The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

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

This is a Christian forum: this thread had its purpose set out by Danno in the opening post:I wish to open this thread to discuss the Bible and Creationism, and to hear peoples opinions on what can be viewed as the most fundamental part of the origins of man, and also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going. I think that covers my contributions. You may like to restrict it to a scientific debate open solely to qualified scientists, but that is not its purpose.

I believe this thread has fulfilled its purpose well, by informing all what the Bible teaches, and setting out the arguments of Creationism vs Evolution. The sites I have given offer more detailed argument for those wishing to take that up.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:

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

I severely doubt there would be enough false Christians to swallow the " over four hundred more" statistic.

wolfsbane wrote:

Indeed not. Some are just blinded by their presuppositions.

What presuppositions? You keep saying this. The only presupposition I've heard you describe is one where we assume things are as old as evidence says.

If you say materialism, then as I've said before, very few scientists are motivated by materialism.
We aren't motivated by destroying supernatural explanations, we're motivated by finding explanations.

Let's look at it this way, if you weren't a literalist Christian, would you honestly have an objection to evolution based on the evidence?

Also, look at Creation Scientists, do their explanations honestly look like they're trying to figure stuff out or just trying to show that a literal interpretation of the Bible is scientifically accurate, no matter how much of modern science has to be false for this to be true.

All their papers on astrophysics just completely go against all evidence.
When the rest of the community is trying to figure out what happens in the first few moments after a star is born, their saying that we've never seen a star been born. Which we have, more than eighty times.
When everyone else is attempting to explain the angular momentum a galaxy retains from its birth, they're saying that galaxies weren't born as we think and that evidence about their rotation is incorrect.

e.t.c., e.t.c.,.................................

wolfsbane wrote:

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'?

I'm not going to respond to this, because I feel an infinite wheel coming on, where you'll continuously use words like "bias" and "assumptions" and words ending in "isms" and "ists".
Let me instead ask you, what about the expressed agreement of Creationist Scientists that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not to be questioned?

wolfsbane wrote:

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?

No, what they do is find evidence and attempt to show that it proves a young Earth, rather than predicting things in advance.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

No, what they do is find evidence and attempt to show that it proves a young Earth, rather than predicting things in advance.

Not even that, really - just inventing problems with dating techniques and claiming that if the dates given are unreliable, then the answer must be the Biblical figure (presumably because it's the "only" alternative).

wolfsbane wrote:

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.

Except that there are literally thousands of scientific establishments, scattered across every country in the world, and containing millions of scientists with all kinds of backgrounds. Peer pressure is indeed well-documented in smaller communities, but is not documented at the scale necessary to encompass all of science.

wolfsbane wrote:

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.

Actually, you don't, because you don't know enough to know when someone is a qualified scientist with a relevant and up-to-date qualification, let alone be able to recognise when a qualified scientist is blinded by his or her religious beliefs to the extent of making pseudo-scientific claims. Nor is one side of the debate "suppressed" within science, as you so fondly believe - it doesn't exist. The debate about Creationism is a religious one, as it should be. It remains irrelevant to science.

Scofflaw

samb

wolfsbane wrote:

I think that covers my contributions. You may like to restrict it to a scientific debate open solely to qualified scientists, but that is not its purpose.
.

But then there would be no discussion-there is no scientific debate on this issue.

Scofflaw

samb wrote:

But then there would be no discussion-there is no scientific debate on this issue.

Which is why this thread is on a Religion board.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

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!

Ah, no, not really. I went to school in the UK, and Creationism was "on the syllabus" even then, in exactly the same form. Irish schools & colleges don't teach much of the history of science, but the UK does, so in Biology, studying evolution, we started with Creationism (kinds, the Flood), and then moved on through it's abandonment and the evidence that forced them to abandon Biblical literalism. Exactly the kind of thinking wolfsbane is against.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

What presuppositions? You keep saying this. The only presupposition I've heard you describe is one where we assume things are as old as evidence says.

If you say materialism, then as I've said before, very few scientists are motivated by materialism.
We aren't motivated by destroying supernatural explanations, we're motivated by finding explanations.

