The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

I've never seen it. I've read every single Creationist Astrophysics and Theoretical Physics paper ever written and their arguments and mathematics are abysmal.
They refute standard position on the Big Bang for instance, but what they propose instead is useless and doesn't fit the evidence.

Then you will be convinced by your assessment. OK, that's up to you. All these creationists scientists are fools or liars. I'm persuaded by their integrity to trust their assessment more. I also apply my own simpler knowledge to the question and find creationism a better fit for the reality I see than evolutionism. For example, I've just watched a progam on SKY about the moon: it reminded us of the 'amazing coincidence' that gives us a total eclipse of the Sun. The fact that the moon is 400 times smaller than the Earth, but its distance from us is a 400th of that of us from the Sun. Those sort of 'amazing coincidences' should make one consider if it is chance or design.

You say that man's historical record is definitely as old as it would appear, yet the light coming from galaxies is an artefact of old creation.

The stars were given to us, and probably to the angels, as signs of God's majesty. That requires we see at least enough of their splendour to accomplish that purpose. The angelic world can see it all, but we are limited to our senses and lately to the instruments that aid those. To be fit for purpose, the galaxies had to be made mature, just like the Earth and its inhabitants.

But an historical artifact, like a writing, would not fall inot this category. It would not be a sign of maturity, but a deception.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Nope. You posted the links, I accused one of the authors of lying, you posted his response, I pointed out that he'd lied in exactly the same way again in his reply to you.

Maybe there is some confusion in your mind over what he is saying. Seems fair enough to me.

You know, the really funny thing here is that the only person claiming "trust me, I'm a scientist" is you, on behalf of the scientists who you find acceptable. The rest of us are arguing the science, you're arguing from authority.

Not so. I want our readers to search for themselves, not to accept your word or mine. You are happy to argue the details with me, knowing I have not the scientific background to expose your errors. I'm happy for folk to go to the sites and read both sides for themselves. You seem to fear that. I wonder why.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

Wolfsbane, would you accept that there is not a single truth in the world that Jesus Christ doesn't make the claim over: "This is mine"?

Absolutely. The thing about truth is: one truth cannot contradict another. One is true, the other is false.

wolfsbane

samb said:

Then equally you must account for the geological, cosmological, genetic, archaeological, palaeological, and other artifact evidence that suggests a much older date.

I entirely agree. The creationist case is that the evidence is consistent with a 6000 year old creation. It is the presuppositions one brings to dating that skew the interpretation. If we assume a uniformitarian history, then vast dates will be suggested, whether from deposition layers or radioactive half-life. If a mature creation is presupposed and to that is added a catastrophic event like the world-wide flood - both declared as history in Genesis - then mere thousands of years fits.

But sorry you don't understand these topics so you simply believe an interpretation of a book written 19 hundred years ago, by authors who new nothing about the scientific disciplines listed above. Don't you think you are being lazy?

Check the dating arguments on the creationists sites. They are written by scientists who fully understand these topics. And the authors who wrote the Bible didn't have to know the science, as they were not inventing the stories. They wrote only what God told them to. He knew the science.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

anyway why can't you guys (creationists) accept creationism is a faith? What's wrong with that? Do you really think it's somehow weakened if you say something like "Look guys, I know what the science says, but this is my faith, I can't prove it using the scientific method, so let's teach it to kids in religion class instead"?

A reasonable point. The answer is that it is both. Indeed it cannot be anything other, for if the faith is true, so must the science.

As the case has been examined over the years since Darwin, many scientists, Christian and otherwise, have come to the conclusion that evolution doesn't hack it. Other Christians have entered science already believing in the creationist case and have found science to confirm their faith.

I think the objection to evolution being taught as the truth to our kids has excellent value. Even a non-believer in any religion should beware of disputed 'facts' being taught as truth, and the counter arguments being suppressed. Your liberties are ultimately at stake. This is all denied by the High Priests of Scientism, who demand you shut your ears and cry out, 'Great is Darwin of the Scientists'. Just be willing to doubt their word and examine things for yourself.

robindch

> This is all denied by the High Priests of Scientism, who demand you shut
> your ears and cry out, 'Great is Darwin of the Scientists'.

ZZzzzzzz... secular atheism.. zzz.. heretic... Hitler... Darwin... rant, rant, rant... conspiracy... evolution... scientists... god... zzz... Diana, er, I mean Darwin of the Ephesians! Heaven(s?) above, wolfsbane, take it easy, you'll bust a gut if you go on like this much longer!

