The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Flamed Diving

Nah, baldy is just bitter cause I pwned him in the A&A forum. An exposure of biblical proportions. Rattled to within an inch of his life.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not sure I get what you're driving at... do you feel they are ill-qualified to debate on an internet forum?

Nope. But it's unlikely that they'll add anything new to a debate that's clearly going around in circles. If they want to have circular debates on the atheist form or even make a new forum called 'circular debates' that's grand, it just seems a little cheeky here.

Maybe I'm being a bit naive and out of order, fair enough.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wolfsbane is a conservative Christian who professes no authority on science.

Jeepers, bad cut'n paste, ehm apologies Wolfshane!

Thanks for highlighting this.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You can call it recycling if you like but then I guess any references to Darwin or Dawkins would have to be labelled as such too.

Yeah, this is a fair point. I guess it's down to how far into the nuts and bolts of science you're willing to go. If your involvement has only ever been at the pop science level and a debate is obviously going around in circles you'll be very unlikely to add anything new to the debate that might cause people to reconsider their opinions. Certainly possible, but most likely you'll be wasting your and everyone else's time.

To use Dawkins as an example, if you read some of his pop science books, it might be better not to enter the debate, if you'd had a go at some of his papers on evolutionary biology, well, you'll have a better chance of breaking the circle.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If banning is your goal then too much of the needless profanity will certainly get you banned by PDN with no help at all from Flamed.

Thanks for the advice, I'll refrain from using '****' on this forum in future.

thebaldsoprano

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Nah, baldy is just bitter cause I pwned him in the A&A forum. An exposure of biblical proportions. Rattled to within an inch of his life.

Yeah, that's it flamy, try getting one of those things called a 'real life' and you might be able to see getting barred from an internet forum for what it is.

Flamed Diving

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Yeah, that's it flamy, try getting one of those things called a 'real life' and you might be able to see getting barred from an internet forum for what it is.

Sounds|like|a plan

PDN

Flamed Diving & thebaldsoprano - feel free to debate the issues under discussion in this forum. If you want to continue your little spat then ask boards.ie to set up a Handbags at Twenty Paces forum.

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Yeah, this is a fair point. I guess it's down to how far into the nuts and bolts of science you're willing to go. If your involvement has only ever been at the pop science level and a debate is obviously going around in circles you'll be very unlikely to add anything new to the debate that might cause people to reconsider their opinions. Certainly possible, but most likely you'll be wasting your and everyone else's time.

To use Dawkins as an example, if you read some of his pop science books, it might be better not to enter the debate, if you'd had a go at some of his papers on evolutionary biology, well, you'll have a better chance of breaking the circle.

I really think yer pretty far off the mark there man. You don't need to delve into the primary literature to deliver a convincing argument for the veracity of Evolution. The debate will go in circles because the extreme ends will not change their minds. That isn't the goal of the debate. The goal is to convince the undecided, the audience.

J C

PDN wrote: »

Indeed the Charter of the Paleontology forum states (doubtless with tongue in cheek) that all dinosaurs were created by God.

......why do you think it is 'tongue in cheek'.......Dinosaurs WERE created by God!!!!!:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......why do you think it is 'tongue in cheek'.......Dinosaurs WERE created by God!!!!!:)

A shame we can't seem to find Him in the fossil record.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A shame we can't seem to find Him in the fossil record.

That would imply that he is dead.

Anyway I may have to see about having that line in the palaeontology forum changed. According to Luis V. Rey

Luis. V. Rey wrote:

Not all dinosaurs were created equal--some were fat, some had feathers, some had three-foot claws.

http://books.google.ie/books?hl=en&id=6Dgd-oHBTTcC&dq=extreme+dinosaurs+luis+v+rey&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=8qfQVFnS3X&sig=50st4jRjmZIDKHo7YYr5pfCCcmA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Or maybe I should just take it for what it is...

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

That would imply that he is dead.