Your words as old as evidence says are an example of presuppositions. A presupposition may well be justified; but it cannot be unchallenged. So you see the evidence and ask, how long would this to take to happen? You might apply today's rate of deposition or decay; you may assume how much of an element of it was there to begin with; etc. But other explanations should be considered. Have the rates changed in the past? Was there more/less of an element present to begin with.

If one approached science with the openess you assert, that would be a big improvement on today's reality. But when one rules out a priori a mature creation as a possible explanation, then only long age explanations are sought to fit. The concept of anything other than a materialist explanation for the evidence has been ruled out as 'non-science' by some on this list, I my memory serves me correctly.

Let's look at it this way, if you weren't a literalist Christian, would you honestly have an objection to evolution based on the evidence?

Even as a literalist Christian, I have no objection to anything based on evidence. That is, PROVED by the evidence. But that is the nub: the evidence is the same for creationist and evolutionist. It is the interpretation of the evidence that causes the difficulty.

Also, look at Creation Scientists, do their explanations honestly look like they're trying to figure stuff out or just trying to show that a literal interpretation of the Bible is scientifically accurate, no matter how much of modern science has to be false for this to be true.

Both. But their prime concern - life is short, so we must seek what is most important - is the vindication of Scripture as the reliable Word of God. Men's eternal destiny rests upon the individual believing and obeying His message to us. Scientific truth is a fine thing to explore, but not the most important.

Let me instead ask you, what about the expressed agreement of Creationist Scientists that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not to be questioned?

Their presupposition is not so much the YEC aspect of creationism, but that the Bible is true in all it asserts. If an evolutionist model could be squared with Scripture, no Christian should rule it out. But the theological objections to most forms of the theory are insurmountable - especially those relating to suffering and death.

As I said, presuppositions are not bad in themselves. But if they are wrong, then they can hide the error from the unwary.

No, what they do is find evidence and attempt to show that it proves a young Earth, rather than predicting things in advance.

Creationism - the belief in the Biblical account of the creation of all things - existed long before modern scientific methods and before the vast accumulation of evidence. The predictions are implicit and explicit: all evidence will be consistent with a young earth. The evidences for a young earth are listed in the sites. What specific prediction would you like? That dinosaur remains will be found with organic material still evident? After a few thousand years of fossilization, should be rare, but not an impossiblity. After 65 million years, surely an impossibility. Read the links and note the evolutionist squirming: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Actually, you don't, because you don't know enough to know when someone is a qualified scientist with a relevant and up-to-date qualification, let alone be able to recognise when a qualified scientist is blinded by his or her religious beliefs to the extent of making pseudo-scientific claims. Nor is one side of the debate "suppressed" within science, as you so fondly believe - it doesn't exist. The debate about Creationism is a religious one, as it should be. It remains irrelevant to science.

Let the reader check the sites and see for themselves the nature of the qualifications, rationality, and suppression of creationist ideas. The last two sentences are just a part of that attempt.

Son Goku

Your words as old as evidence says are an example of presuppositions. A presupposition may well be justified; but it cannot be unchallenged. So you see the evidence and ask, how long would this to take to happen? You might apply today's rate of deposition or decay; you may assume how much of an element of it was there to begin with; etc. But other explanations should be considered. Have the rates changed in the past? Was there more/less of an element present to begin with.

All those things have been checked and the assertion today is that decay has remained constant to within a 99.99998% confidence interval.

One of the first rules of being a scientist is don't assume you're the first to consider something. Almost any objection or refutation you think of will have been dealt with somewhere in the literature.
(Which is why writing a thesis can be so difficult, particularly in physics, where it is hard to find something which hasn't been covered.)

All the challenges to dating have already been explored.

Scientific data still points towards 13.7 billion years as the "age" of the universe, even with hundreds of counter-arguments against dating methods.

Also the more we find out about nuclear physics the more it seems confirmed that decay rates have remained constant.

Do you really think we have assumed that decay rates have always been the same and never checked this assumption?

I think you don't understand just how rigorously things are checked within the scientific community.