Anyhow, for some light relief and with my fingers firmly planted in my ears and just about completely off topic, I can recommend part one of a two-part dramatization of Terry Pratchett's excellent Small Gods which is being broadcast this evening on BBC Radio Four at eleven -- the listing is here:

There are gods everywhere on the Discworld but only a few people can see them. Each small god lies in wait, desperately wanting to make someone believe in him. On the Discworld, gods need people more than people need gods.

(Any similarity to religions living or dead is purely co-incidental).

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Heaven(s?) above, wolfsbane, take it easy, you'll bust a gut if you go on like this much longer!

. OK, maybe Heaven smiles on you - I have to be off-line for over a week. Maybe we'll gain something profitable from ruminating in the meantime.

All the best.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Maybe there is some confusion in your mind over what he is saying. Seems fair enough to me.

No, I don't think so. Sorry wolfsbane, I'm afraid he is lying. I know you prefer to believe him rather than me, but a reasonable examination of what he says will put the matter out of doubt - the highlighted sentence below is directly contrary to what Dalrymple says in his paper:

Snelling wrote:

While
Dalrymple acknowledges that excess argon may cause problems with rocks a few million years old or younger I maintain that he ignores the obvious implication that the same problem could well exist in older and ancient rocks. After all, the reason he recognises that excess argon is a problem in young rocks is because he has other means of knowing that those rocks are young. On the other hand, it logically follows that if excess argon causes a problem in young rocks, then it likely would cause a problem in older rocks.

Dalrymple wrote:

With the exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks.

See? Dalrymple acknowledges the 'anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios' that Snelling claims he ignores. The problem is not relevant in older rocks, because it does not introduce a large enough margin of error to be worth worrying about.

How much clearer does it need to be exactly, wolfsbane?

wolfsbane wrote:

Not so. I want our readers to search for themselves, not to accept your word or mine. You are happy to argue the details with me, knowing I have not the scientific background to expose your errors. I'm happy for folk to go to the sites and read both sides for themselves. You seem to fear that. I wonder why.

Er, fear what? I read your links, I answer the arguments - at no point have I even suggested that other people not do so. I'll remind you that you said you didn't want to post up Creationist arguments, and claimed that you only posted the links in response to my accusation of Snelling. Which is actually true, or have you lost track?

wolfsbane wrote:

Check the dating arguments on the creationists sites. They are written by scientists who fully understand these topics.

Shame they lie about it then.


Scofflaw

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

>
Anyhow, for some light relief and with my fingers firmly planted in my ears and just about completely off topic, I can recommend part one of a two-part dramatization of Terry Pratchett's excellent Small Gods which is being broadcast this evening on BBC Radio Four at eleven -- the listing is here:(Any similarity to religions living or dead is purely co-incidental).

My favourite book. I have read this at least 10 times and still find something new every time. Praise be to Om, death to all eagles.

robindch

> I have read this at least 10 times and still find something new every time.

Aye, aye, his best, I think. The dramatization in four parts (not two as above), is available on the R4 ListenAgain page at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml

...search for "Small Gods". (Actually, there's a massive amount of good stuff available there, but so little time to get through it all. <sigh>)

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Actually, there's a massive amount of good stuff available there, but so little time to get through it all. <sigh>)

Thanks Robindch, now I know what I will be doing tonight. I will leave you with my two fav sayings from Small Gods

Bishops move diagonally. That's why they often turn up where kings don't expect them to be.

Gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at."

John Doe

Small Gods is a masterpiece. I don't like this thread any more, it's too circular. Wolfsbane, you come to this argument with many previous beliefs. I come to it very confused, but with a fairly reasonable knowledge of physics. I read the arguments you have provided links to. I've read other arguments about the origins of the universe. I think the ones that are generally scientifically accepted have less errors. Did you know that there is more debate in the scientific community about whether our universe is fractal and that the speed of light may have varied than whether intelligent design is likely? Both of the previous topics are highly unlikely, but it is possible to argue in favour of them scientifically without making logical and mathematical errors. To argue for Creationism you either have to make these errors or huge leaps of faith.
Entropy, as Son Goku has said, has very little to do with biological progressions. It's akin to taking very basic physics and applying it to, say the amount of energy used by a human being in a day. The conclusion of doing this would be that humans can't possibly regain all this energy. But we do. Using basic physics (or more advanced physics and throwing in errors) biological systems can't possibly become more advanced as time goes on. But they do. It is there to be seen, and can be scientifically backed up.
I have considered both arguments, and have found Creationism wanting. Of course, this must be because I was biased to start with. It couldn't be because evolution makes more sense and is sounder scientifically. I find it amusing that religious fundamentalists usually claim their p.o.v. is infallible despite public opinion, but when public opinion happens to be on their side for a change they trumpet it as if it validates everything they have ever said.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

A reasonable point. The answer is that it is both. Indeed it cannot be anything other, for if the faith is true, so must the science.

