The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....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!!!!

No scientist told me. I read it in a book, saw the fossils and later saw the genetic evidence. Then the scientists told me. Very few people learn about evolution in the manner you suggest. Most probably learn it in the gradual way that I did.

J C wrote: »

.......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!!!!

If that were the case then there would be no science of archaeology, only paleontology. We have no problem discerning the designed from the evolving. Ancient buildings are not self-replicating. Bullets do not spontaneously generate in victims chests.

J C wrote: »

....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!!!!

When there is no reason to assume an intelligent involvement, it is not assumed. The only intelligence we have ever found record of is that of humans and neanderthals.

J C wrote: »

.....and they appear to be unable (or unwilling) to identify evidence for intelligent activity, in the first place!!!!

We spent thousands of years looking for proof of that. We never saw it, so we gave up and started looking for what we could see. Wake up, you're living in the dark ages.

J C wrote: »

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.

Funny how secular prosecutors manage to use atheist science to convict criminals then isn't it? If your eloquent hypothesis were correct that shouldn't be happening.

J C wrote: »

.....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

Evolution does not predict a species to cross between species or kinds. It predicts that they will become progressively differing species over time.

J C wrote: »

.....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!!!!

Yet we can use natural selection/mutation modeled algorithms to design mechanisms and systems with greater complexity than we could design intelligently ourselves. All that is provided are starting materials and a change/select cycle. We even see "irreducibly complex" elements appearing.

J C wrote: »

........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

No... the contradiction is that you are implying that we must have been designed by an intelligence because of our complexity. But unless God is less complex than us, then your logic dictates that He must have been designed. Your idea answers no questions, it just raises more.

J C

AtomicHorror
No scientist told me. I read it in a book,.....presumably written by a SCIENTIST!!!

AtomicHorror
I saw the fossils and later saw the genetic evidence
.....were they the putative '300 million year old' fossils of creatures that are alive today....and looking EXACTLY like their supposed 300 million year old ancestors????!!!!:D
....and was it the genetic evidence that all Men are descended from one man (y-chromosome Adam)......and all people are descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve)????!!!


AtomicHorror
Then the scientists told me. Very few people learn about evolution in the manner you suggest. Most probably learn it in the gradual way that I did.....and do they also get completely brainwashed by the process......just like you did???


AtomicHorror
If that were the case then there would be no science of archaeology, only paleontology. We have no problem discerning the designed from the evolving. Ancient buildings are not self-replicating. Bullets do not spontaneously generate in victims chests......and life DOESN'T spontaneously generate EITHER!!!!:pac::):D


AtomicHorror
When there is no reason to assume an intelligent involvement, it is not assumed. The only intelligence we have ever found record of is that of humans and neanderthals......the action of intelligence isn't assumed.....it is identified from the physical evidence......primarily the specified complexity of the information-rich artefacts that it leaves behind!!!!!:D


AtomicHorror
We spent thousands of years looking for proof of that. We never saw it, so we gave up and started looking for what we could see. Wake up, you're living in the dark ages......you didn't look very hard....did you???
....all you need to do is look in the mirror....to see all that information rich specified complexity......staring back at you!!!!!:pac::):D
....wake up yourself....we are coming out of the 'dark ages' of denying God!!!!:)
.....and into the 'Information Age' ....of Biology!!!:D


AtomicHorror
Funny how secular prosecutors manage to use atheist science to convict criminals then isn't it? If your eloquent hypothesis were correct that shouldn't be happening.....who says that they have to be logically consistent..............Materialists often go into denial .......and start claiming 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


AtomicHorror
Evolution does not predict a species to cross between species or kinds. It predicts that they will become progressively differing species over time......and the 'information chasms' at all stages in the putative process of pondslime transforming into Man are simply too great for any non-intelligently directed process to 'cross'!!!!:D


AtomicHorror
Yet we can use natural selection/mutation modeled algorithms to design mechanisms and systems with greater complexity than we could design intelligently ourselves. All that is provided are starting materials and a change/select cycle. We even see "irreducibly complex" elements appearing. .....the algorithms...and the computers upon which they are run....are THEMSELVES Intelligently Designed......and this process is akin to some type of Theistic Evolution!!!!
.....which the Atheist rejects as well!!!!!!!!!!!