But when one rules out a priori a mature creation as a possible explanation, then only long age explanations are sought to fit. The concept of anything other than a materialist explanation for the evidence has been ruled out as 'non-science' by some on this list, I my memory serves me correctly.

What?
When the hell was a mature creation ruled out a priori. No particular age is ruled out, only those that don't agree with evidence. I don't know where you got the idea that we ruled out certain ages a priori.
Unless you mean we rule out the idea that it was created later than evidence suggests, leaving no observable difference, which we rule out because it's useless.

Even as a literalist Christian, I have no objection to anything based on evidence. That is, PROVED by the evidence. But that is the nub: the evidence is the same for creationist and evolutionist. It is the interpretation of the evidence that causes the difficulty.

Well what do you make of the evidence that 99% of the fossil record consists of animals that never made an appearance in all of recorded human history.
(Including an entire phylum)

Both. But their prime concern - life is short, so we must seek what is most important - is the vindication of Scripture as the reliable Word of God. Men's eternal destiny rests upon the individual believing and obeying His message to us. Scientific truth is a fine thing to explore, but not the most important.
Their presupposition is not so much the YEC aspect of creationism, but that the Bible is true in all it asserts. If an evolutionist model could be squared with Scripture, no Christian should rule it out. But the theological objections to most forms of the theory are insurmountable - especially those relating to suffering and death.

Isn't that a much more biased mindset for investigating the world than the standard scientific one?

The predictions are implicit and explicit: all evidence will be consistent with a young earth.

That's a very vague prediction. Scientific predictions need to be a lot stronger and more specific than that.
Rather than cherry picking what agrees with this you need to state something which can be definitively checked.

That dinosaur remains will be found with organic material still evident? After a few thousand years of fossilization, should be rare, but not an impossiblity. After 65 million years, surely an impossibility. Read the links and note the evolutionist squirming:

Now my immediate question would be, how come this doesn't happen in the majority of fossils, rather than instantly seeing as evidence of a young earth.



The final thing I'll say to you is, as much as evolution disagrees with a young creation, General Relativity and the Standard Model disagree a hell of a lot more.
Do you consider General Relativity and the Standard Model to be flawed then?

Scofflaw

I should make a point in relation to wolfsbane's repeated claims of suppression of Creationism by peer pressure - I would probably accept them in relation to the US.

I have no hard evidence for this, but it is certainly visible in relation to environmentalism. I am currently reading Lomborg's response to Scientific American's 11-page editorial attack on his book The Skeptical Environmentalist - Lomborg was given no space to reply to the attack, and the editorial is clearly unbalanced. While it might be pointed out that an editorial is a piece of journalism rather than science, if the lack of balance reflects editorial policy at SciAm, then it seems unlikely that climate-change-sceptical works will get much publication in their magazine. I don't know what the position on Creationism is at SciAm, but I can guess.

Before anyone gets exercised over this, bear in mind that SciAm is not a peer-reviewed journal but a scientific magazine. Also, the US has the highest level of biblical literalists, and represents almost the entire Creationist movement worldwide, but does not contain the majority of scientists, so I'm afraid that claims of a 'scientific conspiracy' are still just hogwash. There is almost certainly a media prejudice in the US, but that's irrelevant to science worldwide, which nevertheless is non-Creationist.

However, I can certainly see how someone who is US-based, or US-focused, could mistake their local issues for something more global, given their well-known parochialism. In fact it's just a reflection of the rather odd way US society works.


regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

With respect to the partially unfossilised dinosaur material - interesting stuff! I'll have a read around.