Faith is faith. If it was scientifically true, it wouldn't be a faith, it would be a fact.
And christianity as a whole IS a faith.
Geography, history etc (as subjects) are true - but they're not science.
It's not a question of what is true, it is a question of what falls under the subject science. We would not put it in geography class, for example.
Science is what we can observe and measure. It's not the same as faith.

As the case has been examined over the years since Darwin, many scientists, Christian and otherwise, have come to the conclusion that evolution doesn't hack it. Other Christians have entered science already believing in the creationist case and have found science to confirm their faith.

That's nice, but it's still a faith.

I think the objection to evolution being taught as the truth to our kids has excellent value. Even a non-believer in any religion should beware of disputed 'facts' being taught as truth, and the counter arguments being suppressed. Your liberties are ultimately at stake. This is all denied by the High Priests of Scientism, who demand you shut your ears and cry out, 'Great is Darwin of the Scientists'. Just be willing to doubt their word and examine things for yourself.

Are you willing to doubt the word of creationist scientists?

Origin of species aside, evolution is an observed fact, and should be taught as such.
Faith is not, and should be taught as such.
It doesn't mean the faith is wrong. It just means it's not science.

robindch

> [Excelsior] What kind of car does an evilutionist drive?

While I hope that our creationist friends are plodding about in biblically-approved iron chariots, I'll have to come clean and admit that I drive a Volvo (should that be an "Evolvo"?)

Anyhow, as this is a christian forum, I think that rather than wasting time asking us secular atheistic and filthy heathen Evil-u-shun-ists what we drive around in, the MORALLY right question to ask is "What would Jesus Drive?". And of course, it's been asked before:

http://www.whatwouldjesusdrive.org/

Producing predictable replies here and here from the right-wing and a slightly better one from a man with very large eyebrows.

As the guy says, it's not about vehicles, it's about values. Perhaps.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> [Excelsior] What kind of car does an evilutionist drive?

While I hope that our creationist friends are plodding about in biblically-approved iron chariots, I'll have to come clean and admit that I drive a Volvo (should that be an "Evolvo"?)

Anyhow, as this is a christian forum, I think that rather than wasting time asking us secular atheistic and filthy heathen Evil-u-shun-ists what we drive around in, the MORALLY right question to ask is "What would Jesus Drive?". And of course, it's been asked before:

http://www.whatwouldjesusdrive.org/

Producing predictable replies here and here from the right-wing and a slightly better one from a man with very large eyebrows.

As the guy says, it's not about vehicles, it's about values. Perhaps.

A Volvo!!!!! No!!!! Here in Canada, they seem to be driven by families, where the man always has a beard, the woman no make-up and she is driving.

The big eyebrow site is proof that Christians can and do laugh. Great link Robin, thanks, it has brightened up my day.:)

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:

Not having the specialized knowledge in each field does not mean that one can't understand the thrust of the argument. Even where the whole thing is above my head - especially the maths - my point is that scientists who do have such ability refute the evolutionist position.

And they fail terribly. I, and many others who have educated themselves in such matters know this. You, who can only get the superficial "thrust of arguments", have not, so you are unable to support your claims yet again.

Unless you educate yourself further, you have no place debating such matters.

You want me to be an expert in all these fields before I can point out that evolutionist claims are challenged by other experts in the field. That is just an attempt to silence the opposition, to gag the debate. You should have nothing to fear from people searching the sites for themselves - unless you know in your heart that King Evolution has no clothes.

You don't need to be an expert. You just need to know enough to understand that such creation scientists are not experts, as their ridiculous calculations and lack of scientific frameworks have shown.

Oh, and post up all the links you want. But don't just put your hands up and run away when we rip them apart.

And here's a link of our own.
www.talkorigins.org

Well, not all. Some are listening. Many creationist scientists were once just like them, but had their eyes opened.

It was sarcasm. And stop with the rhetoric. It looks ridiculous when you inflate your posts with such statements, yet repeatedly fail to add any arguments.

