The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

sdep wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't really go along with this. The internet is full of scientists' blogs, there are regular science TV & radio series, and there is good quality science journalism in the newspapers and other media that take science seriously.

Blogs are good, but are mostly read by the scientifically literate. Ditto the "serious" documentaries. Most science reporting in the mainstream media, newspapers in particular, is a case of information accepted on authority and tends to be selected for human interest rather than scientific significance. There is very little critical reading and quote from scientists are usually of the soundbite variety. Hence most of the papers pushing poorly-performed studies that cover topical issues such as cancer. The tabloids in particular seem hell-bent on putting Everything That Exists into boxes labelled "Causes Cancer" and "Prevents Cancer". And the fact of the matter is that the MMR/autism scandal would never have taken on the life it now has without the credulous swallowing of information-on-authority (based on a study that didn't even conclude a causal connection, thank you Dr. Wakefield) and hysterical crusading of the tabloids.

sdep wrote: »

I think scientists are generally happy to explain their work to the media when they are offered the chance - for example, you can see physicists currently falling over themselves to talk to the press about 'Big Bang Day'.

Some are, but typically the scientists featured on panel shows not the actual publishers of the work in question (which again has been selected based on it's capacity to sell papers) and often scientists have a fair bit of trouble getting the real point of their work across even in that format.

Aside from this, what I'm talking about is conveying the very basics of the scientific method and philosophy to the people. Teaching critical reading and basic scepticism, real scepticism rather than unfounded mistrust or paranoia.

sdep wrote: »

The 'elitism' charge is one often made by creationists, and frankly says more about them than the scientists they are maligning.

The perception is based on the relative aloofness of the scientific community. And to an extent, it is also a reality. Science unfortunately tends to attract uncharismatic and antisocial people perhaps more than many other industries. I can't count how many conferences I've been to in which excellent scientific work was rendered unintelligible or merely boring by poor communicators. The "elitist" attitude is more a defence mechanism by grown up nerds than it is a true reflection of arrogance.

sdep

robindch wrote: »

It's one of the few things that creationists are not that far off the mark on. Scientific journals are not easy things to read and a bit of public intercourse would be useful, perhaps even enjoyable, for all.

Whenever there's a breakthrough paper, the mainstream media take it up, and the scientists who did the work get the chance to explain its significance to the public.

robindch wrote: »

Surely it's not beyond expectations for the same to be done with biology?

My old biology department has held a couple of big public symposia over the last few years, and they've been reasonably attended. Perhaps there's a public appetite for more.

More broadly, there are regular biology TV & radio series fronted by media-savvy scientists like Robert Winston, Richard Dawkins, Susan Greenfield, and there are all those natural history series which rely on extensive input from scientists. There are also the halfway-house magazines like New Scientist that give a good overview of science without going into the technicalities, and scientists regularly talk to them.

Scientists know where their funding comes from, so they know it's important to let the public know what they're researching. Also, they find what they are working on so interesting that they want to tell other people about it. Those who want more science in the media have to remember, though, that not everyone wants the same thing. Talk to a science journalist and they'll tell you they've a daily battle to wring more print space out of their editors.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Robin, down 'below' the hard to read jounals are magazines such as National Geographic and Scientific american which act as reader's digests. Much easier to read for the layman.
You can't expect scientists to 'tone it down' just because some people can't understand it when such alternative sources exist.

The problem is that even these sources are primarily consumed by the enthusiast. The non-scientist geek. What is needed is a gateway (or many gateways) for the average person to become interested in that level of scientific reading, and the cultivation of healthy scepticism. We certainly need to be on our guard when reading New Scientist and National geographic for example, they are not above sensationalism or simple mistake.

AtomicHorror

sdep wrote: »

Whenever there's a breakthrough paper, the mainstream media take it up, and the scientists who did the work get the chance to explain its significance to the public.

If it is topical, it'll get picked up. But how often do the mainstream articles actually hit the nail on the head in terms of the main point? The researchers may get their say if they're local, but usually the "scientific opinion" is instead delivered using sound bites from a "local expert".

And what the media defines as a "breakthrough" is often quite far removed from what we consider it to be. The MMR scare was seen as a breakthrough in autism research. There seems to be this odd need for simple causes, miracle cures, revolutionary science every week.

sdep

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If it is topical, it'll get picked up. But how often do the mainstream articles actually hit the nail on the head in terms of the main point? The researchers may get their say if they're local, but usually the "scientific opinion" is instead delivered using sound bites from a "local expert".