[EDIT]Still interesting, but not quite as exciting as the AIG article suggests. First off, we are dealing with very small structures (microstructures), not big lumps, embedded entirely in bone (good place for preservation). The majority of the material is crystalline (fully diagenetically replaced by minerals), while some may retain "an organic character", although this last is not certain yet. Most of what the report covers is actually microstructures that have been very 'gently' replaced by extremely fine-grained minerals - they are the fossils of cells (extremely fine preservation of this kind is relatively rare, which is to say we have thousands of examples).Organic preservation is extremely rare, but is certainly not impossible when you're dealing with structures this tiny and well-protected. I'm afraid that this will not require any new theories, but some detailed detective work on the exact history of micro-scale diagenesis within these specimens. If we're lucky, it will give us pointers on settings likely to promote this level of preservation.[/EDIT]

As to wolfsbane's absurd claims of "evolutionist squirming", I'm afraid I can't see any. As usual, the reviewer of the work has no relevant qualifications, and is actually an ex-doctor (medical). One might think a medical doctor would be qualified to comment on soft tissues, and you'd be right. Unfortunately the issue isn't whether they're soft tissues, but how they are not mineralised or destroyed, which is a geologists' area. Quite aside from anything else, people are delighted (but sceptical), rather than perplexed or angry as a Creationist conspiracy theorist might expect. And no, no-one has said "ooh, shouldn't we accept then that these fossils are maybe only thousands of years old" because, as I've said before, there is no scientific evidence behind Creationism.

On the other hand, it's an excellent example of the Creationist fixation on first reports of apparent anomalies. Happily they ignore the lack of additional material, and the finer details of the material itself, and I would put money on a complete lack of interest in the eventual scientific explanation. Nevertheless, I am sure that "dinosaur soft tissue" will get a permanent place in the Creationist canon of "evidence". Anyone care to take up the bet?

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> 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.

Luckily, I video'd that program and the quotation from Meyer is as follows:

There is a growing group of dissenting scientists around the world who are dissenting from Darwinian Evolution. Now over 450 scientists (cut to a picture of prominent ID proponent Dembski) have signed a list saying that they doubt that natural selection could produce the complexity of life. It may be a minority position within science but a growing minority and one which we think has the support of an enormous amount of evidence about the complexity of the inner workings of cellular life.

Firstly, although Dembski claims to be a scientist, he is not (see this sworn deposition to the Dover case which discusses his education, his almost total lack of productive work since he received his qualification, and his contempt for scientific peer-review -- quote from Dembski "I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty.").

Secondly, Meyer's list as I said above, is made up largely of non-biologists and non-scientists - mechanical engineers, computer heads, nutritionists, pediatricians, medical doctors and at least one one corpse. It is therefore grossly dishonest of Meyer to imply that the majority of his list are (a) scientists and (b) qualified to hand out opinions on evolution.

Finally, the "enormous amount of evidence" he mentions to does not exist as the ID-proponent Behe had to admit during the Dover court case, as noted in the final judgement:

Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. [...] In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.

Consequently, Meyer has mislead you about the list and he has mislead you about the evidence. You are free to draw your own conclusions, therefore, about whether or not "someone is lying to us".

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Firstly, although Dembski claims to be a scientist, he is not

...

Secondly, Meyer's list as I said above, is made up largely of non-biologists and non-scientists - mechanical engineers, computer heads, nutritionists, pediatricians, medical doctors and at least one one corpse. It is therefore grossly dishonest of Meyer to imply that the majority of his list are (a) scientists and (b) qualified to hand out opinions on evolution.

Scientist: n.
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science. That seems to describe these signators.

As to those directly involved in the biological aspect of evolution, even the journalist acknowledges the Institute, Meyer's institute, published the facts:
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.

I have checked the list for myself and find it very impressive. They seem to me to be well able to express an educated opinion on evolution.

Finally, the "enormous amount of evidence" he mentions to does not exist as the ID-proponent Behe had to admit during the Dover court case, as noted in the final judgement:

You then quote:Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims and In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.. As already pointed out, it is the evolutionists who control who gets published. As to the latter claim, how has all the complexity of biological systems been discovered if not through research and testing? Many of the creationist biologists are involved in that.

But the main point of your argument relates to Meyer misleading us by saying there is an enormous amount of evidence for ID. What he actually said (from your own quote) was an enormous amount of evidence about the complexity of the inner workings of cellular life. Do you deny there is an enormous amount of evidence about the complexity of the inner workings of cellular life? How is he being dishonest about that?