AtomicHorror
No... the contradiction is that you are implying that we must have been designed by an intelligence because of our complexity. But unless God is less complex than us, then your logic dictates that He must have been designed. Your idea answers no questions, it just raises more......if God were a part of the physical world.....like we are....then He would have had to be designed Himself.......but God is TRANSCENDENT....and He therefore DOESN'T require either a Designer or a Creator!!!!:cool::)

He is is a transcendent doubly eternal omnipotent and omniscient Being!!!:D

HouseHippo

JC
I love the way you ignore certain posts cause they disprove what you are saying;



Ladies and Gentleman what we have here is Blind faith....

Also known in the Collins Dictionary as.....Ignorance but let him be ignorance is bliss and boy is he gonna be dissapointed when he dies


If this guy needs to use fantasies to help him deal with life's problems fair enough...

Maybe all our intelligence and common sense is hindering our life experience who knows.

Dave!

You must be new! Welcome! You're likely to get banned if you don't leave JC alone! It's fun to read his posts, so if you want to continue to do so ya might wanna take a geez at the charter

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
No scientist told me. I read it in a book,.....presumably written by a SCIENTIST!!!

Yes, but without the charismatic voice, accent and attitude that you implied was the real reason I accepted the theory. You suggest that I accept information on authority. Amusing coming from someone who bases all his arguments on the same three websites.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
I saw the fossils and later saw the genetic evidence
.....were they the putative '300 million year old' fossils of creatures that are alive today....and looking EXACTLY like their supposed 300 million year old ancestors????!!!!:D

No, for the most part it was of species now extinct. "Living fossils" are no big deal, in an unchanged niche the pressure maintain a stable morphology is strong.

J C wrote: »

....and was it the genetic evidence that all Men are descended from one man (y-chromosome Adam)......and all people descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve)????!!!

No, the evidence which demonstrates that all known species are related.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Then the scientists told me. Very few people learn about evolution in the manner you suggest. Most probably learn it in the gradual way that I did.....and do the also get completely brainwashed by the process......just like you did???

The process? How cloak and dagger. There's no process in Ireland. The books I read were just dinosaur books for kids that made very little reference to the theory. I asked my parents for them as a child. I did my own reading for research after that, figuring it out for myself. I didn't encounter creationist thinking until I was about 9. I didn't hear about evolution in school until I was 16.

Brain washing. You insult me.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
If that were the case then there would be no science of archaeology, only paleontology. We have no problem discerning the designed from the evolving. Ancient buildings are not self-replicating. Bullets do not spontaneously generate in victims chests......and life DOESN'T spontaneously generate EITHER!!!!:pac::):D

No, it doesn't. Spontaneous generation is a long-debunked theory that has nothing to do with evolution.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
When there is no reason to assume an intelligent involvement, it is not assumed. The only intelligence we have ever found record of is that of humans and neanderthals......the action of intelligence isn't assumed.....it is identified from the physical evidence......primarily the specified complexity of the information that it leaves behind!!!!!:D

No, it is assumed. We know complexity may arise without intervention, you assume that there is a line beyond which intelligence is required. There is, but not in self-replicating systems under selection. Specified complexity is a meaningless term coined by a creationist who thought he could use information theory. Information theorists disagree.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
We spent thousands of years looking for proof of that. We never saw it, so we gave up and started looking for what we could see. Wake up, you're living in the dark ages......you didn't look very hard....did you???
....all you need to do is look in the mirror....to see all that information rich specified complexity......staring back at you!!!!!:pac::):D
....wake up....we are coming out of the 'dark ages' of denying God!!!!:)

There is no reason to assume that God exists. The thought terrifies you, thus the elaborate fantasy. Enjoy, but don't push it on the rest of us please.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Funny how secular prosecutors manage to use atheist science to convict criminals then isn't it? If your eloquent hypothesis were correct that shouldn't be happening.....who says that they have to be logically consistent..............

You just did, by stating that in a materialist world all forensic results would be attributed to naturalistic processes. I countered that were this true archaeology would be a disputed science. It is not, except by creationists of course.

J C wrote: »

Materialists often go into denial .......and they start 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

You said that in the last post. Repetition does not make it true.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Evolution does not predict a species to cross between species or kinds. It predicts that they will become progressively differing species over time......and the 'information chasms' at all stages in the putative process of pondslime transforming into Man are simply too great for any non-intelligently directed process to 'cross'!!!!:D

Not true. "Information" is accumulated in the speciation events we have directly observed. It is not unreasonable to assume that since this accumulation is still occurring, it can eventually add up to whatever amount is needed to define a new kind, given time. However, since nobody seems to want to define kinds in terms of information, or number of mutations, or by any measurable means, we cannot test this.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Yet we can use natural selection/mutation modeled algorithms to design mechanisms and systems with greater complexity than we could design intelligently ourselves. All that is provided are starting materials and a change/select cycle. We even see "irreducibly complex" elements appearing. .....the algorithms...and the computers upon which they are run....are THEMSELVES Intelligently Designed......and this process is akin to some type of Theistic Evolution!!!!