Nietzsche would find the data most interesting. That'd make some primary paper!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsbane
What are the criteria for life? That is, for the origin and sustainance of the simplest lifeform. When those essentials are fed into the million trillion trillion x10 planets, what is the probability of such necessary conditions occurring?

Worse than 1 in 1057800:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1416

Wicknight
Oh for crying out loud. That is the odds that a modern cell would randomly form.

1 in 1080 is the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang
Universe'......so I guess that the chance of non-intelligently producing the specific sequence for a particular short 100 Amino Acid protein at 1 in 10130 makes it statistically IMPOSSIBLE to do so.....and as for producing a cell (with odds of 1 in 1057800) .....forget about it!!!!

.....these odds are so enormous that they have caused former Atheists like Sir Fred Hoyle to believe that life must have had an intelligent source....and even Prof Richard Dawkins admits as much......but then goes on to propose 'Mount Improbable'......which becomes 'Mount IMPOSSIBLE'....when we apply Mathematics to it!!!:D

wrote:

Wicknight
The right level of energy (enough to cause reaction but not enough that the reactions are consistently unstable) and an abundance of atoms such as hydrogen, carbon and oxygen that can easily chemically react with each other to form more complex molecules. And quite a lot of time (a planet destroyed after only a few millions years won't produce life)

That is of course to produce life as we understand it on Earth (carbon based life forms as they say in Star Trek). That is only one form of possible life.

......dream on, if you wish........but for those of us who are empirical conventional scientists........Abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinian Evolution remain 'pipe dreams'........and you would ideally want to have more than tobacco in the pipe to 'sustain' such a dream!!!!:D:pac::)

The maths is simply devastating to the Darwinian cause.......but part of the reason that Evolution has survived up to now is because nearly all Mathematicians AREN'T Biologists......and nearly all Biologists AREN'T Mathematicians.....
.......and so the Mathematicians believe that Darwinian Evolution is valid because most Biologists say it is ......and the Biologists lack the Mathematical skills to fully evaluate the devastating odds involved in the non-intelligent design of life!!!!

......and that is where Creation Scientists ......who have access to BOTH fully qualified Mathemticians AND fully qualified Biologists..... come in, with such devastating effect!!!!!

......and all of the faith-filled Evolutionist explainations........such as "the odds against producing life are enormous, but so too is the Universe"......get blown out of the water!!!!!:D:pac::)

Indeed, most Evolutionists admit that Darwinian Evolution is logically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE......but they continue to believe in it because they will not accept the only valid alternative.....which is Creation!!!

For example, Prof. George Wald, who is a prominent Evolutionist (and Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!"

........believe Evolution on FAITH.....if you must.......but please stop calling your BELIEF science!!!!!:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A shame we can't seem to find Him (God) in the fossil record.

.....there is none so 'blind' as he who will not 'see'......
......we find the 'works' of God in the fossil record.......indeed as the fossil record is largely the result of The Flood.....the fossil record ITSELF is largely the result of a 'work of God'!!!!:D

wolfsbane

thebaldsoprano said:

Jeepers, bad cut'n paste, ehm apologies Wolfshane!

No problem, Tony

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Anyway I may have to see about having that line (about the creation of Dinosaurs by God) in the palaeontology forum changed.

.......yes, if an Evolutionist sees something that is self evidently true......but doesn't like it.......s/he simply censors the said thing........or they 'have it changed'......to use your euphimism!!!!:pac::)

......of course it still remains true (that God created the Dinosaurs).......but the Evolutionists can all log onto the Palaeontology forum safe in the knowledge that their brains will not be challenged with this 'inconvenient truth'!!!!!!:pac::D

.......but it is kind of an 'Orwellian Way' of carrying on though!!!!:D

J C

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Okay, I'm fairly new to posting on boards and probably a bit naive, but jeepers...

What's the deal with coming onto a forum about Christianity and posting about areas of science ye've obviously gone into no depth on and are using whatever the hell you can find on the 'net to support your arguments.