Consequently, Meyer has mislead you about the list and he has mislead you about the evidence. You are free to draw your own conclusions, therefore, about whether or not "someone is lying to us".

I see that either you have misunderstood what defines a scientist and misunderstood what Meyer said; or you are lying to us. I am happy to go with the former.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

But the main point of your argument relates to Meyer misleading us by saying there is an enormous amount of evidence for ID. What he actually said (from your own quote) was an enormous amount of evidence about the complexity of the inner workings of cellular life. Do you deny there is an enormous amount of evidence about the complexity of the inner workings of cellular life? How is he being dishonest about that?

First, I don't think that is the "main point" of robin's argument. Second, none of us would deny that there is "an enormous amount of evidence about the complexity of the inner workings of cellular life" - but this is not accepted as being evidence for ID. So, if he claims it as "an enormous amount of evidence for ID" he is being misleading.

Scofflaw

hairyheretic

wolfsbane wrote:

Scientist: n.
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science. That seems to describe these signators.

As to those directly involved in the biological aspect of evolution, even the journalist acknowledges the Institute, Meyer's institute, published the facts:
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.

I have checked the list for myself and find it very impressive. They seem to me to be well able to express an educated opinion on evolution.

Knowledge or qualifications in one field does not mean that someone is qualified in another. Especially not to an expert level.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering, but will quite happily admit that the biology stuff on here has me lost. I'm not qualified to make any kind of educated oppinion on it. It would sound to me like the majority of that list are equally unqualified.

robindch

> Firstly, although Dembski claims to be a scientist, he is not

You will notice that I linked to a document produced for the Dover court case, and written by Jeffrey Shallit, a well-known researcher in the area in which Dembski claims expertise. As you've not read the court deposition, I'll quote here the relevant part for you:

William Dembski has not made a significant contribution to a mathematical or scientific understanding of "design". His work is not regarded as significant by information theorists, mathematicians, statisticians or computer scientists. He does not present his work in the generally-accepted fora for results in these fields. His mathematical work is riddled with errors and inconsistencies that he has not acknowledged; it is not mathematics, but pseudomathematics

To summarize: his work is useless, he does not accept corrections from anybody and his principal interest, as he says himself, is to make money "My books sell well. I get a royalty" -- feel free to draw your own conclusions from that.

> I have checked the list for myself and find it very impressive. They
> seem to me to be well able to express an educated opinion on evolution.

I presume therefore, that you're likewlse happy to have nutritionists deliver opinions on quantum physics?

> But the main point of your argument relates to Meyer misleading us
> by saying there is an enormous amount of evidence for ID. What he
> actually said (from your own quote) was an enormous amount of
> evidence about the complexity of the inner workings of cellular life.

Perhaps you should read what Meyer said again -- I'll just include the relevant words, so that there's no chance of confusion:

[...]a minority position [...] which we think has the support of an enormous amount of evidence [...]

This means, to break it down for you, that Meyer thinks that the fact that cells are complicated supports his position. It does not and it is frankly dishonest of him to say so. Are you able to see this?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

This means, to break it down for you, that Meyer thinks that the fact that cells are complicated supports his position. It does not and it is frankly dishonest of him to say so. Are you able to see this?

Quite the contrary, he is entitled to to claim the support of this evidence. That is the debate. It cannot be that the issue of the debate (for any side) is to be assumed beforehand. You said, Finally, the "enormous amount of evidence" he mentions to does not exist , but it seems you meant that the evidence exists but it does not support his assertion.

You quoted an opponent of Dembski, William Dembski has not made a significant contribution to a mathematical or scientific understanding of "design". . That could be an unbiased opinion of a peer - or the biased opinion of a peer unwilling to face the facts. It is the opinion of an opponent. It is not proof of the the falsity of ID. I found his bio. on Wikipedia enlightening as to his credentials:Dembski's knowledge of statistics, coupled with his general scepticism concerning evolutionary theory, led him to believe that the extraordinary diversity of life was statistically unlikely to have been produced by natural selection. A key turning point for him was reached at a conference on randomness at Ohio State University in 1988, where statistician Persi Diaconis concluded the event by saying, "We know what randomness isn't. We don't know what it is." Dembski cites this event as a catalyst for his subsequent work on design. [2] He concluded that randomness is a derivative notion, which can only be understood in terms of design, a more fundamental concept. He presented these thoughts in his 1991 paper "Randomness by Design", which appeared in the journal Noûs. These ideas led to his notion of specified complexity, which he developed in The Design Inference, a revision of his Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy.

