)

Well, it's the only alternative that anyone's proposed. It is such a laughably bad alternative that it is usually ignored completely, and rightly so.

.....it merely illustrates the irrational bias of the Atheist against God and all His works of loving Creation!!!!!

Do you ever think before you type? That doesn't mean anything in relation to my reply.

.....what Sir Arthur Keith clearly means by Special Creation being 'unthinkable' is that he is REFUSING to think about what Special Creation means for himself

Creationism has absolutely no meaning.

......things like God's rightful claims upon His Creation....
....which means that we should obey and adore Him....and not other Created things or ourselves!!!:)

Not even that. If creationism were true (and we all, even you, know it's not), it would simply mean that something had created life on earth. It would not mean that the Judaeo-Christian god had created life on earth.

Anyhow, given your habit of avoiding questions you don't like, I'll restate this.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't try to bring up that old lark again. You tried it before and were put in your place. The people pushing Creationism are quite rich and powerful indeed.

What rubbish! You made the assertion that Creationism had the big bucks, but neglected to mention the funds available to all the non-creationist purveyors of evolution: the universities and colleges, foundations and academies. Are you saying AiG and its creationist peers have anywhere near that? That all the anti-creationist scientists and philosophers are living on a shoe-string while the creationists have billions for their research and publications? :pac::pac::pac:

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

What rubbish! You made the assertion that Creationism had the big bucks, but neglected to mention the funds available to all the non-creationist purveyors of evolution: the universities and colleges, foundations and academies. Are you saying AiG and its creationist peers have anywhere near that? That all the anti-creationist scientists and philosophers are living on a shoe-string while the creationists have billions for their research and publications? :pac::pac::pac:

Per head, I'd say that purveyors of creationist propaganda have considerably more funding than evolutionary scientists.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

What rubbish! You made the assertion that Creationism had the big bucks, but neglected to mention the funds available to all the non-creationist purveyors of evolution: the universities and colleges, foundations and academies. Are you saying AiG and its creationist peers have anywhere near that? That all the anti-creationist scientists and philosophers are living on a shoe-string while the creationists have billions for their research and publications? :pac::pac::pac:

I never said the total number of creationists had more money than the total number of those who believe in evolution. I merely pointed out the flaw in you stating that "the rich and the powerful of this world" are all out to get the creationists when some of these rich and/or powerful folk are definately on the creationism side. To imply that the only reason evolution is more popular than creationism is down to funding is both ludicrous and childish.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Per head, I'd say that purveyors of creationist propaganda have considerably more funding than evolutionary scientists.

That too.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You haven't noticed the ridicule Creationism faces from virtuallly ALL the media and academia, and the rich and powerful of this world? It's one thing to ban contraception while turning a blind-eye to its practise, but quite another to insist the world was created by God in 6 days, some 6000 years ago.
That would be because it's ridiculous.

I'm glad you accept my point, that this provides real motivation for anyone seeking credibility in the eyes of the world, to embrace evolution and reject creationism.

Many of the rich and powerful in the world - American republican political leaders, for instance - are creationists.

A few may be. Could you name names? Any Republican politicians I've seen seem to be your normal little-bit-of-religion types, and as such unlikely to hold to creationism.

BTW, I've just read this concerning the head-honcho Republican:
George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2122733/George-W-Bush-meets-Pope-amid-claims-he-might-convert-to-Catholicism.html

The Papacy certainly holds a special place in the hearts of the American government:
U.S. Says Pope Immune From Molestation Lawsuit
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169909,00.html

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

I never said the total number of creationists had more money than the total number of those who believe in evolution. I merely pointed out the flaw in you stating that "the rich and the powerful of this world" are all out to get the creationists when some of these rich and/or powerful folk are definately on the creationism side. To imply that the only reason evolution is more popular than creationism is down to funding is both ludicrous and childish.



That too.

So you don't think that the rich oppress/exploit the poor
is a valid generalisation, because some rich folks give generously to the poor?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......so people 'not liking something' is a pretty poor guideline as to it's morality!!!

robindch
If you ever take the time to study anthropology -- and I'd recommend it to anybody -- you'll find that a general 'not liking something' within a population is an extremely good guide to working out what that population finds 'immoral'.

