The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

At what point do you actually read or assess anything you link to? Or is your measure of a book's worth proportional to the weight of people shouting at it?

2Scoops

robindch wrote: »

At what point do you actually read or assess anything you link to? Or is your measure of a book's worth proportional to the weight of people shouting at it?

I imagine the thought process is something like:

People shouting = Debate.
Debate = The unpopular side must have a valid argument.
"Teach the controversy" = Result!

:pac:

robindch

2Scoops wrote: »

Have we even come up with one bona fide practicing creation scientist yet?

Behe, Dembski and others -- no doubt JC too -- say they are. Sadly, the number of peer-reviewed papers published in international journals by these fine men is far closer to zero, than say, it's close to one. Job satisfaction must be a problem amongst the vanishingly small population of 'creation scientists'.

2Scoops

robindch wrote: »

the number of peer-reviewed papers published in international journals by these fine men is far closer to zero, than say, it's close to one.

At this point, I'd accept just a simple scientific investigation whether it was peer-reviewed or not. Where are all the creationist data. J C? Wolfsbane?

Galvasean

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.

No disrespect but you picked out a terrible example there.

AtomicHorror

2Scoops wrote: »

At this point, I'd accept just a simple scientific investigation whether it was peer-reviewed or not. Where are all the creationist data. J C? Wolfsbane?

To be fair to J C, he has linked us to "primary research" before. Most of it is very clumsy stuff, obvious attempts to crowbar indisputable observations into an alternative framework. Anything with so much as the possibility of debate to it, that also happens not to fit the framework, is summarily dismissed. Similarly dubious material that fits is uncritically welcomed. This research invariably gets debunked by scientists, which the creationists then spin as a refusal to look at the data, a flat dismissal of their work or evidence of a vast atheist conspiracy. The fact that many of the people criticizing the work, particularly the archaeological evidence, are Muslims, Christians etc. is merely evidence to them that the atheist conspiracy has beguiled the entire scientific community into being complicit in their agenda. That being to secularise the world and evantually convert everyone to atheism.

When the motive for said agenda is questioned, the only answer they can typically arrive at is that the atheists are either willfully defiant of God or are unconsciously being deluded by Satan. They can provide no means by which we would determine if either were true other than reading the bible and trusting one's subjective interpretation of it.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Behe, Dembski and others -- no doubt JC too -- say they are. Sadly, the number of peer-reviewed papers published in international journals by these fine men is far closer to zero, than say, it's close to one. Job satisfaction must be a problem amongst the vanishingly small population of 'creation scientists'.

On the contrary, Behe and Dembski have international profiles now, albeit in a field widely considered to be pseudoscience. I can see no evidence in the work of either to suggest that they would have been anything more than mediocre mainstream scientists. Apparently that is not a satisfying nor noble enough goal for these guys.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Behe, Dembski and others -- no doubt JC too -- say they are. Sadly, the number of peer-reviewed papers published in international journals by these fine men is far closer to zero, than say, it's close to one. Job satisfaction must be a problem amongst the vanishingly small population of 'creation scientists'.

If you are using 'creationist' in the sense of arguing that man was created in 6 days, rather than by a process of evolution, then Behe is not a creationist.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

If you are using 'creationist' in the sense of arguing that man was created in 6 days, rather than by a process of evolution, then Behe is not a creationist.

He is an advocate of the Intelligent Design movement, little more than a superficial reformatting of creationism. The Discovery Institute, of which Behe is a fellow, still has a demonstrably religious agenda. Their (leaked) manifesto states:

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

So at best, ID is a tool of the creationist movement. An attempt to create the impression of secularism.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
No scientist told me. I read it in a book,

Originally Posted by J C
.....presumably written by a SCIENTIST!!!

Galvasean
No, a semi-truck driver.

.....I see.....Evolution is something that semi-truck drivers are experts on......and they write about it in their spare time....between shifting loads of gravel!!!!
......so do Evolutionists then consult a Biologist.....whenever they want a load of sand shifted????!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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

.......including presumably the biggest religious 'leap of faith' of them all .........Atheistic Evolution!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

HouseHippo wrote:

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

.....could I point out that Christians ALSO live THIS life to the full......they go to University, get good jobs/run successful businesses, get married, have children, go on foreign holidays, have nice cars.......the ONLY difference is that they are ALSO Saved......and so they will live the NEXT life to the full ALSO !!!:D

......have a look at Sarah Palin next time she is on TV........she is a sister who is certainly living this life to the full.......
.....and as a Saved Christian, she will also live life to the full in the next life as well!!!