In 1991, lawyer Phillip E. Johnson coined the phrase "intelligent design" to refer to the idea that there is scientific evidence that life was created through unspecified processes by an intelligent but unidentified designer. Biochemist Michael Behe devised the argument of "irreducible complexity" (IC) to which Dembski added his doctrine of "specified complexity" (SC) as a supporting element. Dembski's mathematical arguments rest on Behe's assertion that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve gradually. Dembski's specified complexity rides on Behe's claim, and its validity is dependent on the validity of irreducible complexity.

his principal interest, as he says himself, is to make money "My books sell well. I get a royalty" -- feel free to draw your own conclusions from that.

My conclusion from that is that you have misrepresented him. Here's his actual quote:"I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more." (The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 21, 2001)

I presume therefore, that you're likewlse happy to have nutritionists deliver opinions on quantum physics?

If the proposition concerned was as basic as that involved in determining the probability of irreducibily complex organisms arising by chance, then anyone with the IQ should be able to assess it pro or con.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

All the challenges to dating have already been explored.

See http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-386.pdf

When the hell was a mature creation ruled out a priori. No particular age is ruled out, only those that don't agree with evidence. I don't know where you got the idea that we ruled out certain ages a priori.

The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’1
References
Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31. But see whole article in which this is quoted: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp

Well what do you make of the evidence that 99% of the fossil record consists of animals that never made an appearance in all of recorded human history.

Like the coelacanth? Any of various mostly extinct fishes of the order Coelacanthiformes, known only in fossil form until a single living species, Latimeria chalumnae of African marine waters, was identified in 1938.
Or the unknown animals refered to in the Bible and other ancient writings? Or were you expecting an inventory from the Ark to have survived?

Rather than cherry picking what agrees with this you need to state something which can be definitively checked.

See my references to the sites for evidences of a young earth.

Now my immediate question would be, how come this doesn't happen in the majority of fossils, rather than instantly seeing as evidence of a young earth.

I imagine the nature of fossilization over a few thousand years makes it rare. But to think it could happen for 65 million years really requires amazing faith.

The final thing I'll say to you is, as much as evolution disagrees with a young creation, General Relativity and the Standard Model disagree a hell of a lot more.
Do you consider General Relativity and the Standard Model to be flawed then?

No. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/cosmos.asp

robindch

> That could be an unbiased opinion of a peer - or the biased opinion of a
> peer unwilling to face the facts. It is the opinion of an opponent.

Pfff. Are you not able to read a straightforward fact without getting all sweaty that it's actually a religious or political opinion? (See my previous posting today here).

Can you not understand that if one guy says that "1+1=3" and that a second guy says it's wrong, that the second guy might actually know what he's talking about because he knows more than the first guy?

> If the proposition concerned was as basic as that involved in determining
> the probability of irreducibily complex organisms arising by chance, then
> anyone with the IQ should be able to assess it pro or con.

In that case, I suggest you contact the Nobel committee with your "basic" calculations concerning the chances involved. The committee is on the web at:

http://www.nobelprize.org/

or you can phone them directly at Tel. +46-8-663-1707. For showing that biogenesis is mathematically impossible, you *will* receive the Chemistry prize -- congratulations! I hope we'll all be invited to the ceremony

robindch

> see whole article in which this is quoted:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp

"Science a creationist invention" -- what magnificant chutzpah!