.....where did you got the idea that Creation Scientists aren't eminently qualified conventional scientists......and indeed many of the Evolutionists debating on this thread are also eminently qualified scientists!!!!!:D

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I've some formal training in mathematics/theoretical physics, but none in biology and at least some training would be needed to add to the debate and not recycle the same old well known arguments.

...further proof of my earlier point that, although the maths is simply devastating to the Darwinian cause.......the main reason that Evolution has survived up to now is because nearly all Mathematicians AREN'T Biologists......and nearly all Biologists AREN'T Mathematicians.....
.......and so the Mathematicians believe that Darwinian Evolution is valid because most Biologists say it is ......and the Biologists lack the Mathematical skills to fully evaluate the devastating odds AGAINST the non-intelligent design of life!!!!:D

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Wicknight, where do you get your patience from?

.....(endless) patience is a virtue demanded form EVERYONE on this thread!!!!:):D

thebaldsoprano

PDN wrote: »

Flamed Diving & thebaldsoprano - feel free to debate the issues under discussion in this forum. If you want to continue your little spat then ask boards.ie to set up a Handbags at Twenty Paces forum.

Fair enough, it takes two to tango, ehem thrash handbags, I stand corrected.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.......yes, if an Evolutionist sees something that is self evidently true......but doesn't like it.......s/he simply censors the said thing........or they 'have it changed'......to use your euphimism!!!!:pac::)

......of course it still remains true (that God created the Dinosaurs).......but the Evolutionists can all log onto the Palaeontology forum safe in the knowledge that their brains will not be challenged with this 'inconvenient truth'!!!!!!:pac::D

.......but it is kind of an 'Orwellian Way' of carrying on though!!!!:D

God created dinosaurs. That is your belief.
God didn't create dinosaurs. That is my belief.
I don't see why the forum charter should play favourites.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I really think yer pretty far off the mark there man. You don't need to delve into the primary literature to deliver a convincing argument for the veracity of Evolution.

In fairness, I wasn't implying this at all but I can see how it could've been picked up from the tone of my post. And just for the record, some of the sharpest people I know have little in the lines of formal education.

I'm talking about knowing when to step back a bit, I'll use another example to try and illustrate this:

Now, water could be looked at as having a chemical structure just like everything else, nothing out of the ordinary, it just happens to be a primary ingredient for supporting life and is where life here happened to originate.

This approach could be used to argue a case for the non existence of God.

Water is also the only known substance that is less dense in its solid state than its liquid state. If this were not the case, the dynamics of the the oceans would be considerably different and life here likely wouldn't have happened.

Personally, I'd regard this as a bit out of the ordinary and could be used as evidence for supporting the existence of God.

Now, chemistry and marine biology aren't exactly my strong points, so if someone with a similar level of knowledge in these subjects doesn't add something new, for the good of the debate, it's best that we agree to differ and leave it at that. Digging around the internet for slightly different interpretations on the same argument is likely to achieve little.

If someone comes along with deeper knowledge on the matter, which may well happen, they're more likely to add to the debate constructively.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The debate will go in circles because the extreme ends will not change their minds.

This, I agree with you on big time. If someone managed to express the theory of God, the Universe and Everything in a single elegant equation
there'd no doubt still be a good few such people around...

This isn't the only cause of debates going around in circles though.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That isn't the goal of the debate. The goal is to convince the undecided, the audience.

It'd be a nice surprise if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure any of us here are quite at the level to attract an audience

MooseJam

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

It'd be a nice surprise if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure any of us here are quite at the level to attract an audience

lots of people read this thread

thebaldsoprano

J C wrote: »

.....where did you got the idea that Creation Scientists aren't eminently qualified conventional scientists......and indeed many of the Evolutionists debating on this thread are also eminently qualified scientists!!!!!:D

Oh jeepers! Anyone who's ever gone into science in any depth is agnostic, they just pretend to have religions such as Christianity/Atheism/Islam etc, everyone knows that! :D:D

J C wrote: »

...further proof of my earlier point that, although the maths is simply devastating to the Darwinian cause....

