Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
When experts differ, and I am not qualified to test them, I accept there is a debate going on.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?
Your position seems to be:
When experts differ, and I am not qualified to test them, I accept the majority opinion as the only scientific one.0 -
No, I would have no problem admitting that all the scientific argument seemed to contradict my religious belief - if that were so.
But you claim not to understand the science that is being presented to you. Unless you can apply your reason to these opposing arguments, all you're left with is conflicting "authorities", and what's happening is that you are accepting the authority that supports your beliefs and rejecting the one that does not. If as you claim, you'd admit it if indeed the scientific argument contradicts your religious beliefs, then it is clear that you need a means to judge the good arguments from the bad without consulting the bible.
Neither side of this debate should be accepted by you on the basis of qualification, nor success, nor numbers of adherents. You need to firstly assume nothing, and after that proceed to weigh the evidence. The data is complex, but understanding science is far easier than it looks.But it is not, for well-qualified scientists dispute the consensus argument, offering alternative scientifc arguments.
Qualification is not much to go on. Ask yourself why the only people "disputing the consensus" are also religious fundamentalists. If there were such obvious holes in evolution, such room for dispute, atheist scientists would also be scrambling to bring in their own alternatives, albeit godless ones.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.
There are some key differences. Firstly, creationism is still proceeding from a position that cannot be properly tested. Secondly, fringe science or revolutionary science are attacked, even dismissed, but if they are in fact correct then this becomes clearer as the old model starts to demonstrate its failings. Attempts to fit conflicting data into the old model forces scientists to re-evaluate new hypotheses. Ultimately only the best fit to the current observations can be accepted. However, evolution is not suffering the fate of Newtonian Gravity, or the Aether Theory. The data is still not contradicting it. Unless a new hypothesis can be used to explain something that evolution cannot account for, the is no need for a revolution here.
And while we can certainly see that Einstein was attacked, even dismissed, the old saying goes:
"They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown."
This doesn't constitute an argument for dismissing revolutionary thinking, but serves to remind us that in fact revolutionaries are wrong most of the time and that scepticism is the appropriate response.0 -
If I might refine your understanding of what distinguishes a creationist from a non-creationist: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.
The word could describe anyone who believed God had some part in the formation of the universe. But that is not its historic nor common use in this debate. Theistic Evolutionists are not creationists.
Creationism is used in the sense of God creating the universe ex-nihilo - out of nothing, and creating the biosphere fully formed (mature) in the 6 days of Genesis 1.
Some creationists hold that before the 6 days the heavens and earth already existed for a very long time, allowing space for a prior biosphere that was destroyed when the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.
YEC like myself find no substantial theological case for that, and recognise the scientific problems such OEC has regarding the creation of the sun, moon and stars during the 6 days. We would recognise them as misguided creationists, and theistic evolutionists as not creationists at all.
The key issue is the recent mature creation of the present biosphere. Both OEC and YECs accept that.0 -
At some point a year or so ago you did say that strictly-speaking, every christian is a creationist. Don't ask me to find the quote, but it's out there somewhere.So anyone with a religious agenda is a creationist?
Certainly, I've yet to hear of a creationist who doesn't have a "religious agenda". The other way round obviously doesn't hold, any more than all men are Socrates.0 -
No, there isn't a debate going on, as has been pointed out to you many times. On the one side there's a slick multimillion-dollar sales and marketing machine run by ruthlessly dishonest people with murky political agendas, and on the other, there are a bunch of surprised folks with clipboards and labcoats.I accept there is a debate going on.
In that sense, it's really quite similar to Holocaust-denialism, except that historians have tweed jackets and pipes.0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror said:
Correct.But you claim not to understand the science that is being presented to you. Unless you can apply your reason to these opposing arguments, all you're left with it conflicting "authorities", and what's happening is that you are accepting the authority that supports your beliefs and rejecting the one that does not.
No, follow my reasoning:If as you claim you'd admit it if indeed the scientific argument contradicts your religious beliefs, then it is clear that you need a means to judge the good from the bad without consulting the bible.
The current scientific consensus is opposed by a minority of scientists applying their expertise to the same data. That establishes the fact that the scientific argument is ambiguous concerning my religious beliefs, not that it contradicts them.
I don't need expertise in all the scientific fields myself - all I need is evidence that the experts disagree.