Mostly, the lead researchers spend a day or two on the phone giving interviews. When you read science stories on, say, the BBC website, or in the broadsheets, you do see a lot of direct quotes from the people who did the actual work.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And what the media defines as a "breakthrough" is often quite far removed from what we consider it to be. The MMR scare was seen as a breakthrough in autism research. There seems to be this odd need for simple causes, miracle cures, revolutionary science every week.

I'm really talking about papers in the key journals like Nature or Science. These journals send out press releases indicating the important papers they're publishing that week, and the mainstream media then follow up.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The problem is that even these sources are primarily consumed by the enthusiast. The non-scientist geek. What is needed is a gateway (or many gateways) for the average person to become interested in that level of scientific reading,

The publications are there for those interested. We cant make people read up on science. Football magazines are primarily consumed by football enthusiasts. People who are interested in such things will seek out such information.
The reason why most people don't snap up scientific literature is simply a lack of interest. Lets be honest to most people the likes of physics, evolution etc. are quite boring.
Put a dinosaur on the cover and watch sales jump upward for that month.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

and the cultivation of healthy scepticism. We certainly need to be on our guard when reading New Scientist and National geographic for example, they are not above sensationalism or simple mistake.

True, we only recently discussed 'archaeoraptor'. Although if people are interested enough to read such magazines hopefully their own natural skepticism and interest in the subject will make them delve further into the subject matter. Those who are genuinely interested will seek it out for themselves.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't we all sign a pact decreeing that:
Atheists would not claim religion leads to the Crusades
and
Theists would not claim atheism leads to Hitler

....if we all sign a pact saying that life arises spontaneously in dung heaps .......will that make it true?????

....anyway, the TRUTH is that a warped use of religion led to the Crusades....

.....and a warped use of the Theory of Natural Selection......led to Hitler!!!!:pac::):D

.....we should also remember that the Nazis killed thousands of people they considered 'unfit' during the 1930's.....long before they introduced the mass extermination of the Jews in the 1940's.
Hitler thought of himself as 'helping' Natural Selection along in the mad pursuit of the 'perfect' person......who DOESN'T actually exist. Even simple things like short-sightedness, Downes Syndrome and 'hare-lip' were targets for 'genetic cleansing' by the Nazis.

sdep wrote:

The 'elitism' charge is one often made by creationists, and frankly says more about them than the scientists they are maligning.

.....the 'elitism' charge was made by an EVOLUTIONIST on this thread.

In any event, I think that the charge of 'elitism' is invalid.....there are many popular TV programmes and books about the Biological Sciences.

The problem ISN'T the lack of populist literature and other scientific information about Evolution.....the problem is the fundamental lack of EVIDENCE that it EVER occurred.

I also recall that the London Natural History Museum had a very large, well-presented special exhibition on Evolution a few years back.......
.....I visited it at the time....and I was struck by how LITTLE actual evidence was provided for 'big picture' evolution.....nearly all of the exhibits featured 'micro-evolution'!!!!!:D

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

You've hit the nail on the head. Creationism as an idea requires the assumption that Christian theology is correct for it to logically exist.

Agreed.

Without the theology, creationism makes no sense at all, simply because nothing in the data suggests it.

Without the theology its model, a recent mature creation, can be tested and has a lot of data in support of it, eg:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040

The theology prompts the idea.

Agreed.

However, you are completely off the mark with evolution. Evolution does not require abiogenesis. It just requires that a self-replicating and mutating cell came into existence somehow. It is a theory that was founded on no other assumption.

A recent mature creation requires no assumption either. As to Darwin's thinking on the subject of evolution and its prior conditions, was he indeed the dispassionate scientist? - :
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877/

Oh for goodness sake, not this argument again. That is nasty, hate-filled propaganda.

Evolution is not a moral philosophy. It is not a social theory. That some horrible people would choose to abuse it is no reflection whatsoever on its veracity. Hitler was no more a "true" evolutionist than he was a "true" Christian. He used whatever he ideas wanted, be they scientific, philosophical or religious, to push his agenda. Even if it could be shown that evolutionary theory leads to immoral behavior that would still mean nothing about it's scientific truth. Shall we curse Newton's name whenever someone is pushed from a building top to their death?

And I find it funny that you state the following:
Phillip Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Richard Weikart, professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus

But for some reason you fail to mention that both men just happen to be fellows of the Discovery Institute. In other words, Intelligent Design men. Got any non-creationist or non-ID sources on this position?