In general 'not liking something' within a population is a fairly good guide to what a population will legislate against.....and of course what they don't like is largely determined via the 'opinion formers' in their society!!!!
...equally hypocracy and cowardice before their 'leaders' may not even achieve the modest outcome of legislating against what they don't like!!!!

......in any event, 'fallen' Humans are intrinsically attracted to sin .......so people 'not liking something' is a very poor guideline as to it's morality!!!:eek:

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you don't think that the rich oppress/exploit the poor
is a valid generalisation, because some rich folks give generously to the poor?

I think that is completely aside the point of evolution versus creationism.
I also think using that to try further your argument is a bit tactless to be honest.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

As do the Flat Earthers and those who think the Lizard People exist and run America

What is your point?

I wouldn't call not being nuts a power :rolleyes:

Given evolution entails an abandonment of the idea that suffering and death are a result of the Fall, the RCC had to have some motivation for embracing it. The desire for credibility, as a prerequisite for power, is that motivation.

Galvasean

While it is a fair argument to say that the Catholic Church may have moved to evolution for credibility it is also possible that they genuinely believe evolution to be compatible with their belief system.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

I think that is completely aside the point of evolution versus creationism.
I also think using that to try further your argument is a bit tactless to be honest.

Sauce for the goose... You can't change the rules to suit your argument.


But something I neglected in your previous post:

To imply that the only reason evolution is more popular than creationism is down to funding is both ludicrous and childish.

I'm not implying any such thing. The antagonism of the human heart to God's truth makes it unlikely creationism will ever be more popular than any plausible alternative, no matter how much funding we have.

All the creationists are trying to do is save some people. We are under no illusion that true Christianity will ever be the aroma of life to most people.
Luke 13:23 Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”
And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

While it is a fair argument to say that the Catholic Church may have moved to evolution for credibility it is also possible that they genuinely believe evolution to be compatible with their belief system.

Maybe...but I am at a loss to see how the two can be integrated. I've heard no defence of it. Hence my supposition that policy rather than principle was involved.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Evolution is not a moral philosophy. It is not intended to be a moral philosophy. Why are you attacking it as if it is?......

......"Might is right" is a core tenet of various moral philosophies which claim to be derived from the theory of evolution. The theory itself says nothing of the sort.

........you are correct that Evolution (the Science) isn't a philosophy (moral or otherwise).......but it does 'inform' its adherants that they are a 'freak of nature' and 'glorified pondslime' (with nothing added but time).....so they may be tempted to start acting in accordance with these (invalid) nihilistic ideas!!!!

Materialistic Darwinism (the philosophy) is an amoral philosophy where 'might is right' is accepted as the supposed way we all came to exist.....and that is why almost 'anything goes' with such a philosophy......and the only way of avoiding anarchy in such a society is via strong enforcement of all-encompassing fiat law.....which can lead to oppressive prescriptive control and enforcement by society over 'minor' issues (like the right to life of PLANTS)!!!!!:eek:

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Refusal to kill plants was not impossible prior to the theory of evolution. As an example, Jainism pre-dates the theory by some two thousand years. Bestiality has certainly occurred countless times in ignorance of the theory and prior to it. Eugenics was practised by the Spartans.

......the point that I am making is that BOTH the science of Evolution and the philosophy of Materiaism are intellectually and morally powerless to determine the immorality of such actions!!!!!

......while the revealed Word of God objectively condemns bestiality, eugenics and infanticide as ALWAYS sinful.....and therefore immoral!!!!!
.....it also grants individual Humans dominion over the part of Creation which they own.....and grants them the right to kill and eat plants, which they own.....as they see fit!!!!!
.....but some Materialists want to legally prescribe this God-given right using spurious 'moral' arguments about plants and Humans being commonly descended from primordial pondslime....and therefore somehow 'ethically similar'!!!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Then why, in tens of thousands of years of human civilisation across billions of individuals who did not embrace your religion, have these things you are so disgusted by not taken hold on any large scale?