Bottom line is this: Creation "scientists" are wrong. This has been demonstrated. Any disagreements/objections creation scientists may have are irrelevant unles they put forth a scientific theory of creationism. They have not done this. Therefore any handwaving on your part is pointless.

Then you will be convinced by your assessment. OK, that's up to you. All these creationists scientists are fools or liars. I'm persuaded by their integrity to trust their assessment more.

But as we have already established, you are not educated in such matters enough to judge any assessment, so the only reason you choose the Creation explanation is because you want it to be right.

robindch

> A Volvo!!!!! No!!!! Here in Canada, they seem to be driven by families, where
> the man always has a beard, the woman no make-up and she is driving.

Well, here, things are different, as I've neither beard nor family and my chick doesn't drive my car. The reason I drive a Volvo is simple: as a morally-degenerate heathen Evilutionist consumed with a sense of self-preservation above that of other road users, I would like to be able to walk away from a road crash. And unless I run into a bus, truck or train, I'll be doing just that with my trusty Volvo (named Magnus for obscure reasons).

> The big eyebrow site is proof that Christians can and do laugh.

Never said that christians didn't laugh, but rather that the bible is a frightfully unfunny book, one or two labored leaden jokes nontwithstanding. Try the good folks at:

http://www.shipoffools.com
http://www.shipoffools.com/Fruitcake/index.html
http://www.shipoffools.com/Gadgets/index.html

for further evidence of witty christians.

robindch

Further to the Stephen Meyer's claim on the ID program on BBC last month, that the Discovery I]sic[/I Institute had manged to get 450 scientists to sign up to support ID in favour of evolution, it seems that Meyer, as ever, was being generous to himself in his interpretation of the figures. Turns out that the NY Times got hold of the list and contacted a few of the list members:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers….But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.

The list is available from http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and a quick look down through it shows that only around 150 are actually qualified biologists, with the remainder being a variegated collection of software heads, civil and mechanical engineers, retired and emeritus professors and at least one dead guy.

Not only that, but quite a few of them are from outside the USA, indicating that the figure I quoted above that 0.15% of relevantly qualified biologists in the USA who are creationists, is very likely to be a overestimate.

I wonder do creationists ever get embarassed when they see the dreary dishonesty of their ideaological friends?

Morbert

robindch wrote:

I wonder do creationists ever get embarassed when they see the dreary dishonesty of their ideaological friends?

They probably don't notice.

wolfsbane

Just caught up with the discussion again, folks. New committments have squeezed the time I have for our discussions, but I hope to contribute something from time to time.

Let me start with robindch who said:

I wonder do creationists ever get embarassed when they see the dreary dishonesty of their ideaological friends?

I would indeed, if they were being dishonest. That wasn't evident from your quote. Did Meyer say these folk were all biologists? If he did and they weren't then that is a lie. If he didn't, then someone is lying to us. I'd be glad to see the exact quotes. Thanks.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

See? Dalrymple acknowledges the 'anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios' that Snelling claims he ignores. The problem is not relevant in older rocks, because it does not introduce a large enough margin of error to be worth worrying about.

How much clearer does it need to be exactly, wolfsbane?

A whole lot more. The issue is not one of Dalrymple merely saying the differences wouldn't matter: he is ignoring the evidence that the differences do matter, as Snelling points out in his response. For example, there is the case of biotite
flakes that give different ages on their edges to their centres, ages
different by hundreds of millions of years. Then there are plagioclase
crystals in metamorphic rocks that give ages of twice the age of the earth!
There are also diamonds that give ages older than the age of the earth! So
much for excess argon not causing a problem with supposedly ancient rocks.
Who's the one being dishonest? Certainly it is not me, because I have just
used examples from the secular geologic literature.

That is the justification for Snelling saying he ignored the problem. Maybe he should have been clearer in his original article and said Dalrymple lied about the problem.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

Faith is faith. If it was scientifically true, it wouldn't be a faith, it would be a fact.
And christianity as a whole IS a faith.

The last part of that is incorrect. The faith (beliefs) include matters that can be scientifically verified. For example, that mankind is 'one blood', ie. one family, not different species. Contrary to the assertions, for instance, of several groups/cultures that Negroes or other ethnic groups are not fully human.

Origin of species aside, evolution is an observed fact, and should be taught as such.

And this is the disputed point, creationist scientists denying that it is an observed fact.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Unless you educate yourself further, you have no place debating such matters.

Like I said, I am content to point out where I see the emperor having no clothes. I leave the detail to the experts on the creationist sites.