Anyhow, while we're including extensive quotes from elsewhere, I think it's time to repost this bit from HL Mencken's excellent reporting of the Scopes "Monkey Trial", over 80 years ago. Apologies if you've seen this before:

Such obscenities as the forthcoming trial of the Tennessee evolutionist, if they serve no other purpose, at least call attention dramatically to the fact that enlightenment, among mankind, is very narrowly dispersed. [...] The men of the educated minority, no doubt, know more than their predecessors, and of some of them, perhaps, it may be said that they are more civilized -- though I should not like to be put to giving names -- but the great masses of men, even in this inspired republic, are precisely where the mob was at the dawn of history. They are ignorant, they are dishonest, they are cowardly, they are ignoble. They know little if anything that is worth knowing, and there is not the slightest sign of a natural desire among them to increase their knowledge.

The most ignorant man […] has at hand a thousand devices for making life less wearisome and more tolerable: the telephone, railroads, bichloride tablets, newspapers, sewers, correspondence schools, delicatessen. But he had no more to do with bringing these things into the world than the horned cattle in the fields, and he does no more to increase them today than the birds of the air. On the contrary, he is generally against them, and sometimes with immense violence. Every step in human progress, from the first feeble stirrings in the abyss of time, has been opposed by the great majority of men. Every valuable thing that has been added to the store of man's possessions has been derided by them when it was new, and destroyed by them when they had the power. They have fought every new truth ever heard of, and they have killed every truth-seeker who got into their hands.

The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his congenital hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows more than he does, and so gets more out of life. Certainly it cannot have gone unnoticed that their membership is recruited, in the overwhelming main, from the lower orders -- that no man of any education or other human dignity belongs to them. […] The inferior man's reasons for hating knowledge are not hard to discern. He hates it because it is complex -- because it puts an unbearable burden upon his meager capacity for taking in ideas. Thus his search is always for short cuts. All superstitions are such short cuts. Their aim is to make the unintelligible simple, and even obvious. So on what seem to be higher levels. No man who has not had a long and arduous education can understand even the most elementary concepts of modern pathology. But even a hind at the plow can grasp the theory of chiropractic in two lessons. Hence the vast popularity of chiropractic among the submerged -- and of osteopathy, Christian Science and other such quackeries with it. They are idiotic, but they are simple -- and every man prefers what he can understand to what puzzles and dismays him.

The popularity of Fundamentalism among the inferior orders of men is explicable in exactly the same way. The cosmogonies that educated men toy with are all inordinately complex. To comprehend their veriest outlines requires an immense stock of knowledge, and a habit of thought. It would be as vain to try to teach to peasants or to the city proletariat as it would be to try to teach them to streptococci. But the cosmogony of Genesis is so simple that even a yokel can grasp it. It is set forth in a few phrases. It offers, to an ignorant man, the irresistible reasonableness of the nonsensical. So he accepts it with loud hosannas, and has one more excuse for hating his betters.

What all this amounts to is that the human race is divided into two sharply differentiated and mutually antagonistic classes, almost two genera -- a small minority that plays with ideas and is capable of taking them in, and a vast majority that finds them painful, and is thus arrayed against them, and against all who have traffic with them. The intellectual heritage of the race belongs to the minority, and to the minority only.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose! The full text is here.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Anyhow, while we're including extensive quotes from elsewhere, I think it's time to repost this bit from HL Mencken's excellent reporting of the Scopes "Monkey Trial", over 80 years ago. Apologies if you've seen this before:

No need to apologise, it's wonderful stuff!

I especially liked
The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters.
and
What all this amounts to is that the human race is divided into two sharply differentiated and mutually antagonistic classes, almost two genera -- a small minority that plays with ideas and is capable of taking them in, and a vast majority that finds them painful, and is thus arrayed against them, and against all who have traffic with them. The intellectual heritage of the race belongs to the minority, and to the minority only.

See this excellent article on this sort of thinking, entitled 'the Lies of Lynchburg': http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/lynchburg.asp

robindch

> No need to apologise, it's wonderful stuff!

Indeed it is, but I suspect in your thrice-weekly rush to blame the Holocaust on Darwin, you may have missed Mencken's point slightly. Try reading it again a bit more slowly.

Out of interest -- did you see The Life of Brian, and if you did, did you find it funny?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

All the challenges to dating have already been explored.