Sparta has been judged harsh by the moral consensus. Jainism as ridiculously over-protective. Bestiality as taboo. On average these beliefs have held consistently and in the absence of your "objective morality" for millennia.

.....the Moral Laws of God are universal and absolute in their application....and anybody disobeying them will begin to experience 'negative feedback' just as surely as if they were disobeying God's Physical Laws.
Equally, all Human beings have a God-given conscience that 'tells' them what is right and wrong.....and that is why bestiality and infantacide have been taboo in most (but not all) societies up to now.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sauce for the goose... You can't change the rules to suit your argument.
[/COLOR]

and you can't make a realistic comparison to the third world and creationism

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Given evolution entails an abandonment of the idea that suffering and death are a result of the Fall

Nonsense, the vast majority of Christians and Jews are perfectly happy to accept Darwinian evolution as a accurate scientific model of life's development on Earth.

Just because you have a problem with it that doesn't really mean anything. Most Christians think you are simply wrong.

wolfsbane wrote: »

the RCC had to have some motivation for embracing it.

What, other than the over whelming demonstration that it is correct ...

wolfsbane wrote: »

The desire for credibility, as a prerequisite for power, is that motivation.

More nonsense. The only people who have a desire for credibility and therefore power are the Creationists desperately trying to sneak Creationism into the class room

Hot Dog

Just to take a step back for a moment, when I first started posting here I put up several geological points about why the creation account is not true. Since that time I have since moved to Austrlia wher I am working in a gold mine hosted in 2.2 billion year old metamorphic rocks, and I can say with more confidence than ever the evidence for the flood is just not there! Sorry wolfsbane ,and sorry JC, but but your Belief system is on very insubstantial ground. Nothing in geology makes sense using the creationist model, nothing, and our resident creationists have made poor attemots at reconciliation.

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

Just to take a step back for a moment, when I first started posting here I put up several geological points about why the creation account is not true. Since that time I have since moved to Austrlia wher I am working in a gold mine hosted in 2.2 billion year old metamorphic rocks, and I can say with more confidence than ever the evidence for the flood is just not there! Sorry wolfsbane ,and sorry JC, but but your Belief system is on very insubstantial ground. Nothing in geology makes sense using the creationist model, nothing, and our resident creationists have made poor attemots at reconciliation.

......so how do you KNOW that these rocks are 2.2 billion years old?
......gold tends to be found in sedimentary rock, where it has been concentrated by hydrological sorting during the original Flood processes.....and by subsequent metamorphosis (in the case of metamorphic rocks)!!!
.....the fact that Gold is ALSO found in fluvial deposits of sand and gravel......hints at the original processes by which the gold veins were laid down in your metamorphic rocks.......i.e. hydrological sorting of the material to produce the parent sedimentary rocks and further concentration of any gold present by lateral secretion due to metamorphic reactions during shearing, which liberated mineral constituents such as gold from the deforming sedimentary rocks and concentrated it into zones of reduced pressure, such as at faults, in the metamorphic rocks.

Indeed, the fact that the original gold recovery methods of 'panning' and 'sluicing' relied on water sorting to recover gold from alluvial materials.....demonstrates how Gold was originally concentrated in sedimentary rocks by the Flood sorting processes!!!

.....and BTW, now that you have moved from cold wet Ireland to hot dry Australia......have you thought about changing your signature to Very Hot Dog???!!!!:pac::):D

Hot Dog

......so how do you KNOW that these rocks are 2.2 billion years old?
......gold tends to be found in sedimentary and subsequently metamorphosed rock, where it has been concentrated by sorting during the original Flood processes!!!
.....the fact that Gold is ALSO found in fluvial deposits of sand and gravel......hints at the original processes by which the gold veins were laid down in your metamorphic rocks!!!
.....and BTW, now that you have moved from cold wet Ireland to hot dry Australia......have you thought about changing your signature to Very Hot Dog???!!!!
__________________

Spectacularly wrong in this case. Well, you obviously dont have a high paying job in the geology industry!