Here's the review by Professor Richard J. Evans:
"Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power." -- Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich
Is he too a member of the Discovery Institute, or a creationist/ID source? Is he a supporter of nasty, hate-filled propaganda? See:

http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/academic_staff/further_details/evans-r.html

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

The problem ISN'T the lack of populist literature and other scientific information about Evolution.....the problem is the fundamental lack of EVIDENCE that it EVER occurred.

We're not talking about a dearth of populist information, but a deficit in the people's ability to use scepticism to assess science. As for the lack of evidence for evolution, there's tons but you reckon it says something else.

J C wrote: »

I also recall that the London Natural History Museum had a very large, well-presented special exhibition on Evolution a few years back.......
.....I visited it at the time....and I was struck by how LITTLE actual evidence was provided for 'big picture' evolution.....nearly all of the exhibits featured 'micro-evolution'!!!!!:D

There's no difference in the processes. We don't maintain that there is. The only difference is the time scale. Your problem is that you want us to reproduce large scale evolution in a lab when you know full well the process takes millions of years. We have evidence in the fossil record and in genetics but your simple definition of "evidence" seems to include eye witness evidence alone. Must be hard to convict criminals by forensics in your world, J C.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:
You've hit the nail on the head. Creationism as an idea requires the assumption that Christian theology is correct for it to logically exist.

Agreed.

AtomicHorror said:
The theology prompts the idea.

Agreed.

Progress!

wolfsbane wrote: »

A recent mature creation requires no assumption either.

So close! I really thought we were getting somewhere for a moment. This comment contradicts the ones above it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to Darwin's thinking on the subject of evolution and its prior conditions, was he indeed the dispassionate scientist? - :http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877/

More of the same stuff. What Darwin knew to be true and what he wanted to be true could be the same thing or totally at odds. Evolution is the truth, whether he (or we) would like it to be or not. I understand fully why conservative Christians long so much to destroy the theory of evolution. A world in which the spirit is not needed, in which life itself has no objective meaning, in which all morality is relative. That must terrify you. I'm sure it scares many scientists too. But we don't have the luxury of choosing that which is true, and neither did Darwin.

I have to laugh at the intro line "Harvard’s renowned Professor Stephen Jay Gould is a vigorous anticreationist (and Marxist — see documentation)". Watch out everyone! He's agin' the bible and he's a commie!

wolfsbane wrote: »

Without the theology its model, a recent mature creation, can be tested and has a lot of data in support of it, eg:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040

You've misunderstood me. What I am saying is that the idea of creationism does not suggest itself from scientific observations. The Bible suggests it. However, evolution does suggest itself. It was not revealed to Darwin in a dream. He simply did extensive study of fossils and living species and realised what the information was telling him.

Please don't give me links. I want to know what you think.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's the review by Professor Richard J. Evans:
"Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power." -- Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich
Is he too a member of the Discovery Institute, or a creationist/ID source? Is he a supporter of nasty, hate-filled propaganda? See:

http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/academic_staff/further_details/evans-r.html

Well now there's a thing. A respectable and respected academic gives Weikart the thumbs up. Fair enough. Could you link the review in full though? I can only find the passage you posted on Weikhart's website.

I will counter that the majority academic opinion seems rather damning of Weikhart's work though. Negative reviews from:

Andrew Zimmerman, professor of German History, B.A., PhD, M.Phil
Nils Roll-Hansen, University of Oslo
Hector Avalos, professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University
Jonathan Judaken, professor of History at University of Memphis
Larry Arnhart, professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University
Sander Gliboff, professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University
Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of German history at the University of Louisville
Robert Richards, historian of Darwin and eugenics at University of Chicago

And my favourite:

Jeff Schloss, Professor at Westmont College and former Discovery Institute fellow

Without having read the book myself, I can't comment on whether it makes its case, however all of the above disagree with the premise and at least one of them got Weikhart to admit that his title, "From Darwin to Hitler", was misleading. At any rate, the purpose for which you cite the work is very misleading. We are here to discuss the validity of a scientific theory. Its morality is irrelevant to its veracity.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We have evidence in the fossil record and in genetics but your simple definition of "evidence" seems to include eye witness evidence alone. Must be hard to convict criminals by forensics in your world, J C.