Fred hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe were not religious fundamentalists, but offered an alternative explanation. I of course disagree with it on theological grounds, but it shows that not only creationists dispute evolutionary theory. See an interesting (non-creationist) article:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But it is not, for well-qualified scientists dispute the consensus argument, offering alternative scientifc arguments.
Qualification is not much to go on. Ask yourself why the only people "disputing the consensus" are also religious fundamentalists. If there were such obvious holes in evolution, such room for dispute, atheist scientists would also be scrambling to bring in their own alternatives, albeit godless ones.
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm
As I've discussed before, any explanation other than creationism is ultimately possible to those who are running from God. Many prefer the safety of the current consensus, others like Hoyle are more daring.
No, the model stands alone, just as evolution does with regard to abiogenesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.
There are some key differences. Firstly, creationism is still proceeding from a position that cannot be properly tested.
The reason why evolution is virtually unchallenged is the value it has against creationism: once admit that the certainties with which the modern world has been indoctrinated are in fact disputable, and the snow-job evolutionists did on the veracity of the Bible melts away. They can't allow that, now can they?Secondly, fringe science or revolutionary science are attacked, even dismissed, but if they are in fact correct then this becomes clearer as the old model starts to demonstrate it's failings. Attempts to fit conflicting data into the old model forces scientists to re-evaluate new hypotheses. Ultimately only the best fit to the current observations can be accepted. However, evolution is not suffering the fate of Newtonian Gravity, or the Aether Theory. The data is still not contradicting it. Unless a new hypothesis can be used to explain something that evolution cannot account for, the is no need for a revolution here.0 -
I am not surprised by your Creation-denialism either.No, there isn't a debate going on, as has been pointed out to you many times. On the one side there's a slick multimillion-dollar sales and marketing machine run by ruthlessly dishonest people with murky political agendas, and on the other, there are a bunch of surprised folks with clipboards and labcoats.
In that sense, it's really quite similar to Holocaust-denialism, except that historians have tweed jackets and pipes.
But here's an example of local interest, both of a creationist and a welcome openess from a non-creationist editor:
Earth Science Ireland chastised over anti-Christian, anti-creationist attitude
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5994/0 -
....'Big Picture' Evolution is a made-up 'just so' story invented by Atheists to deny the existence of God. It has no basis in either logic or reality!!!AtomicHorror wrote: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.
.....and it is based on the superstition that matter has an in-built intelligence that propels it to spontaneously produce tightly specified complex interactive information of astronomical proportions....such as that found in living things!!!:D
....basically yes.....because the 'cap fits'.....I think that you should wear it!!!!AtomicHorror wrote:So, to summarise you are basically saying:
"No you!"
......whinging is whinging....and the Evolutionists on this thread are particularly prone to it!!!:DAtomicHorror wrote: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".
....the ID people HAVE proven that life was intelligently designed....AtomicHorror wrote: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.
....what they HAVEN'T proven is that it Evolved....but then it is very difficult to objectively prove something that NEVER happened....
.....a difficulty that the ID Theistic Evolutionists share with their Materialistic colleagues!!!:pac::):D
You are confusing ID Advocates (who have mounted legal challenges) with Creation Scientists who DON'T believe, even in priciple, that Creation Science should be taught in Public School.AtomicHorror wrote: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.
The "teach the contoversy" is the name of a Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign to promote intelligent design...and it is NOT something that is supported by Creation Scientists.
....as I have previously said, the Discovery Institute is an Intelligent Design / Theisitic Evolution initiative.AtomicHorror wrote: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 do like the idea that ALL Christians are Creationists though.....PDN and Fanny Craddock.....please note....what your 'brother Evolutionists' REALLY think you are!!!!!:D:eek:
.....she is indeed a great articulate Christian woman....and a 'breath of fresh air'....in an otherwise lacklustre presidential campaign!!!AtomicHorror wrote: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.
....she is a straight-taking person with a love of the truth...who says what she means...and means what she says...a bit like most of the Creation Scietists that I know!!!!
....she also has a wonderful loving Christian smile!!:)
.....many people wanted an articulate, smart-dressing, forward-looking woman Vice-Presidential candidate.....
....they have gotten their wish....and she is Sarah Palin!!!:eek::D0 -
....'Big Picture' Evolution is a made-up 'just so' story invented by Atheists to deny the existence of God. It has no basis in either logic or reality!!!