Galvasean

Spontaneous evolution... metamorphic rocks... wont be long until transforming machines get a nod.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Given evolution entails an abandonment of the idea that suffering and death are a result of the Fall

Nonsense, the vast majority of Christians and Jews are perfectly happy to accept Darwinian evolution as a accurate scientific model of life's development on Earth.

Just because you have a problem with it that doesn't really mean anything. Most Christians think you are simply wrong.

I'm not questioning the fact that they hold to evolution. I'm pointing to the fact that they do so against the specific dogma of their Church, which holds that suffering and death were not part of man's life until the Fall. Do you deny that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
the RCC had to have some motivation for embracing it.

What, other than the over whelming demonstration that it is correct ...

Hmm, that would be an honest approach if they believed it. But if they are such honest fellows, why not concede they were mistaken in their dogma and admit they are not infallible after all? So what's the explanation? Honesty or politicking - you go with the former, I with the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The desire for credibility, as a prerequisite for power, is that motivation.
More nonsense. The only people who have a desire for credibility and therefore power are the Creationists desperately trying to sneak Creationism into the class room

Our desire is for credibility, to educate the children in the truth, not for power. Some creationists may want the Christian church to dominate the world, but most of the folk I know certainly do not. Here's what AiG said on the matter:
So, what does AiG have to say about Christians influencing the culture? For our part, we would declare that it's not our “job” to directly change the culture—it's our task to disseminate information, proclaim the gospel, and stand on the authority of God's Word … and then see hearts changed for the Lord.

Now, if these changed lives impact the culture, and if God blesses that, then we're happy to see it. But we're not going to be an activist ministry in the sense of legislating, litigating, or lobbying key leaders to mandate change in society.

See the whole article at:
The New Fascists?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0308new-fascists.asp

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not questioning the fact that they hold to evolution. I'm pointing to the fact that they do so against the specific dogma of their Church, which holds that suffering and death were not part of man's life until the Fall. Do you deny that?

The Church originally interpreted Genesis literally. Scientific evidence, from a number of independent scientific fields, has demonstrated that interpretation is wrong, a fact that the Church has realised themselves.

They haven't stopped believing, they simply realised they were wrong in how they interpreted those passages (I know you don't accept that that is possible, but that seems more your issue than theirs).

Just like the Church originally interpreted passages in the Old Testament as saying the Earth was flat with 4 corners. Scientific evidence has demonstrated that the interpretation of those passages as literal is wrong, as fact that the Church has also realised.

It is only the diehards such as yourself, some what overly confident in the correctness of their own interpretation, who seem to have issue with that.

No doubt a minority of people through history acted in a similar fashion over things like a flat earth.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm, that would be an honest approach if they believed it. But if they are such honest fellows, why not concede they were mistaken in their dogma and admit they are not infallible after all?

I wasn't aware they did claim that that interpretation was infallible. Not everything the Church claim is to be considered infallible, as Kelly can no doubt explain to you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Our desire is for credibility, to educate the children in the truth, not for power.

That is an incorrect statement. I can't say if it is a lie or not, you may genuinely believe that, but the Creationist movement is motivated by power.

Which is why they spend an awful lot of time trying to get people elected to positions of power in schools, universities, local councils, higher political realms, rather than doing any actual science.

They know they don't have the science or evidence to "educate" people, so they seek positions of power in various institutions so the general population are forced to listen to their agenda.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some creationists may want the Christian church to dominate the world, but most of the folk I know certainly do not. Here's what AiG said on the matter:
So, what does AiG have to say about Christians influencing the culture? For our part, we would declare that it's not our “job” to directly change the culture—it's our task to disseminate information, proclaim the gospel, and stand on the authority of God's Word … and then see hearts changed for the Lord.

I imagine AiG also claim their job is to raise enough money to keep Ken Ham and the executives of the company well off ... (a claim made by other Creationist organisations btw)

Actions speak louder than words Wolfsbane.

Power and money appears to be the central motivation of these types of organisations, such as AiG (or anything Ken Ham has been associated with strangely enough)

There is a great deal of money to be made in the appearance of fighting the good fight for God and the Bible.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21843706-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

wolfsbane wrote: »

But we're not going to be an activist ministry in the sense of legislating, litigating, or lobbying key leaders to mandate change in society.