Reminds me of 'the only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject':

Keunwoo Lee wrote:

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bull**** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bull****; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

The follow-ups are worth reading and they're on his blog here

J C

robindch wrote: »

Reminds me of 'the only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject':
Originally Posted by Keunwoo Lee
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bull**** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bull****; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

The follow-ups are worth reading and they're on his blog here

......so when they are unable to intellectually match ID advocates...... the Evolutionists are now resorting to fantasising about physically beating them up!!!!!:(:mad:

Ironically a broken leg showing evidence of being repeatedly hit with a blunt instrument WILL be accepted by Evolutionists as prima face evidence of the actions of a 'moron with a baseball bat' (AKA as an 'intelligent agent').....
......but the infinitely greater specified complexity in the leg itself.....is NOT accepted by them as evidence of the action of an infinite intelligence.

.....one can only account for such such a logical contadiction by an overwhelming irrational bias against God and a denial of the obvious......on the part of such people......
......may God bless them......and remove them from their willful ignorance and their malevolent violent fantasies......because I doubt if anybody else can!!!!

The whole of the Evolutionist's violent fantasy above is full of logical lacunae and contradictions.....for example the following quote:-
"Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!"
They WEREN'T the "random actions of a scientist"....they were the deliberate intelligent targetting of the ID advocates knee with an offensive weapon.....that was itself Intelligently Designed!!!!
....and the guy's knee shows evidence of massive specified complexity....and therefore Intelligent Design AS WELL!!!!

....I really am surprised at you Robin for citing this stuff.....which can only HARM the Evolutionist cause !!!!

....I thought you, of all people, could see throught the logical contradictions in this stuff.....

.....but your need to be rational....is obviously overwhelmed by your need for denial!!!!:D

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Reminds me of 'the only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject':The follow-ups are worth reading and they're on his blog here

I think the follow ups are even better...

MrP

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......so when they are unable to intellectually match ID advocates...... the Evolutionists are now resorting to fantasising about physically beating them up!!!!!:(:mad:

Ironically a broken leg showing evidence of being repeatedly hit with a blunt instrument WILL be accepted by Evolutionists as prima face evidence of the actions of a 'moron with a baseball bat' (AKA as an 'intelligent agent').....
......but the infinitely greater specified complexity in the leg itself.....is NOT accepted by them as evidence of the action of an infinite intelligence.

.....one can only account for such such a logical contadiction by an overwhelming irrational bias against God and a denial of the obvious......on the part of such people......
......may God bless them......and remove them from their willful ignorance and their malevolent violent fantasies......because I doubt if anybody else can!!!!

The whole of the Evolutionist's violent fantasy above is full of logical lacunae and contradictions.....for example the following quote:-
"Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!"
They WEREN'T the "random actions of a scientist"....they were the deliberate intelligent targetting of the ID advocates knee with an offensive weapon.....that was itself Intelligently Designed!!!!
....and the guy's knee shows evidence of massive specified complexity....and therefore Intelligent Design AS WELL!!!!

....I really am surprised at you Robin for citing this stuff.....which can only HARM the Evolutionist cause !!!!

....I thought you, of all people, could see throught the logical contradictions in this stuff.....

.....but your need to be rational....is obviously overwhelmed by your need for denial!!!!:D

Are we surprised that metaphor is beyond you? Nope.

Shapes

I think it's wonderful so many people have an interest in the origins of the Universe, man and God.....

But I personally belive that wisest is he he knows he does not know. In my opinion, there is a God and if God being the aplha AND omega, the beginning and the end surely we can agree that at the very least, however it happened, it was made happen by God, using evolution, magically making man from muck, or simply doing a Tommy Cooper and making man appear automagically.

The Talmud states that we should not mock anothers beliefs as to do so is an exercise in ignorance for none of us know the 'real' truth and may never do. We have subjects such as M Theory bringing great interest and imagination to the world but never the less should we not encourage each other in our beliefs, wheter we personally believe them or not, for all this comes from a beginning and all have the same uncertain destination.

Perhaps when the Halidron collider is switched on tomorrow this debate might take a drastic turn!!

In essence, wheter you believe in God or not, I think all can see the common sense in the statement 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you'.

Can I also state that I don't think preaching the words of Jesus and using his intials as a user name are all too clever given how it was stated that the road to hell is wide, for 'Thout shalt not take the name of The Lord in vain'.....??? Just an observation.....

AtomicHorror

Shapes wrote: »

I think it's wonderful so many people have an interest in the origins of the Universe, man and God.....

But I personally belive that wisest is he he knows he does not know. In my opinion, there is a God and if God being the aplha AND omega, the beginning and the end surely we can agree that at the very least, however it happened, it was made happen by God, using evolution, magically making man from muck, or simply doing a Tommy Cooper and making man appear automagically.