Oh my... I'm not going near this one with a ten foot barge pole

J C wrote: »

...the main reason that Evolution has survived up to now is because nearly all Mathematicians AREN'T Biologists......and nearly all Biologists AREN'T Mathematicians.....
.......and so the Mathematicians believe that Darwinian Evolution is valid because most Biologists say it is ......and the Biologists lack the Mathematical skills to fully evaluate the devastating odds AGAINST the non-intelligent design of life!!!!:D

Didn't go all the way to PhD, so I dunno if I get to call myself a mathematician, but I'm one sort-of-mathematician who 'believes' in evolution.

Btw, you'd want to see some of the, ahem, 'mathematics' behind Quantum Theory. Snapped me straight out of a few unmerciful hangovers at 9am lectures...

J C wrote: »

.....(endless) patience is a virtue demanded form EVERYONE on this thread!!!!:):D

Damn patience! You just watch yourself or I'll get my pink studded handbag out! I'm on to you.... :D:D

thebaldsoprano

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't see why the forum charter should play favourites.

In fairness, as an agnostic this board seems a lot more even handed and welcoming, so far, than the A&"A" forum.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

1 in 1080 is the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang
Universe'......so I guess that the chance of non-intelligently producing the specific sequence for a particular short 100 Amino Acid protein at 1 in 10130 makes it statistically IMPOSSIBLE to do so.....and as for producing a cell (with odds of 1 in 1057800) .....forget about it!!!!

By your logic it is improbable that stars, planets and galaxies would form. Only if one ignores gravity of course. The numbers you present are simply not correct, they assume absolutely nothing about the universe other than that it contains matter which may be arranged.

J C wrote: »

.....these odds are so enormous that they have caused former Atheists like Sir Fred Hoyle to believe that life must have had an intelligent source....and even Prof Richard Dawkins admits as much......but then goes on to propose 'Mount Improbable'......which becomes 'Mount IMPOSSIBLE'....when we apply Mathematics to it!!!:D

One Atheist considering the possibility of intelligent design is far from a compelling argument about anything. Perhaps you could stop quoting and name checking and start presenting actual arguments of your own?

J C wrote: »

......dream on, if you wish........but for those of us who are empirical conventional scientists........Abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinian Evolution remain 'pipe dreams'........and you would ideally want to have more than tobacco in the pipe to 'sustain' such a dream!!!!:D:pac::)

Strange that the vast majority of empirical, conventional scientists disagree with you so.

J C wrote: »

The maths is simply devastating to the Darwinian cause.......but part of the reason that Evolution has survived up to now is because nearly all Mathematicians AREN'T Biologists......and nearly all Biologists AREN'T Mathematicians.....

As it happens, the two fields cross over in many places. The much larger part of evolutionary biology research today is very much mathematical. Ever hear of bioinformatics? How about systems biology? How about stochastic immunology? These are amongst the hottest areas of research in biology and they involve considerable collaboration between biologists, mathematicians and computer scientists.

J C wrote: »

.......and so the Mathematicians believe that Darwinian Evolution is valid because most Biologists say it is ......and the Biologists lack the Mathematical skills to fully evaluate the devastating odds involved in the non-intelligent design of life!!!!

See above. Just because you lack insight into these fields means nothing.

J C wrote: »

......and that is where Creation Scientists ......who have access to BOTH fully qualified Mathemticians AND fully qualified Biologists..... come in, with such devastating effect!!!!!

Your assumptions regarding conventional science are laughable, haven't you ever been to a biology conference? Have you really no idea of the breadth, complexity and inclusiveness of the research that is occurring? The collaborations accross fields, the sheer numbers of scientists on the best teams?

You have considerably less than 1% the combined manpower and certainly no greater extent of collaboration within that. Practically your entire research output is dedicated to disproving already tested science and failing to convince anyone. Where's the new data?