.....and it is based on the superstition that matter has an in-built intelligence that propels it to spontaneously produce tightly specified complex interactive information of astronomical proportions....such as that found in living things!!!:D
Creationism is a made-up 'just so' story invented by Creationists to deny the existence of science. It has no basis in either logic or reality!!!
.....and it is based on the superstition that the universe has an in-built intelligence called God that propels it to spontaneously produce tightly specified complex interactive information of astronomical proportions....such as that found in living things!!!:D
Seriously man. You need to make some real arguments.0 -
....seems like the Atheists believe so!!!So anyone with a religious agenda is a creationist?
....as I have said before, I have been amazed at Theistic Evolutionists on this thread joining with the Materialists to scoff at Intelligent Design Advocates....when the ID Advocates are largely Theistic Evolutionists themselves!!!!
...I guess the Theistic Evolutionists must enjoy laughing at themselves!!!!:eek::)0 -
Advertisement
-
....Creation Scientists DON'T deny the existence of science...they ARE Conventional Scientists themselves!!!!:cool:Creationism is a made-up 'just so' story invented by Creationists to deny the existence of science. It has no basis in either logic or reality!!!
.....and it is based on the superstition that the universe has an in-built intelligence called God that propels it to spontaneously produce tightly specified complex interactive information of astronomical proportions....such as that found in living things!!!:D
.....as I have already said, an intelligent agent of effectively infinite proportions is needed to produce the enormous levels of tightly specified complex interactive information found in living things!!!:cool::)
...TOUCHE!!!:pac::)Seriously man. You need to make some real arguments.0 -
-
At some point a year or so ago you did say that strictly-speaking, every christian is a creationist. Don't ask me to find the quote, but it's out there somewhere.
Certainly, I've yet to hear of a creationist who doesn't have a "religious agenda". The other way round obviously doesn't hold, any more than all men are Socrates.
Well, if we go by your definition then every Christian is indeed a Creationist, for we all believe that God's intervention produced life by one means or another, even if it was by evolution.
However, that would sort of scupper this thread since this means that the majority of Creationists believe in evolution and there is no conflict between their beliefs and any scientific evidence.
So, unless we adopt a different definition of Creationist we might as well close this thread that I thought would run for ever?0 -
However, that would sort of scupper this thread since this means that the majority of Creationists believe in evolution and there is no conflict between their beliefs and any scientific evidence.
There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the views of most Christians. The conflict lies in literal interpretations of Genesis.0 -
....you are being very hard on Evolutionists, Robin......surely there are many honest hard-working Evolutionists out there as well!!!!:pac::D:DNo, there isn't a debate going on, as has been pointed out to you many times. On the one side there's a slick multimillion-dollar sales and marketing machine run by ruthlessly dishonest people with murky political agendas......
....yes indeed Creation Scientists are surprised....by the fact that grown men continue to believe that they are direct descendants of Pondslime!!!!:D:)....and on the other (side), there are a bunch of surprised folks with clipboards and labcoats.
...........maybe the Evolutionists should try tweed jackets (around their heads) ...to help their critical thinking processes....but I wouldn't bother with the pipes.....bad for the old lungs...and all that!!!!:DIn that sense, it's really quite similar to Holocaust-denialism, except that historians have tweed jackets and pipes.0 -
I am not surprised by your Creation-denialism either.
But here's an example of local interest, both of a creationist and a welcome openess from a non-creationist editor:
Earth Science Ireland chastised over anti-Christian, anti-creationist attitude
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5994/
Quote from the above article dated 10th September 2008:
"The editor of ESI Magazine, Dr Tony Bazley, advised Angus Kennedy today that his letter will be in the next issue, which is currently at the printer and so should be out within 3 weeks. The letter has been edited to fit within the space limitations of the magazine but the sense is not expected to have been changed."
I look forward to reading Earth Science Ireland's next edition !!!!!:pac::):D0 -
Wolfsbane wrote:AtomicHorror: But you claim not to understand the science that is being presented to you. Unless you can apply your reason to these opposing arguments, all you're left with it conflicting "authorities", and what's happening is that you are accepting the authority that supports your beliefs and rejecting the one that does not.
Wolfsbane: Correct.
AtomicHorror: If as you claim you'd admit it if indeed the scientific argument contradicts your religious beliefs, then it is clear that you need a means to judge the good from the bad without consulting the bible.