No it isn't. No more than the coding by humans of a computer model of gravitation suggests that gravity is designed. The evolutionary algorithm must merely be designed so that mutation and selection can occur. These are natural processes which happen with no intelligent intervention in the real world, and which you have several times accepted as real processes.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
No... the contradiction is that you are implying that we must have been designed by an intelligence because of our complexity. But unless God is less complex than us, then your logic dictates that He must have been designed. Your idea answers no questions, it just raises more......if God were a part of the physical world.....like we are....then He would have had to be designed Himself.......but God is TRANSCENDENT....and He therefore DOESN'T require either a Designer not a Creator!!!!:cool::)

Prove it.

AtomicHorror

HouseHippo wrote: »

Also known in the Collins Dictionary as.....Ignorance but let him be ignorance is bliss and boy is he gonna be dissapointed when he dies

No he isn't, he won't be anything. That's why he needs the comfort blanket.

J C

HouseHippo wrote: »

JC
I love the way you ignore certain posts cause they disprove what you are saying;

....which ones????

I try to answer most posts!!!

I don't answer every post .....because there is only one of me ......and legions of ye!!!!!:D

HouseHippo wrote: »

Ladies and Gentleman what we have here is Blind faith....

Also known in the Collins Dictionary as.....Ignorance but let him be ignorance is bliss and boy is he gonna be dissapointed when he dies

......the guys with the 'blind faith' are the Atheists......the Christian has a well founded faith in Jesus Christ.....because the evidence for God's Creative actions is overwhelming!!!!

......and EITHER way I will not be disappointed when I die.....If I am right and God exists, I will meet Him in Heaven, because I am Saved....and if I am wrong and God doesn't exist, then that will be the end of the matter!!!

......the Atheist is the one that will be in for a surprise, if he finds out that he is wrong when he dies!!!!:eek:

HouseHippo wrote: »

If this guy needs to use fantasies to help him deal with life's problems fair enough...

Maybe all our intelligence and common sense is hindering our life experience who knows.

.....where is the intelligence and common sense in believing that you are spontaneously evolved from Pondslime.....with nothing added but time????:D

.....and indeed where is the intelligence and common sense in betting that God doesn't exist.....when you can never 'win' the bet (even if you are correct, you will simply cease to exist when you die)......and the downside of 'losing' the bet is eternal perdition!!!!:eek::eek:

AtomicHorror

Here's a nice article on superstition which would easily extend to religion.

New Scientist: Superstitions evolved to help us survive.

To summarise- making causal connections based on insufficient information will tend to give an evolutionary selective edge. The connection is non-existent in the vast majority of cases, but in very rare cases there's a threat to life. The cost:benefit ratio is favourable. They suggest that this is not the case in the modern world, hence our mis-application of the habit so that we now salute magpies, refuse to walk under ladders and talk to a man in the sky. Evolution works in terms of hundreds of thousands of years and we've changed our world too quickly. Essentially confirms some stuff I was suggesting over in the A&A forum regarding the advantage of religion.

Primary paper is in the works but it looks like they've really nailed that one. Their basic model is very cleverly designed but very simple.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

I don't answer every post .....because there is only one of me ......and legions of ye!!!!!:D

A legion is a thousand. There are definately less than a few thousand debating you here and now.
Also, you + Wolfsbane = 2

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
No scientist told me. I read it in a book,.....presumably written by a SCIENTIST!!!

No, a semi-truck driver.

HouseHippo

Well I would have lived my life to the full not wasting time worshping a non existant entity.


Actually we evolved from...gases and bacteria not pond scum?????? If you are going to make an arguememnt at least observe both sides

HouseHippo

Show me and all the scientists and the church who have been working years to prove Creationism this overwhelming evidence that some boardsie has materialised out of thin air.

HouseHippo

So he can say what ever he wants and I make an arguement and I get banned, well thats a fair debate isn it

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....which ones????

I try to answer most posts!!!

Very selectively though.