HouseHippo wrote:

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

......could you please point out the technical difference between "gases and bacteria" in a watery medium.......and "pondscum"!!!:pac::):D

......could I gently point out that "gases and bacteria" WILL form "pondscum".....in any watery medium!!!!:D

J C

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

.....you HAVEN'T been banned from the debate......you have been 'trounced' in the debate!!!:D

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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.

......if they accept Evolution, they will need to 'revise' their Creeds to declare God to be the EVOLVER of Heaven and Earth.......and their claims to be 'never changing/infallble' will then die as a result!!!

In fairness, there are many conservative Roman Catholic clergy and laiety who DON'T accept Evolution.....and I can confirm that there are many excellent Creation Scientists who are Roman Catholic.......

.....there are also many ID Advocates who are Roman Catholic.

I agree that in recent times the Vatican has hinted that they believe in Materialistic Evolution (with a little bit of unspecified Divine Intervention).....and this move has done enormous damage to the Church......with mass defections to Bible Believing Churches (especially in South and North America), as a result......

......there is a 'Reformation' underway in all of the 'liberal' Mainstream Christian Churches at present.
It's 'touchstone' is the Origins Issue .....and it has the capacity to completely dwarf the original Reformation in both it's scale and it's effect on Roman Catholocism.

It also has the capacity to dwarf and sideline the current 'difficulties' in the Anglican Communion over women bishops!!!

Sarah Palin is but one small political manifestation of this great 'underground' movement.......that is suddenly emerging onto the World Stage.....to the great surprise.......and shock......of the 'liberal intelligencia'.......in both church and media!!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

......sounds like an uncanny description of Materialistic EVOLUTIONISTS ......who are whinging about being challenged on their (religiously motivated) claim that God doesn't exist......and their (unfounded) stories about goo spontaneously springing into life.....and evolving via the zoo........ into ATHEISTS!!!!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

PDN wrote: »

If you are using 'creationist' in the sense of arguing that man was created in 6 days, rather than by a process of evolution, then Behe is not a creationist.

......most ID Advocates are Theistic Evolutionists.......but this doesn't save them from the wrath of some Materialistic Evolutionists......

.......Creation Scientists largely get on with their research and educational activities independently of the mainstream Evolutionist establishment.....and they DON'T advocate the teaching of Creation Science in schools......
This largely immunises Creation Scientists from the worst of the Materialistic Evolutionists' ire!!!!

.....most of the ID people are PART of the Evolutionist establishment.......BUT they also advocate the teaching of Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design in schools.....and this has set them on a 'collision course' with many Materialistic Evolutionists!!!

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......Creation Scientists largely get on with their research and educational activities independently of the mainstream Evolutionist establishment.....and they DON'T advocate the teaching of Creation Science in schools......

Where exactly is this creation science to be found? Actual science about creationism, I mean, not essays.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

......sounds like an uncanny description of Materialistic EVOLUTIONISTS

Quite :rolleyes:

You do realize that all you seem to do these days on this thread is take something someone says and put "...just like EVOLUTIONISTS!!" at the end of it

You have become the posting equivalent of the "I know you are but what am I.." playground come back.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.......including presumably the biggest religious 'leap of faith' of them all .........Atheistic Evolution!!!!!:pac::):D

Whether you consider evolution to be real or not there is a logical chain of causality built into it. No superstition. The question is only whether we can firmly establish that the chain exists by testing. We say yes, you say no. Faith doesn't come into it.

J C wrote: »

......sounds like an uncanny description of Materialistic EVOLUTIONISTS ......who are whinging about being challenged on their (religiously motivated) claim that God doesn't exist.

So, to summarise you are basically saying:

"No you!"

1. Evolution does not constitute an attack on God. It constitutes an attack on your dismal imagination. 2. You are confusing scientific attack for "whinging". Your "science" has been find entirely lacking, thus we are not interested in accepting it. Please try again.

J C wrote: »

......most ID Advocates are Theistic Evolutionists.......but this doesn't save them from the wrath of some Materialistic Evolutionists......

If you assume an illogical initial position, or one which cannot be tested, and then claim to be a scientist, then scientists are going to assume you want to play their game. The game is called "prove it or go away". ID is losing the game.