You don't need to be an expert. You just need to know enough to understand that such creation scientists are not experts, as their ridiculous calculations and lack of scientific frameworks have shown.

That is a judgement I'm happy to leave to the unbiased reader. You rubbish their integrity and work. Hopefully, you are 'kicking against the pricks'. If not, you will give account for your words before Him who judges the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Any disagreements/objections creation scientists may have are irrelevant unles they put forth a scientific theory of creationism. They have not done this.

This shows how desperate you are to avoid their arguement. You demand they give a scientific explanation of how God spoke the world into existence! You know that that is not possible, just like I know you cannot explain the origin of the universe. But you try to silence creationism using this - another strong indicator for me that your side has something to hide.

Son Goku

blah, blah, blah, blah.

Look, wolfsbane, there are more evolutionary biologists named Steve than there are Creation Scientists, you can't make that into genuine dissent.
Also there are over four hundred times more evolutionary scientists who are Chritstian than there are Creation scientists.

(I can show you the figures on both of these)

Do you honestly think every scientist who doesn't agree with Creationist science is hiding something?
Do you honestly think there is some conspiracy?
Come on man, be honest with yourself, isn't that just ridiculous. I mean how would such a conspircay be organised?

Further more there are a shedload of scientists who just don't care.
I do science because I love how things work, not to bring down christianity.
I'm too absorbed in this to give a fiddle about "advancing materialism".
Most of us aren't even "materialists".

This shows how desperate you are to avoid their arguement. You demand they give a scientific explanation of how God spoke the world into existence! You know that that is not possible, just like I know you cannot explain the origin of the universe.

Do you even listen to what we're saying?
Morbert isn't asking them to explain how God created the world. That isn't what he means by a scientifc theory of Creationsim.
He means a predictive framework founded on the hypothesis of biblical creation.

Where is this framework?

robindch

> I leave the detail to the experts on the creationist sites.

Here are two bits from Douglas Adams:

A man didn’t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box. manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren’t there?"

If on the other hand he went to pay his respects to The Door and it wasn't there ... what then? The answer, of course, was very simple. He had a whole board of circuits for dealing with exactly this problem, in fact this was the very heart of his function. He would continue to believe in it whatever the facts turned out to be, what else was the meaning of belief? The Door would still be there, even if the Door was not.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

A whole lot more. The issue is not one of Dalrymple merely saying the differences wouldn't matter: he is ignoring the evidence that the differences do matter, as Snelling points out in his response. For example, there is the case of biotite
flakes that give different ages on their edges to their centres, ages
different by hundreds of millions of years. Then there are plagioclase
crystals in metamorphic rocks that give ages of twice the age of the earth!
There are also diamonds that give ages older than the age of the earth! So
much for excess argon not causing a problem with supposedly ancient rocks.
Who's the one being dishonest? Certainly it is not me, because I have just
used examples from the secular geologic literature.

That is the justification for Snelling saying he ignored the problem. Maybe he should have been clearer in his original article and said Dalrymple lied about the problem.

Snelling states that Dalrymple ignores the problem, and you follow Snelling in claiming that "he is ignoring the evidence that the differences do matter".

Dalrymple in fact does not ignore the problem that excess argon causes, in either young rocks or old. The point is that the differences don't multiply by age. If a rock is a million years old, and the excess argon causes the 'age' given by dating to be out by a million years, this is a big issue (100% error). If the rock is 400 million years old, and the excess argon causes the dating to be out by a million years, this is a trivial error (0.25% error). Same absolute error, different relative error. It's clear that you (and Snelling) either don't understand this, or don't choose to.

The other "problem" that Snelling has with dating work is that dating techniques yield a scatter of data points, and that some of these points, by virtue of contamination, give quite wild ages. The age is given by the average, which represents the bulk age of the rock (yes, there is plenty of justification for this approach). Snelling is creating a "problem" where none exists.

With respect to zoned crystals, their edges may in fact be tens of millions of years older than their centres. Hundreds of millions in metamorphosed plagioclase is not outside the bounds of possibility, since the central plagioclase may well be an igneous mineral, and the edges the result of growth under a much later metamorphic event.

I certainly don't think Snelling's credibility would have been helped by claiming that Dalrymple lied, given that Dalrymple wasn't doing what Snelling was claiming in the first place. Also, although you may find it hard to believe, it is not common practice for one scientist to dismiss the work of another as lies, or as being tainted by the Devil.