Wolfsbane: No, follow my reasoning:
The current scientific consensus is opposed by a minority of scientists applying their expertise to the same data. That establishes the fact that the scientific argument is ambiguous concerning my religious beliefs, not that it contradicts them.
I don't need expertise in all the scientific fields myself - all I need is evidence that the experts disagree.
But that leaves you back at square one. Accepting one authority (without any validation) over another that disagrees with what you want to believe. My question, which you have failed to answer, is how you decide who is actually an “expert” or even a “scientist”. You need to be able to critically analyse what both sides are saying or you’ve got nothing.
AtomicHorror: Ask yourself why the only people "disputing the consensus" are also religious fundamentalists. If there were such obvious holes in evolution, such room for dispute, atheist scientists would also be scrambling to bring in their own alternatives, albeit godless ones.
Fred hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe were not religious fundamentalists, but offered an alternative explanation. I of course disagree with it on theological grounds, but it shows that not only creationists dispute evolutionary theory.
Have you read Hoyle's work? He didn't reject evolution, he rejected Earth-based abiogenesis. In fact he had no argument with the modern synthesis of evolution whatsoever. Wickramasinghe the same. He's an advocate of panspermia followed by normal evolution.
Critically, his first assumption was that abiogenesis could not happen because a cell could not come into existence in an instant. This is called Hoyle’s Falacy, as it is not the assertion of anyone research abiogenesis.As I've discussed before, any explanation other than creationism is ultimately possible to those who are running from God. Many prefer the safety of the current consensus, others like Hoyle are more daring.
Again I ask, how can you tell those acting consciously or unconsciously in defiance of God from those who are simply telling a truth that you are failing to grasp? You cannot rely on the bible for an answer if those people are correct, so what do you have?
AtomicHorror: Firstly, creationism is still proceeding from a position that cannot be properly tested.
No, the model stands alone, just as evolution does with regard to abiogenesis.
No, you already agreed yourself (at least for a moment) that creationism requires theology to be a logical first position. Evolution requires no such assumption. The conversation went:AtomicHorror: 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.
Wolfsbane: Agreed.
AtomicHorror: The theology prompts the idea.
Wolfsbane: Agreed.
AtomicHorror: Progress!
Wolfsbane: A recent mature creation requires no assumption either.
AtomicHorror: So close! I really thought we were getting somewhere for a moment. This comment contradicts the ones above it.The reason why evolution is virtually unchallenged is the value it has against creationism: once admit that the certainties with which the modern world has been indoctrinated are in fact disputable, and the snow-job evolutionists did on the veracity of the Bible melts away. They can't allow that, now can they?
You assume here that scientists act as one, but you already pointed out earlier that they conflict constantly. You assume that they maintain that their models are “certainties” but this is at odds with the constant internal conflict and cycle of scientific revolution. You assume that evolution was intended as an attack on the bible, but can you account for the motive of all its proponents? Can you show they act as one even in that regard? You assume that evolution does attack the veracity of the bible, but it only does so for a minority who hold that genesis is literally true. Finally, you assume that “they” can allow or not allow the publication of the truth. Were that the case, Einstein would be a long-forgotten name, and Gould, Hoyle and anyone else who defied the “certainties” in science would have been buried.0 -
The reason why evolution is virtually unchallenged is the value it has against creationism: once admit that the certainties with which the modern world has been indoctrinated are in fact disputable, and the snow-job evolutionists did on the veracity of the Bible melts away. They can't allow that, now can they?
You were right on the first bit (my underlining and emboldening).
The value of a scientific theory is in its predictive power. Evolution makes predictions that are useful because they are precise and they turn out to be true. Some months ago, I asked if the same could be said of 'creation science'. There's been no answer, so I'll ask again:
Can anyone give a single instance where 'creation science' has made a specific prediction that was counter to the predictions of evolutionary theory, and that has turned out to be true?
You can answer the same question for 'intelligent design' if you consider it distinct from 'creation science'.
As far as I can see, 'creation science' & ID have no predictive power, so are useless as scientific theories.0 -
....so do the Materialistic Evolutionists accept that God intervened directly in the supposed Evolution of life?:)Originally posted by PDN
Well, if we go by your definition then every Christian is indeed a Creationist, for we all believe that God's intervention produced life by one means or another, even if it was by evolution.
AtomicHorror
There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the views of most Christians.
......and the Intelligent Design of life is evidence of this input by God??:eek:
....progress at last.....but not holding my breath....due to an acute risk of asphixiation!!!!:pac::):D0 -
....seems like the Atheists believe so!!!