The Talmud states that we should not mock anothers beliefs as to do so is an exercise in ignorance for none of us know the 'real' truth and may never do. We have subjects such as M Theory bringing great interest and imagination to the world but never the less should we not encourage each other in our beliefs, wheter we personally believe them or not, for all this comes from a beginning and all have the same uncertain destination.

Perhaps when the Halidron collider is switched on tomorrow this debate might take a drastic turn!!

In essence, wheter you believe in God or not, I think all can see the common sense in the statement 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you'.

Can I also state that I don't think preaching the words of Jesus and using his intials as a user name are all too clever given how it was stated that the road to hell is wide, for 'Thout shalt not take the name of The Lord in vain'.....??? Just an observation.....

A live and let live philosophy is just fine until someone wants to teach your kids about something you consider to be untrue as if it were fact. We live in a world where information can mean the difference between life and death. The rejection of rationality is thus quite dangerous and should be tackled. To trample on anyone's faith is, in my opinion, not the place of science. It is the job of science to convey the facts as they have been observed and to call out irrationality when it would seek to inform policy and decision making on a grand scale.

In other words, I am happy to let you have your faith, so long as it is never involved in any decision which affects my life.

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Are we surprised that metaphor is beyond you? Nope.

I'm quite sure that that exact series of posts has occurred earlier in this thread.

Here's another one from Pharyngula for J C to wrap his head around.

The theory of childhood, also known as child origin, is a damnable, loathsome and indefensible lie. How can any thinking person suppose all humans used to be babies once? There is no development path from babies to adults, no transitional forms between these two species. Show me even one baby with the head of a grown man on his body. Can you? No? Not even a bearded toddler? No adults with unfused skullbones, outside unfortunate disorders? Not even a tiny little newborn girl suddenly sprouting a respectable bosom? You can't find them, because they don't exist. There isn't a single transitional form between children and adults, and you will never find one because the theory simply is an unscientific lie.

The development of children has been well-researched in our six-month study following a sample of one thousand children and adults of various ages. We have conclusively proven that while there are minor changes in features like height and body fat, and replacement of deciduous teeth with permanent teeth, incontravertibly still every creature in the study that started out as a child had only slightly more adult features at the end of the observation period than at its beginning. Children and adults are separate kinds and there will never be sufficient changes to change one into the other. We reject any evidence from longer-term studies as we believe the laws of physics have changed within the last year.

To claim people come from children is demeaning and morally degrading. We have observed how children behave. If we acted like small children we'd all be demanding and impatient, and we'd be cheating, lying, and stealing from each other all the time. If the theory of childhood were true there would be no morality, and with no morality to build one on, no society. Childhood is a wicked lie used by charlatans to justify evils such as public schools.

There is no consensus on the theory of childhood in the scientific community. We should teach the controversy. Our children will be served well to learn that the prospect of them becoming adults is merely a theoretical idea. Many children come from families that do not subscribe to the theory of childhood, and they could be disturbed if the theory were taught as fact.

HouseHippo

Cant wait for all you Creatonists to be proved wrong tomorrow morning 8am.

the Large Hadron Collider......Humans:999,9999 God:1

Fanny Cradock

HouseHippo wrote: »

Cant wait for all you Creatonists to be proved wrong tomorrow morning 8am.

the Large Hadron Collider......Humans:999,9999 God:1

No plagiarising internet humour without proper citation.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Are we surprised that metaphor is beyond you? Nope.

.....I am aware that it was a metaphor.......for the impotence of Evolution to do anything positive.....
....kneecapping is the response of the Materialistic Evolutionist in this violent fantasy directed against an ID Advocate.....
......the irony is that most ID Advocates are Theistic Evolutionists!!!!

......thankfully Creation Scientists are largely immune from such bloodletting......because they are not Evolutionists......and they tend to avoid close physical proximity with these emotionally charged 'critters'!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....I am aware that it was a metaphor.......for the impotence of Evolution to do anything positive.....
....kneecapping is the response of the Materialistic Evolutionist in this violent fantasy directed against an ID Advocate.....
......the irony is that most ID Advocates are Theistic Evolutionists!!!!

......thankfully Creation Scientists are largely immune from such bloodletting......because they are not Evolutionists......and they tend to avoid close physical proximity with these emotionally charged 'critters'!!!!:pac::):D

An expression of frustration perhaps. I don't blame them in many ways. But here we are again with your bigoted thinking. You read one tongue in cheek anecdote on the internet and suddenly "the evolutionists" are emotionally charged and violent.