J C wrote: »

.......Creation Scientists largely get on with their research and educational activities independently of the mainstream Evolutionist establishment.....and they DON'T advocate the teaching of Creation Science in schools......

Yet they associate themselves with institutes and advocacy groups which do push the education agenda and mount legal challenges. The "teach the controversy" general fiasco for example. The controversy being the one that they themselves are solely creating.

J C wrote: »

.....most of the ID people are PART of the Evolutionist establishment.......

From your perspective, since you seem to be exceptionally narrow-minded even within an already narrow-minded bunch. I guess it depends how you define the "evolutionist establishment", but the ID lot certainly aren't accepted as scientists. The Christian agenda of the Discovery Institute puts them quite firmly on your side of the line. So perhaps they're old-earth creationists, but still creationists.

I take it you're a Palin fan then? I can see that. Fundamentalism, poor imagination, faith in the untestable and of course U-turns and denialism whenever reality becomes inconvenient. It's a good match.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

He is an advocate of the Intelligent Design movement, little more than a superficial reformatting of creationism. The Discovery Institute, of which Behe is a fellow, still has a demonstrably religious agenda. Their (leaked) manifesto states:

So anyone with a religious agenda is a creationist?

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

So anyone with a religious agenda is a creationist?

I have to say I'm also a bit miffed by AH's recent definition of 'Creationist'. Can we not for the sake of argument leave the word 'Creationist' to the sixth day kind?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If you are using 'creationist' in the sense of arguing that man was created in 6 days, rather than by a process of evolution, then Behe is not a creationist.

That's Young Earth Creationism (YEC) you're thinking of. There are a number of other types of christian creationism too.

I was using 'creationist' in the standard sense of somebody thinks that some external agency created at least some parts of life. Into which category Behe and his friends in the DI neatly fall.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

I have to say I'm also a bit miffed by AH's recent definition of 'Creationist'. Can we not for the sake of argument leave the word 'Creationist' to the sixth day kind?

All the Creationists who aren't the six day kind might be a bit annoyed at that :pac:

As Robin says, the six day kind are commonly known as Young Earth Creationists (YEC). This would include JC and Wolfsbane, but it certainly wouldn't include the entire Christian Creationists movement.

Galvasean

By that definition though, wouldn't EVERY Christian be a Creationist? I don't know of any Christians who don't believe God created the universe in one way or another.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

By that definition though, wouldn't EVERY Christian be a Creationist? I don't know of any Christians who don't believe God created the universe in one way or another.

Well that is certainly an argument that has been made before. Really it seems to depend on who much a religious person wants to push their religion into the realm of science. A Creationist is someone who thinks their religious beliefs about God as a creator should influence science.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

So anyone with a religious agenda is a creationist?

Well if they have a religious agenda in their practice of science then broadly, yes. The term probably suggests the six day variety more so than old-earth creationism or intelligent design but they all make the same core assumption that genesis is correct in meaning if not in detail. I'm obviously open to debate on that though. What are your feelings on the matter? I fear I have now labelled you in a manner that suggests more than it actually means.

But with regard to the Discovery Institute, and this was my main point, the religious agenda coupled with staff crossover during foundation and of course the recycling of creationist materials is all pretty convincing evidence that these guys are really just the same old creationists. They're just trying to look secular, and the leaking of their mission statement shows that this is a very disingenuous façade.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

By that definition though, wouldn't EVERY Christian be a Creationist? I don't know of any Christians who don't believe God created the universe in one way or another.

So long as they're not taking that as a scientific hypothesis, then I don't think we can call them creationists. The word has many connotations I guess.

Galvasean

I think in general Christians don't like being labeled as Creationists because when that word is said this comes to mind.
I wouldn't want to be associated neither TBH.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

I think in general Christians don't like being labeled as Creationists because when that word is said this comes to mind.
I wouldn't want to be associated neither TBH.

I love the peanut butter argument. A child could give a rebuttal on that one.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

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.

No, I would have no problem admitting that all the scientific argument seemed to contradict my religious belief - if that were so. But it is not, for well-qualified scientists dispute the consensus argument, offering alternative scientifc arguments.

You claim these arguments are rubbish, have been shown to be so - they claim the opposite. I have pointed out before that your arrogant dismissal of opponent's research and argument seems common-place among secular scientists. So your dismissal of creationism holds no weight with me.