Sorry, I forgot to add this to my last post:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

wolfsbane

robindch said:

you may have missed Mencken's point slightly.

I got his point, I just refuse to tug my forelock.

Out of interest -- did you see The Life of Brian, and if you did, did you find it funny?

Only saw parts of it. No, I found it blasphemous. If it were parodying the execution of a great liberator - Wallace, for example - then it might just avoid being offensive. But when it does so regarding the Son of God, then it is no better than what the Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers did at the actual event. It was no laughing matter then.

And it will not be when Jesus' words come to pass:
Matthew 12:36 But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

No. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/cosmos.asp

I'm sorry for not addressing the rest of your post but excuse me while I have multiple physics heart attacks.

The Site wrote:

2. 'Big bang' theory indeed flows naturally from the equations of general relativity, but only if a particular starting assumption is made, one which leading cosmologists admit is totally arbitrary and ideological, namely that the universe is unbounded—that is, having no edge and thus no centre.

Ah!, no.
The Universe being unbounded isn't what gives rise to the Big Bang as a solution to the Field Equation.
The Field Equation permits no static solutions. (De Sitter proved this very early on)

The Site wrote:

When this is replaced by the opposite assumption (which, though equally arbitrary, seems more in line with biblical presuppositions), namely that the universe is finite and bounded, the same equations of general relativity produce a radically different result.

A bounded manifold?! What?
The only way I can guess to have a bounded universe is to have us encased in a gigantic sphere of naked singularties.

that with the entire universe being made in six ordinary Earth-rotation days, Adam could have looked up on the sixth day at stars actually many millions of light-years away and observed light which actually left those stars—all without having to assume any change in the speed of light (c).

Okay, I will now describe what would happen if this were true.

In order for the rest of the universe to age that much while Earth ages only six days, the Sun would have to be made entirely of squarkonium (a substance we haven't even proven exists), with the rest of the Universe orbiting at 99.999999999% of the speed of light.

This would last about a month before the entire universe would radiate energy away in the form of gravitational waves, before stabilising as a system evolving toward a (non-rotating)black hole.
The gravitational radiation would be sufficient to atomise most matter.



Regardless that is the worst misuse of General Relativity ever.

And we still have the bigger problem for Creationism, the Standard Model.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

I presume therefore, that you're likewlse happy to have nutritionists deliver opinions on quantum physics?

Or worse, physicists delivering opinions on nutrition!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, engineers are not scientists. Ideally, in fact, we would spit on their corpses. Partly because they're better paid, mind you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Doe

wolfsbane wrote:

it is no better than what the Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers did at the actual event.

That is preposterous. I suppose you believe also that "the day someone laughed at an anti-semitic joke was the day Hitler received permission to orchestrate the Holocaust". (It wasn't. It was when a large number of the ruling group in Germany had convinced everyone that Jews were truly malignant and inferior, and wished to take advantage of this by attempting their extermination. No-one laughed.)

I'm on Tommy Tiernan's side when he says we should laugh at everything and anything. It's only when the humour becomes malevolent that there's any sort of harm to it. Otherwise, being able to laugh at each other and ourselves helps us only to have more empathy for one another. How can one equate murder with well-intentioned fun-poking? To do so defies rationality.

I can see how a Christian might find The Life of Brian unpleasant, but to come out with this sort of wild comment in response undermines your point. Anyway, Jesus was in that film as well as Brian, and nothing that he does/is done to him is blasphemous. He just gives his sermon on the mount.

Scofflaw

Thanks John. I'm glad you did that. I couldn't bring myself to comment on someone finding Life of Brian blasphemous. It's just too sad.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [John Doe] He just gives his sermon on the mount.

Any time that I hear people arguing the literal versus alegorical interpretations, the Sermon on the Mount's cheesemaker gag springs to mind:

Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers".
Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers?
Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

> [Scofflaw]Or worse, physicists delivering opinions on nutrition!

Worse again, what about faith-based diets, as related by/to the great Don Colbert, MD, author of What would Jesus eat?

(curls up + chokes).