J C wrote: »

......and all of the faith-filled Evolutionist explainations........such as "the odds against producing life are enormous, but so too is the Universe"......get blown out of the water!!!!!:D:pac::)

How? Show me the publication. Better still, explain it to me yourself.

J C wrote: »

Indeed, most Evolutionists admit that Darwinian Evolution is logically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE......but they continue to believe in it because they will not accept the only valid alternative.....which is Creation!!!

Not true, just another line you throw about as if fact so that you can yet again introduce...

J C wrote: »

For example, Prof. George Wald, who is a prominent Evolutionist (and Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!"

...George Wald, much quoted by creationists because his personal opinion (but somehow not his papers) seems to deny Evolution. Where in this quote is evolution mentioned? Where is abiogenesis mentioned? He speaks of spontaneous generation, a concept not taken seriously since the time of Pasteur and which has no relation to Evolution or Abiogenesis except to be alternatives to both.

What effect does the personal opinion of one man, scientist or otherwise, have on the veracity of a theory? None. Let the data speak. Stop showing us soundbites and show us the facts.

J C wrote: »

........believe Evolution on FAITH.....if you must.......but please stop calling your BELIEF science!!!!!:D

You've previously claimed that science is based upon faith anyway, so this comment is nonsense.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.......yes, if an Evolutionist sees something that is self evidently true......but doesn't like it.......s/he simply censors the said thing........or they 'have it changed'......to use your euphimism!!!!:pac::)

......of course it still remains true (that God created the Dinosaurs).......but the Evolutionists can all log onto the Palaeontology forum safe in the knowledge that their brains will not be challenged with this 'inconvenient truth'!!!!!!:pac::D

.......but it is kind of an 'Orwellian Way' of carrying on though!!!!:D

They're not talking about changing the charter to say "God didn't create the Dinosaurs". They're talking about not assuming either way. Science makes no assumption that cannot be tested and so the God question, unless we find a means to test Him, has no place on a science board.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Science makes no assumption that cannot be tested and so the God question, unless we find a means to test Him, has no place on a science board.

Excellent point.

thebaldsoprano

wolfsbane wrote: »

No problem, Tony

Asiaprod

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

It'd be a nice surprise if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure any of us here are quite at the level to attract an audience

Gee, for someone who is new to this thread, and who dabbles in Quantum mathematics, you sure are not taking note of the statistics for this thread. Let me help surprise you
776 pages of debate
11,635 contributers
202.247 viewers.
This threat is a gold mine of learning for those interested, your contribution to this learning process I am sure will drive us all to greater heights.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Science makes no assumption that cannot be tested and so the God question, unless we find a means to test Him, has no place on a science board.

Gods of all forms have been scurrying away from observant people for a long time -- first off the mountain tops and into the clouds, then off up and into the sky until they reached their current home, a most Einstein-like "other dimension", conveniently beyond the reach of hikers, planes and telescopes.

As long as people insist that there are one or more gods out there, there'll always be other people testing to see if they really are and never finding them. And that's a useful service, even if it's rarely seen as such.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Gods of all forms have been scurrying away from observant people for a long time -- first off the mountain tops and into the clouds, then off up and into the sky until they reached their current home, a most Einstein-like "other dimension", conveniently beyond the reach of hikers, planes and telescopes.

As long as people insist that there are one or more gods out there, there'll always be other people testing to see if they really are and never finding them. And that's a useful service, even if it's rarely seen as such.

Science will always move the goalposts on that one. Usually inadvertently.

thebaldsoprano

Asiaprod wrote: »

This threat is a gold mine of learning for those interested, your contribution to this learning process I am sure will drive us all to greater heights.

Yeah, true. It's even teaching me to be slightly less inflammatory

Asiaprod

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Yeah, true. It's even teaching me to be slightly less inflammatory

Welcome news indeed, have fun:D