Your pattern appears to be:

1. "Evolution is impossible because..."

2. Rebuttal by evolutionists

3. Link to answersingenesis

4. Rebuttal by evolutionists

5. Sexual innuedo/generalisation about evolutions, restate position 1

6. Extensive rebuttal by evolutionists

7. Ignore most of the above as having 'no substantive points', switch to semantic/straw man argument

8. Dismantlement of sematics as irrelevant by evolutionists, requests to return to main point

9. "Evolution is immoral"

10. Evolutionists request to return to main point

Repeat.

Actually the above would be better done as a flow chart but who has the time? I also left out your stock out-of-context quotes by Darwin and Gould.

AtomicHorror

HouseHippo wrote: »

So he can say what ever he wants and I make an arguement and I get banned, well thats a fair debate isn it

It's more the God doesn't exist / you'll be sorry when you die bit that will probably gain you bad attention. Anything else should be fine. This thread enjoys a bit more lattitude that many others on the forum but we sure don't want to push it.

Just be sure not to let J C away with anything for which we would get in trouble.

Fanny Cradock

AH, I would have thought that the Christianity forum is one of the more leniently moderated forums, especially when you consider that the views aired are often utterly mutually exclusive.

HouseHippo wrote: »

Show me and all the scientists and the church who have been working years to prove Creationism this overwhelming evidence that some boardsie has materialised out of thin air.

I'm not quite sure if I follow your post here, but I think you will find that most Christians (particularly those in Europe), Christian members of the scientific community and religious denominations (the Catholic Church, for example) accept evolution.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

AH, I would have thought that the Christianity forum is one of the more leniently moderated forums, especially when you consider that the views aired are often utterly mutually exclusive

Possibly quite true, though a "God doesn't exist" argument that has not been logically triggered in the course of a discussion will probably annoy most of the christians here, wouldn't you say? I have yet to see PDN ban anyone bar one fellow who named himself in a slightly profane manner, but I would say he'd still have words with someone over out of context atheist arguments.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Possibly quite true, though a "God doesn't exist" argument that has not been logically triggered in the course of a discussion will probably annoy most of the christians here, wouldn't you say? I have yet to see PDN ban anyone bar one fellow who named himself in a slightly profane manner, but I would say he'd still have words with someone over out of context atheist arguments.

Yeah. IMO, such a statement would probably annoy most Christians much like posting 'Man U is crap' would annoy most Man U fans in the soccer forum. If you proclaim that you are an atheist then your position on God is clear enough. From my perspective (and I reckon most Christians here), there is no problem with fleshing out this belief in the context of a debate. One line proclamations about the non-existence of God or, indeed, the abilities of the Man U team appear lacking in thought.


Sorry for derailing this thread. (What's it about, btw?:pac:) Now back to your ever increasing circles!

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah. IMO, such a statement would probably annoy most Christians much like posting 'Man U is crap' would annoy most Man U fans in the soccer forum. If you proclaim that you are an atheist then your position on God is clear enough. From my perspective (and I reckon most Christians here), there is no problem with fleshing out this belief in the context of a debate. One line proclamations about the non-existence of God or, indeed, the abilities of the Man U team appear lacking in thought.

It's a classic "Your favourite band sucks" style thing. I have a t-shirt with that on it. It actually makes people angry at me, so I rarely wear it.

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's a classic "Your favourite band sucks" style thing. I have a t-shirt with that on it. It actually makes people angry at me, so I rarely wear it.

...

I want one.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

Apologies for delay in reply - in the hospital/work mode still.

Bear with me on this about the contrasdting models: are you saying the evolution model need not account for abiogenesis or any other prior cause, but the mature creation model must be tied to its prior cause? I would think they both can be considered on their own merits, they internal process from beginning to now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

If evolution were true and Darwin was the dispassionate scientist. But if he was looking to refine an existing theory so that it would present a strong case against the God he despised? That Darwin would be so motivated is of course no proof the evolution is wrong, just that its origins are not as scientific as you would like to think.

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!

Hardly a laughing matter for the poor soul - but it does establish his independence of creationism and so give weight to his exposure of evolutionism's deity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

I think it does - for example, the appearance of design is conceded by many evolutionists.

The Bible suggests it.

Demands it, I would say.

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.

He read the theory from his grandfather and others and organised and refined it, as far as I can see. I dealt with his motivations above.

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

That's what I think. I won't bore you with supporting references then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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_s...s/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 thought you didn't like me posting links? But I am no more informed than you if there is a more extensive review.