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm quite sure that that exact series of posts has occurred earlier in this thread.

This thread is like a universe that expands and contracts infinitely - so a sense of deja vu is somewhat inevitable.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

This thread is like a universe that expands and contracts infinitely - so a sense of deja vu is somewhat inevitable.

There is a certain epic circularity to the whole thing. The only constant is J C and his army of emotes. Something he seems to consider a victory...

robindch

HouseHippo wrote: »

Cant wait for all you Creatonists to be proved wrong tomorrow morning 8am.

Why bother wait 'til tomorrow? Open up this thread on any page and you can see creationists proved wrong, in front of your very own eyes, now!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We're not talking about a dearth of populist information, but a deficit in the people's ability to use scepticism to assess science. As for the lack of evidence for evolution, there's tons but you reckon it says something else.

.....you could be right about the lack of skepticism.......many people have swallowed the obviously invalid idea that they are descended from Pondslime......because some scientist with a condescending accent and a patronising attitude told them that it happened!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's no difference in the processes (between so-called macro and micro Evolution). We don't maintain that there is. The only difference is the time scale. Your problem is that you want us to reproduce large scale evolution in a lab when you know full well the process takes millions of years. We have evidence in the fossil record and in genetics but your simple definition of "evidence" seems to include eye witness evidence alone. Must be hard to convict criminals by forensics in your world, J C.

.......it must be hard to convict criminals by forensics in the 'Materialists World'......where all evidence of the actions of Intelligent Agents are denied in favour of a 'naturalistic' explanation!!!!
....in such a world knife marks would be ascribed to 'accidental abrasions'.....and strangulation marks to 'accidental asphyxia'!!!
.....because Materialists ALWAYS favour 'naturalistic' explanations over theories that Intelligence could be involved in ANYTHING!!!!
.....and they appear to be unable (or unwilling) to identify evidence for intelligent activity, in the first place!!!!

On the other hand, ID Advocates and Creation Scientists know how to differentiate between evidence of intelligent activity and undirected processes......the critical factor being specified complexity.........so knife marks or nail scratches have high specificity and complexity......and are therefore the result of intelligent activity.......while random bruising (with low specificity) is likely to be the result of a fall.

.....and BTW there is a fundamental difference between variation within Kinds.....and the idea that pondslime could turn into Man.......
......the 'information chasms' at all stages in the latter putative process are simply too great for any non-intelligently directed process to 'cross'!!!!:D

.....there is more than just time involved here......there is the generation of massive levels of highly interactive, purposeful, tightly specified information......which ONLY can be generated by intellignence!!!!

........the Materialist goes into denial at this point.......and starts to claim that while Humans can act intelligently and rationally.........they were designed by processes that were NEITHER intelligent nor rational.......
......and ironically they then appeal to reason to justify the obvious irrationality of such a contradictory idea!!!!!:D

robindch

J C wrote: »

......thankfully Creation Scientists are largely immune from such bloodletting......because they are not Evolutionists......and they tend to avoid close physical proximity with these emotionally charged 'critters'!!!!

A moment of uncommon clarity, m'dear -- creationists do indeed seem rather less than immune from violence.

See this story about a Kansas professor who was hospitalized following an alleged attack by religious fundamentalists. While in Australia, one creationist dealt with evolutionary reality in a much more horrible and final manner.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

...
......the irony is that most ID Advocates are Theistic Evolutionists!!!!

I seem to recall you calling out the theistic evolutionists, claiming that their belief system had no grounds.

J C

PDN wrote: »

This thread is like a universe that expands and contracts infinitely - so a sense of deja vu is somewhat inevitable.

......there is plenty of NEW information being provided ...by both sides to the debate.......the element of deja vu......is the lack of any substantial evidence for 'big picture' Evolution......and the consistency of the evidence for Creation!!!!:D

J C

robindch wrote: »

A moment of uncommon clarity, m'dear -- creationists do indeed seem rather less than immune from violence.

See this story about a Kansas professor who was hospitalized following an alleged attack by religious fundamentalists. While in Australia, one creationist dealt with evolutionary reality in a much more horrible and final manner.

......such violence has no place in any debate.......and the criminal justice system is there to deal with any perpetrators!!!

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

the consistency of the evidence for Creation!!!!:D

Consistently underwhelming.