Er, who are "we" Wolfsbane.

Because you have basically described the Creationist movement for the last 100 years.

Creationists have been lobbying state politicians and school boards in the US for decades, and have started lobbying private schools in Ireland and the UK, as well as newspapers and politicians.

Lobbying by Creationists is so prevalent that the EU in the last few years that the EU Parliment has issue a number of resolutions about it

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Spontaneous evolution... metamorphic rocks... wont be long until transforming machines get a nod.

.....are you now saying that Evolutionists don't accept the scientific validity of the term 'metamorphic rock' .....just like they are unable to accept the term 'spontaneous evolution' as a descriptor of their scientifically disproven idea, that muck spontaneously 'lifted itself up by its own bootstraps' to 'evolve' into Man......
........and BTW the only people proposing (spontaneously) self-transforming machines are the Materialistic Evolutionists......who believe that pondslime somehow spontaneoulsy 'self-transformed' itself into Mankind!!!!!:pac::):D

robindch

J C wrote: »

the only people proposing self-transforming machines are the Materialistic Evolutionists who believe that pondslime somehow spontaneoulsy 'self-transformed' itself into Mankind!

Deliciously clueless nonsense!! Humans are built with process of self-transformation using DNA! Amazing, but true!

There, my dear, you've learned something today! :):)

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

wolfsbane wrote: »

Our desire is for credibility, to educate the children in the truth, not for power. Some creationists may want the Christian church to dominate the world, but most of the folk I know certainly do not.

That is an incorrect statement. I can't say if it is a lie or not, you may genuinely believe that, but the Creationist movement is motivated by power.

I don't believe you're right here -- I think wolfsbane is more accurate here, even if the accuracy is probably unintentional.

Creationism, as most of religion's other consort memes, has evolved to be concerned primarily with its own self-propagation, something which depends heavily upon its perceived credibility and wolfsbane is quite right to point out that credibility is what creationism wants -- it wouldn't be much of a meme if nobody believed it. His declared interest in "educating" children is something that's seen time and time again as a primary method of memetic broadcast and acquisition, so it seems that once creationism has acquired sufficient access to children to distribute and implant itself, it's really not all that concerned about power, per se.

Other religious memes certainly do seek to acquire political power -- that bizarre thing called "christian zionism" for example -- but creationism itself seems to get by fine without much of it. And if creationism's recent behavior is anything to go by, it seems that the ongoing bumbling attempts to keep it out of schools in America may actually be increasing its credibility amongst that seemingly-sizable section of the population whose are inclined to believe something if it's marketed as a conspiracy or the persecution of the faithful.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

.....are you now saying that Evolutionists don't accept the scientific validity of the term 'metamorphic rock' .....just like they are unable to accept the term 'spontaneous evolution' as a descriptor of their scientifically disproven idea, that muck spontaneously 'lifted itself up by its own bootstraps' to 'evolve' into Man......
........and BTW the only people proposing (spontaneously) self-transforming machines are the Materialistic Evolutionists......who believe that pondslime somehow spontaneoulsy 'self-transformed' itself into Mankind!!!!!:pac::):D

lol, I think J C broke. It's a medley of his usual nonsense, but even more disconnected than usual.

Quick reply:

that muck spontaneously 'lifted itself up by its own bootstraps' to 'evolve' into Man......

Firstly, muck doesn't wear boots.

Secondly, this gives the impression that there was no interim between the primordial soup (or whatever) and mankind. This is rather odd, as the interim is where evolution occurred.

........and BTW the only people proposing (spontaneously) self-transforming machines are the Materialistic Evolutionists......

What's a Materialistic Evolutionist?

Evolution doesn't happen like in Pokémon. None of the 'machines' (we generally refer to them as 'living things', though) self-transform. Their offspring are different from them. That is all.

......who believe that pondslime somehow spontaneoulsy 'self-transformed' itself into Mankind!!!!!:pac::):D

The only people who say that are creationists.

By the way, is the full stop key on your keyboard broken?

Galvasean

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Firstly, muck doesn't wear boots.

Legendary response.