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

No problem - experts disagree - unless you are saying they are no longer experts if they disagree with you, as per your treatment of creationist scientists.

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.

The Bible, Creation & Prophecy covers a wider range, even in the creation/evolution controversy. I found this book when looking at some articles on our immediate debate and thought it worthy of posting. The evil results of atheistic evolution are appropriate for the creation/evoution debate.

Another I came across - but have not read - that gets a lot of interest pro & con:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science By Tom Bethell
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Science-Guides/dp/089526031X

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Bear with me on this about the contrasdting models: are you saying the evolution model need not account for abiogenesis or any other prior cause, but the mature creation model must be tied to its prior cause? I would think they both can be considered on their own merits, they internal process from beginning to now.

Evolution stands independent of abiogenesis. It is a theory suggested by the data at hand, ie the variety in extant species, the fossil record and more recently genetic analysis. Abiogenesis is not required for evolution to be correct, nor does abiogenesis suggest evolution.

Creationism is an idea that no scientist would arrive at as hypothesis based upon the data. In order to arrive at "creation evolution" as a hypothesis, one must make the assumption that the biblical account of genesis is literally true. This would be a grossly unscientific position to adopt.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If evolution were true and Darwin was the dispassionate scientist. But if he was looking to refine an existing theory so that it would present a strong case against the God he despised? That Darwin would be so motivated is of course no proof the evolution is wrong, just that its origins are not as scientific as you would like to think.

Irrelevant. His work was was, and continues to be, heavily scrutinized and parts of it have even been discarded. His motives are of historical interest but not scientific interest.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hardly a laughing matter for the poor soul - but it does establish (Gould's) independence of creationism and so give weight to his exposure of evolutionism's deity.

I can see that, but it comes off as pretty hysterical.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think it does - for example, the appearance of design is conceded by many evolutionists.

No, the appearance of design suggests itself to uncritical observation in the context of prevailing religious thinking. That is not scientific observation. An "evolutionist" can certainly admit that something "looks designed" without ever believing or assuming it to be so. Snowflakes "look designed".

wolfsbane wrote: »

Demands it, I would say.

Very well then. Certainly not a starting point for scientific investigation. The unquestionable is no good to us.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He read the theory from his grandfather and others and organised and refined it, as far as I can see. I dealt with his motivations above.

All science is built on previous work. That work is never accepted unquestioned. Unsurprising then that very little of Erasmus Darwin's notions on evolution survived even Charles' scrutiny. Only the vaguest speculation regarding common descent survives ours. Natural selection was Charles Darwin's discovery, so far as I am aware it was never put forward prior to him. Certainly other ideas on evolution predated Darwin, but aside from speculations here and there, little has survived.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's what I think. I won't bore you with supporting references then.

But the link you gave is a list of articles, not a supporting reference to a point you made. There are dozens of links on that page. I can hardly trawl through that page in order to verify your statement that the "creation hypothesis" stands independent of theology.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I thought you didn't like me posting links? But I am no more informed than you if there is a more extensive review.

Oh come on. Links supporting a substantive statement you've made, no problem. Links requested by someone should surely not be an issue either. I think you are being contrary now.

At any rate, the quote alone is probably quite valid, but it would have been nice to examine the context. You can understand my skepticism, given the creationist tendency to quote so very selectively.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No problem - experts disagree - unless you are saying they are no longer experts if they disagree with you, as per your treatment of creationist scientists.

Academics reviewing a literary work may of course disagree and have arguable positions. The arts are just that, not a science. I dispute the term "creation scientist" because these people proceed from unverifiable assumptions. I dismiss their findings based on their disagreement with science that has been tested and retested more times than I could imagine. Because they are attempting to force the data to fit their framework, while a scientist adjusts the framework to fit the data.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Bible, Creation & Prophecy covers a wider range, even in the creation/evolution controversy. I found this book when looking at some articles on our immediate debate and thought it worthy of posting. The evil results of atheistic evolution are appropriate for the creation/evoution debate.

I disagree. The creation/evolution debate is at its core a debate to determine veracity. I'm sure many animal rights types would find the moral implications of Creationism to be "evil", but that would have no bearing whatsoever on its veracity. The logic and "science" of it is the key. Similarly evolution. Bringing Hitler into any debate and attaching his name to the opposition in some manner is a cheap and very disingenuous shot. It should be beneath you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Another I came across - but have not read - that gets a lot of interest pro & con:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science By Tom Bethell
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Science-Guides/dp/089526031X

The man is an AIDS denialist. Please do not darken our thread with this crap.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah. IMO, such a statement would probably annoy most Christians much like posting 'Man U is crap' would annoy most Man U fans in the soccer forum.