There really seems to be no point in "discussing" with you, since nothing seems to go in. You are happy to say that the Creationists you reference have good scientific arguments, but you will not accept any refutation - instead you hide behind your ignorance of science. I'm afraid the claim "I may not know much about science, but I know what I like" means absolutely nothing. How can you claim to be able to see that "the Emperor has no clothes" when you don't know what clothes are, or what an Emperor is? If you are put in a position where the falsity of your position becomes clear, you go off at a tangent or accuse everyone of materialist prejudice and conspiracy. You are the worst possible advocate for your cause, because you are so clearly dishonest.

I am sure that you will translate that into "he is unwilling to face the arguments while I am firm in my faith", but frankly, so what.

Scofflaw

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Like I said, I am content to point out where I see the emperor having no clothes. I leave the detail to the experts on the creationist sites.

Don't make me repeat myself.

Wolfsbane... If you want to put up arguments... I will gladly rip them apart for you. But you have said yourself that you do not understand the arguments, and instead only get the general "thrust" which is nowhere near good enough.

So unless you rectify that problem, you shouldn't be debating.

See... All you're doing is regurgitating the fact that there are creationists out there. Everyone on this forum already knows that.

That is a judgement I'm happy to leave to the unbiased reader. You rubbish their integrity and work. Hopefully, you are 'kicking against the pricks'. If not, you will give account for your words before Him who judges the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Call them what you will.

They are wrong.

This has been demonstrated by the scientific community.

This shows how desperate you are to avoid their arguement. You demand they give a scientific explanation of how God spoke the world into existence! You know that that is not possible, just like I know you cannot explain the origin of the universe. But you try to silence creationism using this - another strong indicator for me that your side has something to hide.

[My emphasis]

I'm asking for a scientific theory of creationism. Are you saying this is impossible? If you are then I completely agree.

We know that it is impossible to set creationism into a theoretical scientific framework. Therefore creationism cannot generate any scientific predictons and cannot be considered a science.

If you want to teach it as a religion, fine by me.

And avoiding arguments? You haven't put forth any argument other than "There are people who believe the earth was Created a few thousand years ago". Which doesn't really amount to much.

JC at least put forth arguments, and read our exchange to see how a debate should be held.

robindch

Looks like it's only a matter of time before we start seeing religious fantasy dressed up as fact in Ireland, what with the creationism suddenly turning up in the UK's GCSE biology syllabus:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

Bring back the flat earth and four elements, I say!

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Also there are over four hundred times more evolutionary scientists who are Chritstian than there are Creation scientists.

There are some no doubt, but one needs to define 'Christian' before getting into proportions. Not all who say, 'Lord, Lord' are genuine. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&verse=22&version=50&context=verse

Do you honestly think every scientist who doesn't agree with Creationist science is hiding something?

Indeed not. Some are just blinded by their presuppositions.

Come on man, be honest with yourself, isn't that just ridiculous. I mean how would such a conspircay be organised?

By the express or implicit agreement that evolution is not to be questioned. To do so means losing the respect of one's peers. Peer-pressure is well documented in many spheres of life. Even amongst those committed to a general understanding, a 'line' may develop that cannot be questioned: the reaction to Stephen Gould is an indication of that. How much more for those at the opposite end from the 'established truth'?

He means a predictive framework founded on the hypothesis of biblical creation.

Where is this framework?

If that is the case, then you and he knows that the evidences offered by creationists on their sites fulfil that demand. If the earth is only several thousand years old, such and such should be observed: is this what you mean by a predictive framework?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

There really seems to be no point in "discussing" with you, since nothing seems to go in. You are happy to say that the Creationists you reference have good scientific arguments, but you will not accept any refutation - instead you hide behind your ignorance of science. I'm afraid the claim "I may not know much about science, but I know what I like" means absolutely nothing. How can you claim to be able to see that "the Emperor has no clothes" when you don't know what clothes are, or what an Emperor is?

I do not need to be able to refute your refutations: that is what the creation scientists are there for. I am here to point the unwary to the fact that the Bible does not allow for evolution and therefore true Christians should re-examine how they came to accept evolution; and to warn unbelievers that their stronghold of truth is in fact a delusion and they need to seek the Lord while He may be found.

You also make a false dichotomy between full knowledge and necessary knowledge: I have enough to recognise there is a disagreement amongst qualified scientists regarding evolution; I have enough to 'smell a rat' when I see suppression of one side of the debate. Your comments should be incorporated into the fable of the emperor's clothes: the boy would be told 'you don't know what clothes are, or what an Emperor is' and the whole show can continue on.