....as I have said before, I have been amazed at Theistic Evolutionists on this thread joining with the Materialists to scoff at Intelligent Design Advocates....when the ID Advocates are largely Theistic Evolutionists themselves!!!!
...I guess the Theistic Evolutionists must enjoy laughing at themselves!!!!:eek::)
If the ID proponents stuck to what they could show, that evolution is fact, then I would put them in the same category as theistic evolutionists. But the theists are not trying to use science to prove that evolution is incorrect to fit a defined notion of a creator, so they stand much higher than ID creationists......as I have already said, an intelligent agent of effectively infinite proportions is needed to produce the enormous levels of tightly specified complex interactive information found in living things!!!:cool::)
So, how do we get irreducibly complex systems from reducibly complex algorithms? The fact that the algorithm is “designed” is irrelevant, unless you would suppose that the design of gravity modelling algorithms shows that falling down requires intelligent input.robindch:
No, there isn't a debate going on, as has been pointed out to you many times. On the one side there's a slick multimillion-dollar sales and marketing machine run by ruthlessly dishonest people with murky political agendas......
....you are being very hard on all Evolutionists, Robin......surely there are many honest hard-working Evolutionists out there as well!!!!:pac::D:D
robindch:
....and on the other (side), there are a bunch of surprised folks with clipboards and labcoats.
....yes indeed Creation Scientists are surprised....by the fact that grown men continue to believe that they are direct descendants of Pondslime!!!!:D:)
robindch:
In that sense, it's really quite similar to Holocaust-denialism, except that historians have tweed jackets and pipes.
...........maybe the Evolutionists should try tweed jackets (around their heads) ...to help their critical thinking processes....but I wouldn't bother with the pipes.....bad for the old lungs...and all that!!!!:D
Can you please cut out this schoolyard nonsense J C? Let’s have an adult conversation.....so do the Materialistic Evolutionists accept that God made an essential input into the supposed Evolution of life?:)
To which of the many varied and vague notions of this “input” do you refer? Science has no power to test something that nobody will define fully. That’s the thing about creationism- you are specific enough to be clearly wrong in many areas. But in some of your definitions you give yourself an out that allows you to perpetuate the whole sad fiasco. Got a way for me to measure “kinds” yet?......and the Intelligent Design of life is evidence of this input by God??:eek:
The few theistic evolutionists I have spoken to seem to hold that God created evolution just as science observes it. They seem to be happy with the notion that we must change our view as we view new information. They also seem to get rather insulted at the creationist notion that God is somehow so mundanely unimaginative as to have directly created everything rather than just setting a rather elegant and beautiful pattern in motion.
I think they're kidding themselves, but at least they're not saying black is white over and over.0 -
Advertisement
-
If I might refine your understanding of what distinguishes a creationist from a non-creationist:
The word could describe anyone who believed God had some part in the formation of the universe. But that is not its historic nor common use in this debate. Theistic Evolutionists are not creationists.
Creationism is used in the sense of God creating the universe ex-nihilo - out of nothing, and creating the biosphere fully formed (mature) in the 6 days of Genesis 1.
Some creationists hold that before the 6 days the heavens and earth already existed for a very long time, allowing space for a prior biosphere that was destroyed when the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.
YEC like myself find no substantial theological case for that, and recognise the scientific problems such OEC has regarding the creation of the sun, moon and stars during the 6 days. We would recognise them as misguided creationists, and theistic evolutionists as not creationists at all.
The key issue is the recent mature creation of the present biosphere. Both OEC and YECs accept that.
I would expand on that slightly. I would agree that theistic evolutionists are not Creationists, but I would say that that is because they accept the accuracy of current scientific models without trying to shoe horn their religious beliefs into the realm of science. The world looks materialistic, and science reflects that, but they believe behind all that is God working away in some unknown and possibly unknowable fashion.
Creationists on the other hand believe that God must have, at some point, done something spectacular and, more importantly, that the models of science that appear to show a smooth natural/materialistic must be wrong.