Indeed it would be more like posting "Football is crap" on the Soccer forum. Any poster trying that wouldn't last 5 minutes on the Soccer forum, but we tend to be much more relaxed here.

We also tend to show leniency to new posters on this board, but hopefully Househippo, and maybe even Arty Darcie, will heed the warning, read the charter, and we won't have to wave any yellow cards around.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The man is an AIDS denialist. Please do not darken our thread with this crap.

Wow, even by this thread's standards that guy talks some crap.
On AIDs;

Tom Bethell wrote:

careful U.S. studies had already shown that at least a thousand sexual contacts are needed to achieve heterosexual transmission of the virus"

Huh????

On extinction:

Tom Bethell wrote:

It is not possible definitely to attribute any given extinction to human activity

The dodo, great auk, moa and many others disagree.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Another I came across - but have not read - that gets a lot of interest pro & con:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science By Tom Bethell
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-In.../dp/089526031X
The man is an AIDS denialist. Please do not darken our thread with this crap.

I was only drawing your attention to a book which is subject to both strong negative and positive comment. As I pointed out, I have not read it, so am not offering any assessment.

But I see you prefer no one to even know of any dissenting theories. I say let them state their case and be tested. Among the weirdo ideas they might have one or two valid criticisms. To assume the current consensus on anything must be right, is to invite dogma where investigation should belong.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

I was only drawing your attention to a book which is subject to both strong negative and positive comment. As I pointed out, I have not read it, so am not offering any assessment.

But I see you prefer no one to even know of any dissenting theories. I say let them state their case and be tested. Among the weirdo ideas they might have one or two valid criticisms. To assume the current consensus on anything must be right, is to invite dogma where investigation should belong.

Further to the above, see:
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-%27climate-denial%27.html

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I see you prefer no one to even know of any dissenting theories. I say let them state their case and be tested. Among the weirdo ideas they might have one or two valid criticisms. To assume the current consensus on anything must be right, is to invite dogma where investigation should belong.

Science is based on dissenting theories. But it is also based on eating dissenting theories alive. If they survive this process they are considered to be good theories and everything else changes. Most don't survive.

The problem you have is that you want dissenting theories, that you believe must be correct for religious reasons, to be given special treatment. You don't want this critizism because your Creationists theories cannot survive them.

A dissenting theory must demonstrate that it is correct through the most harsh evaluation one can imagine. If it doesn't it is rightly turned upon by the rest of the scientific community because if it cannot hold its own it is probably wrong. Again this is how science works.

If one believes, for religious reasons, ethical reasons or political reasons (such as AIDS denial, or governments forcing a particular view of climate change, or Creationists arguing a young Earth), that a theory must be accurate and correct even if it cannot demonstrate this, they will naturally be hostile to the rest of the scientific community when it turns on this theory and tears it up.

That is why you, and other Creationists, feel attacked by the scientific community. And you are right to feel attacked, you are being attacked. Creationist has been harshly tested, evaluation and spatted out. In fact it was 100 years ago. But you are now being attacked because you cannot demonstrate you are correct, that your theories are accurate.

The issue is that you also cannot admit this, because for unscientific reasons (in your case religion) you believe you must be correct.

AtomicHorror

What Wicknit said. Scientists destroy each other until only the truth remains. The creationists come in and claim to be scientists, get destroyed, and cry. Play the game or get out basically.

With regard to Bethell- I will not give me money to a man who says that AIDS is not caused by HIV. This is something that has been so well researched that it is more outrageous a suggestion than holocaust denialism from an evidence point of view. If he is willing to accept such a pseudoscientific fringe hypothesis, it speaks volumes about his other beliefs. The man is not even a scientist, let alone a biologist.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Scientists destroy each other until only the truth remains. The creationists come in and claim to be scientists, get destroyed, and cry. Play the game or get out basically.

Nail on the head of the Creationist/ID movement.

They are throwing their toys out of the pram because science won't confirm for them what they, for purely religious reasons, hold must be true.

2Scoops

Have we even come up with one bona fide practicing creation scientist yet? Or are we still dealing with the same braying, attention-seeking journalists?