Creationist, both young and old Earth, propose that science is mistaken, and they assert that based on religious feelings. There must have been, some where, some miraclous creation event or events that science cannot model or explain because it was the glorious magic of God
It speaks more the mind set of a Creationist and how they view the world and humans special place in it, than issues of evolution or the big bang etc.0 -
....the fact that the algorithm is Intelligently designed and running on an Intelligently programmed computer (with an Intelligently defined objective)....is absolutely CRITICAL to it's success.....AtomicHorror wrote: »So, how do we get irreducibly complex systems from reducibly complex algorithms? The fact that the algorithm is “designed” is irrelevant, unless you would suppose that the design of gravity modelling algorithms shows that falling down requires intelligent input.
....a non-designed system would produce pure 'gobbledy-gook'.....AKA Materialistic Evolution!!!!!:pac::):D
....I am prepared to rise to whatever 'level' of debate you desire....AtomicHorror wrote: »Can you please cut out this schoolyard nonsense J C? Let’s have an adult conversation.
.....so please stop denying that conventionally qualified Creation Scientists aren't scientists....and Intelligent Design Advocates are 'pseudo-scientists'....and I will 'rise' to the occasion!!!!:pac::):D
....of course, if you continue to engage in 'schoolyard nonesense' ...like denying the qualifications of Creation Scientists...I reserve the right to 'beat you at your own game'!!!!!:D
....I don't know.....perhaps the Theistic Evolutionists could help us out on this one......Originally Posted by J C
....so do the Materialistic Evolutionists accept that God made an essential input into the supposed Evolution of life (as Theistic Evolutionists maintain)?
AtomicHorror
To which of the many varied and vague notions of this “input” do you refer?
.....maybe they could cite the verse(s) in the Bible that confirm the nature of this 'input'....and/or when it occurred????
...so you are saying that Theistic Evolutionists believe that everything was produced by a process, that for all practical purposes DIDN'T require any Divine input!!!!AtomicHorror
The few theistic evolutionists I have spoken to seem to hold that God created evolution just as science observes it. They seem to be happy with the notion that we must change our view as we view new information. They also seem to get rather insulted at the creationist notion that God is somehow so mundanely unimaginative as to have directly created everything rather than just setting a rather elegant and beautiful pattern in motion.
there is just one problem with such a viewpoint for a professing Christian....it is the herasy of Deism......the notion that God, if He exists at all, just triggered sometihng off....and then took no further interest in the process or it's result!!!!!
.....so the Materialist laugh at the non-ID Theistic Evolutionists.....who laugh at the ID Theistic Evolutionists....who then laugh at the Materialistic Evolutionists!!!!:eek:I think they're kidding themselves, but at least they're not saying black is white over and over.
....Evolution must be a great laughing matter!!!!:pac::):D:eek:0 -
-
....the fact that the algorithm is Intelligently designed and running on an Intelligently programmed computer (with an Intelligently defined objective)....is absolutely CRITICAL to it's success.....
Statements like this simply demonstrate you don't know anything about scientific/mathematical/computer modelling (kinda surprising for a trained scientist like yourself :eek:)
Your statement is like saying that because Met Eireann can use the HIRLAM (High Resolution Limited Area Model) weather modelling system (developed by the Germans I think), which is intelligently designed, as is the super computer cluster it runs on, that some how means the weather must also be intelligently designed.
Nonsense0 -
....could I gently point out that it was the Pagan Greeks who believed in an 'Unknown God'....who created the World....and the Christian Paul pointed out that this God, who was 'unknown' to the Pagans....was the Creator God of the Bible.....who is KNOWN presonally to all Christians!!!I would expand on that slightly. I would agree that theistic evolutionists are not Creationists, but I would say that that is because they accept the accuracy of current scientific models without trying to shoe horn their religious beliefs into the realm of science. The world looks materialistic, and science reflects that, but they believe behind all that is God working away in some unknown and possibly unknowable fashion.
....so only a non-Christian would claim that the God of Creation (and His Works) are unknown...or unknowable!!!!:pac::):D
Ac 17:22 ¶ Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;
23 "for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:
24 "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
25 "Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.
26 "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
28 "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'
29 "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.
30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
31 "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."
32 ¶ And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this matter."
33 So Paul departed from among them.
34 However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.0 -
....could I gently point out that it was the Pagan Greeks who believed in an 'Unknown God'....who created the World....and the Christian Paul pointed out that this God, who was 'unknown' to the Pagans....was the Creator God of the Bible.....who is KNOWN presonally to all Christians!!!
Could I gently point out that that has little if anything to do with Wicknight's post?0 -
....not quite....your statement that an Intelligently Designed Alogorithm proves that Evolution occurred.....is the same as saying that because you can put an Intelligenlty Designed letter to Santa on computer....that this proves that Santa is real!!!!Originally Posted by J C
....the fact that the algorithm is Intelligently designed and running on an Intelligently programmed computer (with an Intelligently defined objective)....is absolutely CRITICAL to it's success.....
Wicknight
Statements like this simply demonstrate you don't know anything about scientific/mathematical/computer modelling (kinda surprising for a trained scientist like yourself :eek:)
Your statement is like saying that because Met Eireann can use the HIRLAM (High Resolution Limited Area Model) weather modelling system (developed by the Germans I think), which is intelligently designed, as is the super computer cluster it runs on, that some how means the weather must also be intelligently designed.
Could I gently point out that the Met Office Model is modelling something which everybody agrees as existing....namely the weather!!!
...while the aforementioned Alogorithms are modelling something which NEVER existed...namely 'Big Picture' Evolution...
......and therefore, the Alogorithms provide about as much proof that Evolution occurred, as a letter to Santa proves that the 'Red-Coated One' exists!!!!:pac::):D0 -
'Big Picture' evolution, is this your new phrase for 'Goo via the zoo'?0
-
....the fact that the algorithm is Intelligently designed and running on an Intelligently programmed computer (with an Intelligently defined objective)....is absolutely CRITICAL to it's success.....
....a non-designed system would produce pure 'gobbledy-gook'.....AKA Materialistic Evolution!!!!!:pac::):D
Oh, then are you admitting that God may merely have designed Evolution itself (the algorithm) as well as the universe (the computer)? I've already explained why your point is crap- so has Wick with his comment about weather forecasting.....not quite....your statement that an Intelligently Designed Alogorithm proves that Evolution occurred.....
Who stated that evolutionary algorithms prove evolution? What they do is prove that "irreducible complexity" can arise from simplicity with only the starting conditions defined....is the same as saying that because you can put an Intelligenlty Designed letter to Santa on computer....that this proves that Santa is real!!!!
Your analogies don't make any kind of sense. A letter is in no way comparable to an algorithm or its output.....I am prepared to rise to whatever 'level' of debate you desire....
.....so please stop denying that conventionally qualified Creation Scientists aren't scientists....and Intelligent Design Advocates are 'pseudo-scientists'....and I will 'rise' to the occasion!!!!:pac::):D
By the definition of a scientist, one who follows the scientific method, they are not scientists.....of course, if you continue to engage in 'schoolyard nonesense' ...like denying the qualifications of Creation Scientists...I reserve the right to 'beat you at your own game'!!!!!:D
I'm sorry, when did I call anyone's qualifications into question?....I don't know.....perhaps the Theistic Evolutionists could help us out on this one......
.....maybe they could cite the verse(s) in the Bible that confirm the nature of this 'input'....and/or when it occurred????
Not my problem....so you are saying that Theistic Evolutionists believe that everything was produced by a process, that for all practical purposes DIDN'T require any Divine input!!!!
there is just one problem with such a viewpoint for a professing Christian....it is the herasy of Deism......the notion that God, if He exists at all, just triggered sometihng off....and then took no further interest in the process or it's result!!!!!
I don't care. They're wrong anyway, just less deluded than you......so the Materialist laugh at the non-ID Theistic Evolutionists.....who laugh at the ID Theistic Evolutionists....who then laugh at the Materialistic Evolutionists!!!!:eek:
....Evolution must be a great laughing matter!!!!:pac::):D:eek:
Who's laughing?0 -
Advertisement
-
.....BOTH of the concepts of 'Evolution' and an 'Unknown God' are of Pagan origin.....and therefore their conjunction in Wicknight's Post is very significant indeed.Originally Posted by J C
....could I gently point out that it was the Pagan Greeks who believed in an 'Unknown God'....who created the World....and the Christian Paul pointed out that this God, who was 'unknown' to the Pagans....was the Creator God of the Bible.....who is KNOWN presonally to all Christians!!!
Galvasean
Could I gently point out that that has little if anything to do with Wicknight's post?
Wicknight claims that for a Theistic Evolutionist the concept of 'Evolution' is identical to the Materialist's version....and any activity by God is both unknown and unknowable.....which is basically a Paganism construct....
......so Christian Theistic Evolutionists would have to show how our KNOWN God used Evolution to produce Mankind!!!!:)
......and I await their response with unbridled anticipation!!!!:D0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement