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)

1…410411413415416…822

Comments

  • #12362
    2Scoops
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    But if you mean creation science in the same sense as evolutionary science - the knowledge and study of science as it supports the respective model of life, then you will find on-going research in the creation field, eg:
    http://creationresearch.org/

    http://www.bryancore.org/

    Forgive my ignorance, but all I could find (in the non-paid subscription parts, at least :pac:) were essays. No actual scientific investigations, merely journalism. Could direct me to a specific scientific experiment report or something, please?

    And yes, creation science as in science that supports the creationist model of life.


  • #12363
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    AtomicHorror said:
    You're not listening. I am asking you to be a scientist. To take it upon yourself to try to understand the material. You keep on telling us you can't judge the science, that you look to J C or others for that. I am suggesting that you do the research, the basic reading required to understand the subject matter and make better judgments on who is a hack and who has the goods.
    You are not listening. I told you before, I have no interest in becoming a scientist - that's not my calling. I minister the Word, and where science is alleged to contradict that Word, I respond. I point out that such claims are disputed by other scientists, who advance scientific evidence in support of their case.
    Qualifications are okay, but they're only the start. University posts aren't a bad indicator at all actually, but check to see if they're current. Certain lists of academics supporting ID for example, tend to list universities after the supporters very selectively. Qualified in Berkley? Then they list Berkley even if the fella got a basic degree there and has been working in a chipper ever since. The big question is where are they now and for how long.
    It is creationists I'm interested in, not IDers. If they are selective, that is to be deplored.
    But I return to my first point. The gold standard is you, your reason and your skepticism.
    Not really. It is sufficient to undermine the absolute claims of evolutionism to point out the ability and scientific credentials of their opposition. Once those absolute claims are debunked, one is then opened to admit there is a debate and to engage in it.
    I see no suggestion of design in Hoyle's work. At any rate, his work has been quite thoroughly debunked. His first basic assumption, that abiogenesis should occur in a single step, makes no sense at all.
    Seems to me he was working on the idea of irreducible complexity, so that complete organisms had to come into existence at once. That's ID, albeit it without the Designer.
    Wolfsbane: I'm telling it as the Bible describes - the motivation of the sinful heart of man.
    Do you not see the paradox here? Some people are telling you the bible is wrong, or that your interpretation is wrong. So your means to judge the situation... is to read the bible? Without some third means of judging the situation you're trapped in circular reasoning.
    I'm using normal principles of interpretation of literature: they rule out treating Genesis as metaphor. That silences both the Christian and the secular literary critic. I use the theology of the Bible as a whole to point out that suffering and death, for example, cannot be explained in a Christian way if evolution is true. That should silence the Christian theologian.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The place where we are talking at cross-purposes is to logically exist. Both creationism and evolution require no prior assumptions about origins for them to exist as scientific models. But both require a prior explanation of origins for them to logically exist. Neither can claim they always were, or came into being of themselves. Creation or abiogenesis must explain them.
    You've almost got it. A scientific model or hypothesis must come from logic in order to be a scientific hypothesis rather than just an idea. It must be built upon that which it itself is. Testability and falsifiability. Evolution is based on an origins explanation which can be tested; abiogenesis. Creationism is based on an origins explanation which cannot be tested. The wave of God's Hand.
    But abiogenesis depends in turn on all the steps up to that - and how can the ultimate origins of the universe be tested? So you have proved that creation and evolution both stand on a logic that is untestable.
    I asked you if you could prove that the scientist act as one. If you could prove that they have this motive of which you are so very fond.
    I don't have to prove it - it is declared in the Bible, and is observed in the rabid enmity against creationism we witness today.
    And I return to my above point, if one possible implication of this great debate is indeed that the bible is wrong, then why do you insist on relying upon it when you have your God-given reason as the ultimate decider?
    You mistake my position. I'm not saying maybe evolution is right - I'm saying it is definitely wrong. The debate I engage in is not to discover which side is right, but to persuade you of the truth. That is a valid position for those religiously informed. It is not so for those who claim no outside revelation but have to test and observe by science. Your position ought to be open to refutation. My religious position ought not to be.

    My reasoning is captive to God's revelation. I'm not smarter than Him.

    Creationism's scientific argument, however, must also be open to refutation, and it is. They have modified their models and arguments just as with the rest of science.


  • #12364
    2Scoops
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I told you before, I have no interest in becoming a scientist - that's not my calling. I minister the Word, and where science is alleged to contradict that Word, I respond. I point out that such claims are disputed by other scientists, who advance scientific evidence in support of their case.

    I think that's a super philosophy - that way your beliefs are never challenged. Ever. Except, where's the scientific evidence bit?


  • #12365
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    2Scoops wrote: »
    Forgive my ignorance, but all I could find (in the non-paid subscription parts, at least :pac:) were essays. No actual scientific investigations, merely journalism. Could direct me to a specific scientific experiment report or something, please?

    And yes, creation science as in science that supports the creationist model of life.
    A couple of examples the top of my head:
    http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm
    Any help?

    Or what about? -
    http://www.icr.org/article/2467/


  • #12366
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    2Scoops wrote: »
    I think that's a super philosophy - that way your beliefs are never challenged. Ever. Except, where's the scientific evidence bit?
    Yes, once you have found the Truth it is very stupid to go on looking for it. Admiring it, exploring it - that's the appropriate response.

    As to the scientific evidence for creationism, you already have the sites I have posted numerous times - but to jog your memory here's a few:
    http://creationontheweb.com/
    http://creationresearch.org/
    http://www.bryancore.org/


  • Advertisement
  • #12367
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    Examples of these critical sequences please...Haemoglobin, all hormones, the entire sight cascade....and every protein that has specific 3D active sites have critical sequences that are essential to their functionality.....and even one change in Amino Acid sequence will eliminate their functionality.

    Not counting polymorphism, there are at least 7 functional variants of haemoglobin in humans alone. If a mutation occurs in its active site it is likely to become none functional. But unless such a mutation is very frequent, the impact on the population should not be irrecoverable.

    "Hormones" is too broad a classification to generalise about really, but typically polymorphism is high here with many functional variants. The sight cascade is a group of proteins and we've already discussed how cascades can come to appear "irreducible" by simple loss of redundancy.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    What does that mean? Combinatorial spaces are not relevant to DNA, RNA or protein sequences. It's not as if we can imagine a protein as a three dimensional box matrix. Their primary structure is linear. The connections are not random but determined by a gene. Even bringing it back to DNA makes the notion nonsensical. These are sequences that were selected. Total random recombination is not a feature of evolution at any level. Just where are you getting this rubbish from and how does it apply to evolution?....the sequences are a direct function of a gene which is itself made up of Nucleic Acid sequences.....which are translated into Amino Acid sequences......the information is stored in the DNA.....translated by the RNA....to produce the Protein......another set of variables which push up the odds of producing a specific functional protein sequence using non-intelligent processes by FURTHER astronomical amounts!!!!!!:D

    That isn't an answer to my question. How does combinatorial space apply to selected genes? Unless they are capable of total and random recombination this concept does not apply. The hint is in the name. Combinatorial space.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    Rubbish. Black and white thinking. Even very detrimental mutations may still allow many generations of offspring....Natural Selection or just plain old death would eliminate them within one generation!!!

    Only in the case of, as you say a mutation in the active site of a critical protein. So what of it? Unless the rate of that mutation is sufficient to outweigh the reproductive power of an entire species then natural selection simply removes the unfortunate victim of mutation and the rest carry on.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    Show us an example sequence and I can show you an example of a species in which the criticality is non-existent. We see so many examples of redundant systems in organisms, why assume that this cannot be so for some of the example "critical" systems or sequences?...manyof the so-called redundant sequences or 'Junk DNA' are now found to have functions and others are thought to have a critical role in speciation.

    You have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about "junk DNA". I don't consider the term appropriate either. I'm talking about functional redundancy in proteins (and by extension in genes). Case in point the chemokines RANTES, MIP-1α and MIP-1β have functions which cross over. They all bind to the receptor CCR5. Functional redundancy. A human can survive the loss of function of one of these and the others will compensate. This feature is seen in countless of our systems. We even have some limited organ redundancies.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    And more to the point, why would an "intelligent creator" design a life system such as DNA, allowing it to be mutable and yet still build some systems as non redundant and others as multiply redundant? One mutation and, if we take your logic, the organism is dead. That constitutes a massive design flaw. That constitutes imperfect design from a supposedly infinite intelligence.

    Or is this another example of the corruption of our genome since the fall? In which case you would have to admit the possibility that an apparently "critical" system may evolve or mutate from a redundant system to merely appear critical. Exactly what evolution predicts.    .....the Fall has caused many perfect systems to become less perfect......

    Then the fall may have caused a system to take on the appearance of irreducibility when really it is just loss of redundancy?
    J C wrote: »
    but even still the number of imperfections are miniscule in comparison with the perfect systems in all living organisms.....and death rapidly follows any imperfection arising in any critical system!!!!:D

    Wait now. You claimed that irreducible systems represent evidence of design. Now you are suggesting that they are evidence of a perfect system with redundancies becoming imperfect over time. How is that any different to the predictions made by evolution?

    How can a creation "theory", if it is scientific, make two contradictory predictions?
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    Evolution occurs by more than just natural selection. The removal of function of a non-critical sequence may remove it from selection, but that has no impact on the mutation capacity of a sequence, nor its drift through the gene pool. The restoration of "visibility" to natural selection, positive or negative, is always just a question of mutation......but it does prevent NS being able to 'search out' a functional sequence by gradually following a continuum of increasing functionality......

    Natural selection is not an active process, J C. It does not "search out" anything. Stuff that cannot survive, dies. Stuff that can survive long enough to reproduce at a given rate, reproduces at a given rate. There is no "continuum of increasing functionality", no goal of natural selection. Functionality is a consequence of the failure of non-functionality to survive at a high enough rate to reproduce.
    J C wrote: »
    ...because it would become overwhelmed by the trillions of non functional sequences and the FEW functional ones!!!!!

    How in the world do you overwhelm a passive system that acts to prevent survival. By surviving?
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    Then why do we have protein families? Why do we have literally millions of examples of functional, detrimental and non-functional intermediates?.......functionality declines as we degrade genetic information.....your so called 'intermediaries' are the result of degradation.....and they are not intermedates between fully functional proteins at all.

    They're degraded versions of a protein that also happen to have features of another protein unrelated to the parent? That makes no sense at all. Did they happen to stick together when they were degrading? At the genetic level? And that still does not explain why, in the same organism, we see functional protein A, the "degraded" protein AB and functional protein B.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    As above. Tons of examples. Chemokines and defensins. Chemokine receptors and the GPCR family. Immunoglobulins and all the related receptor and soluble molecule families. Tolls and toll-like proteins. Interleukins. Massive families of related proteins with differing functions.....and all equally impossible to produce in a coherent manner by non-intelligent processes.

    No doubt, we could produce them ourselves. But why assume that? Why also should we have similarities between proteins of a family when the similarities are non-critically functional or even entirely non-functional? We see examples where non-functional elements are indentical across a family of proteins but where an completely differing sequence from another family would do the job just as well. So why group all these sets of proteins together by needless common element? Why show diversity when it is not needed? For aesthetic value? As I said, the creator's sense of aesthetic seems fickle.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    Your statement is like listing the components of a gearbox and then being amazed that they all fit coherently together.....because you believe that it was spontaneously assembled by natural forces and time!!!!:D

    You embarrass yourself with these analogies. Proteins in a protein family don't necessarily work together as a system. If we want to go by such an analogy then what we have is several different cog systems that are each composed of cogs made by several different processes and of different materials. In some cases we can clearly see why this is so, but in other cases we can clearly see that there is no function to the differences. When we compare cogs of one obvious type to cogs in another system we can see that they were made by the same process and same materials with minor variation. At times we even find identical cogs in totally different cog systems. The cog systems have in fact been constructed from a jumble of spare parts.

    Of course the analogy is still inadequate, because cog systems cannot self-replicate, cannot undergo variation and are not subject to selection.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    The creator seems very fickle. So many examples of convergence. Why do the same job with completely different genes in some cases whilst not doing so in others? And why does the choice between those two options always fall along lines that break your precious kinds but which make perfect sense within the context of evolution? Why design eyes more than once for similar sized organisms? Why design adaptive immunity twice but using entirely different sets of genes and yet at the same time providing spookily similar results on the gross level? Why bother with that detail but give every organism in existence the same triplicate protein coding sequence and the same genetic system?...what a WONDERFUL God HE is!!!!:D

    That is not an answer. Why?
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror
    In fact, if we take for a moment your "hypothesis" that life was designed to be valid, we must conclude that there is more than one designer. Several, each with differing agendas and design aesthetics. Working in the same medium, but little more.......NO ....just ONE omnipotent and omniscient God!!!!:eek::D

    That's all you've got? Denial? My poor J C are you getting tired?
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorrorOh good, some predictions. So, in biological terms, in genetics, what does "genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards" mean? How would you measure this?...by looking at what happens when mutations occur.....and by looking at what happens when organisms reproduce!!!:D

    You have not answered my questions.

    1. What does "genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards" mean in genetic terms?

    2. By what means would you test this or falsify this?
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorrorWhy would that be something that Creation would demand? It's what we observe and it can no longer be disputed, but why does divine creation need DNA or any genetics? If what you say is so obviously true, then why did nobody suggest the notion of genetic inheritance before Mendel?.....it is the medium of reproduction ....and the Bible confirmed that all organisms reproduce after their Kind!!!!

    But there are other means by which to convey genetic information. Your creator shows such imagination in the diversity of organism morphologies and yet so little in other areas.


  • #12368
    2Scoops
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    A couple of examples the top of my head:
    http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm
    Any help?

    An essay, based on the flawed analysis of real scientists' observations, that in no way supports creationism.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Or what about? -
    http://www.icr.org/article/2467/

    Apparently, an actual investigation was performed here, so kudos. Unfortunately they didn't provide much detail. Oh, and it's been done already, properly. So most of it was an essay trying to somehow relate the findings to creationism but failed.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes, once you have found the Truth it is very stupid to go on looking for it. Admiring it, exploring it - that's the appropriate response.

    As to the scientific evidence for creationism, you already have the sites I have posted numerous times - but to jog your memory here's a few:
    http://creationontheweb.com/
    http://creationresearch.org/
    http://www.bryancore.org/

    Essays, essays as far as the eye can see! These creation journalists are tireless! But, as of yet, you cannot show me a single example of actual investigation supporting creationism? Not one specific example. Can you even find any science disproving evolution? (not that that would support creationism, mind you :pac:). It seems to me that you have not found the Truth just yet, and it would be a good idea to continue looking.


  • #12369
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    AtomicHorror said:

    You are not listening. I told you before, I have no interest in becoming a scientist - that's not my calling.

    I'm not asking you to become a professional. I'm asking you to become familiar with how scientific scepticism works, so that you can practise it. By swallowing and regurgitating words you cannot (in fact will not) assess, you make a fool of yourself.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I minister the Word, and where science is alleged to contradict that Word, I respond. I point out that such claims are disputed by other scientists, who advance scientific evidence in support of their case.

    Then you've got nothing. You have no means to do so much as judge who is a scientist and who is a scam artist. A man with a PhD and a white coat could tell you exactly what you want to hear and you'd swallow it and post it in this thread. I could do it tomorrow if I were vindictive enough.

    In a scientific debate, you word is worthless.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It is creation....

    Etc. You know what? Forget it. You've repeatedly shown yourself to be interested only in being told that which fits your assumptions and utterly unwilling to display the slightest hint of simple critical thinking.


  • #12370
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You mistake my position. I'm not saying maybe evolution is right - I'm saying it is definitely wrong. The debate I engage in is not to discover which side is right, but to persuade you of the truth. That is a valid position for those religiously informed. It is not so for those who claim no outside revelation but have to test and observe by science. Your position ought to be open to refutation. My religious position ought not to be.

    And so if you learned tomorrow that the bible was a lie, your life would be too. I shudder to think what that would do to you, assuming you could entertain the possibility of being wrong for the merest moment. But you can't, can you? The fear gets you every time.


  • #12371
    2Scoops
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    And so if you learned tomorrow that the bible was a lie, your life would be too. I shudder to think what that would do to you, assuming you could entertain the possibility of being wrong for the merest moment. But you can't, can you? The fear gets you every time.

    Once the frustration subsides, you will either enjoy this thread more or go the way of Scofflaw and lose interest. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #12372
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    And so if you learned tomorrow that the bible was a lie, your life would be too. I shudder to think what that would do to you, assuming you could entertain the possibility of being wrong for the merest moment. But you can't, can you? The fear gets you every time.

    I find it hard to see how someone like Wolfsbane would be able to come to the conclusion that the Bible was a lie. Any evidence that demonstrated that, no matter how convincing, would be dismissed as being wrong.

    That is kinda the point of religion, unshakable faith, no matter what, that what you hope for is real. It isn't a question of what is real and what isn't real, what is true and what isn't true. It is a question of what reality a person is prepared to accept. If a person isn't prepared to accept a reality where their comforting religion/deity isn't present then it doesn't matter what evidence someone shows them to demonstrate that what they believe is reality isn't the case.

    This is where Dawkins gets his God Delusion from. It isn't simply a question of what someone believes or accepts, but what they are prepared to be believe or accept. Without that shared ground, a shared ability to accept a certain reality (irrespective of if it actually is correct or not), trying to show someone like Wolfsbane or JC evidence is like trying turn back the tide.


  • #12373
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    AtomicHorror wrote: »

    Etc. You know what? Forget it. You've repeatedly shown yourself to be interested only in being told that which fits your assumptions and utterly unwilling to display the slightest hint of simple critical thinking.

    ...and the penny drops. :pac:


  • #12374
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I find it hard to see how someone like Wolfsbane would be able to come to the conclusion that the Bible was a lie. Any evidence that demonstrated that, no matter how convincing, would be dismissed as being wrong.

    That is kinda the point of religion, unshakable faith, no matter what, that what you hope for is real. It isn't a question of what is real and what isn't real, what is true and what isn't true. It is a question of what reality a person is prepared to accept. If a person isn't prepared to accept a reality where their comforting religion/deity isn't present then it doesn't matter what evidence someone shows them to demonstrate that what they believe is reality isn't the case.

    This is where Dawkins gets his God Delusion from. It isn't simply a question of what someone believes or accepts, but what they are prepared to be believe or accept. Without that shared ground, a shared ability to accept a certain reality (irrespective of if it actually is correct or not), trying to show someone like Wolfsbane or JC evidence is like trying turn back the tide.

    On the contrary, I imagine that every so often the likes of J C and Wolfsbane really do feel the edge of that doubt. And that glimpse so terrifies them that they flee back to the cozy delusion. It feels like a bad dream that they've woken from and all is well again. Sometimes I see can see the appeal, but I could never embrace that form of thinking again.


  • #12375
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Galvasean wrote: »
    ...and the penny drops. :pac:

    Hey, like I said before, I know this stuff but I'm not doing it for him. I know he's a lost cause. But I can help stop his kind of thinking from spreading further, so I'll happily do my small bit. I'm just not going to do a point by point tonight, especially when the guy is basically blatantly and cheerfully saying "I don't have a clue about the topic at hand and I don't want a clue. But here's what's right".


  • #12376
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    2Scoops wrote: »
    Once the frustration subsides, you will either enjoy this thread more or go the way of Scofflaw and lose interest. :pac:

    Aw, no I'm just cranky because I need sleep. Arguing against these guys is like shooting fish in a barrel.


  • #12377
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Seems like the Eternal Thread.


  • #12378
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    studiorat wrote: »
    Seems like the Eternal Thread.

    It has looped around several times already. All that changes are some of the people involved...


  • #12379
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    On the contrary, I imagine that every so often the likes of J C and Wolfsbane really do feel the edge of that doubt. And that glimpse so terrifies them that they flee back to the cozy delusion. It feels like a bad dream that they've woken from and all is well again. Sometimes I see can see the appeal, but I could never embrace that form of thinking again.
    Let me share with you my personal struggles re: faith. Like all (true) Christians, I am occasionally assailed with doubt about the existence of God, and all the truths that flow from that. I ask myself if I have been deluded, have I imagined my encounter with God in my heart, etc.

    I usually respond by:
    1. Examining the atheistic world-view. I find no meaning there. If I am mistaken about God, nothing matters anyway. Whether I live a selfish or caring life is entirely up to my preferences and carries no meaning.

    I also recall the defences of atheism I have read and I remember how they had no refutation of the above.

    2. Recall the occasions I have found God directly answering my prayers. He is there.

    3. Reviewing His word. Here I find again the 'ring of truth'. God speaks to my heart and confirms it is His word.

    4. I get on my knees and ask God to give me a fresh vision of His truth.

    So I can face the reality of life, not cowering in fear, nor manufacturing my own meaning and morality as the godless do to shield them from the blackness of their world-view.


  • #12380
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    4. I get on my knees and ask God to give me a fresh vision of His truth.

    That made me LOL :D sorry

    His truth eh....

    < / childishness >


  • #12381
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    AtomicHorror said:
    I'm not asking you to become a professional. I'm asking you to become familiar with how scientific scepticism works, so that you can practise it. By swallowing and regurgitating words you cannot (in fact will not) assess, you make a fool of yourself.
    Your problem is that I am sceptical of your interpretation of science. But I am indeed sceptical of both side's interpretations, for neither is the infallible word of God. Creationist scientists differ among themselves as to specifics of how Creation developed from Eden till now. I do not - and cannot, as I am not qualified - plump for any specifics of the creation models. I do reject evolution, on theological grounds, and therefore am happy to point to dissenting scientific views on it.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I minister the Word, and where science is alleged to contradict that Word, I respond. I point out that such claims are disputed by other scientists, who advance scientific evidence in support of their case.
    Then you've got nothing. You have no means to do so much as judge who is a scientist and who is a scam artist. A man with a PhD and a white coat could tell you exactly what you want to hear and you'd swallow it and post it in this thread.
    Sure, I could be misled by such a liar, if i did not bother to check him out with many others. I am happy that is not the case with the large number of creationist scientists I refer you to, for they are a check on each other, and are considered bona fide Christians by my Christian friends who are in a position to know (not that any are perfect).
    I could do it tomorrow if I were vindictive enough.
    You would need validation by many more before I could rely on your opinion. I might pass it on for review and comment, but I certainly would not take it as fact.
    In a scientific debate, you word is worthless.
    So I'm glad I'm not offering my scientific skills, but those of qualified scientists. I stick to the theological truths.
    Etc. You know what? Forget it. You've repeatedly shown yourself to be interested only in being told that which fits your assumptions and utterly unwilling to display the slightest hint of simple critical thinking.
    I'm sorry you feel like that. I'm always interested in the (honest) arguments of the misguided, and I critique everything - in the light of the Word.


  • Advertisement
  • #12382
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Hey, like I said before, I know this stuff but I'm not doing it for him. I know he's a lost cause. But I can help stop his kind of thinking from spreading further, so I'll happily do my small bit. I'm just not going to do a point by point tonight, especially when the guy is basically blatantly and cheerfully saying "I don't have a clue about the topic at hand and I don't want a clue. But here's what's right".
    Here's something from your own religion that I found amusing:
    It's Time for Science and Reason
    http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-104216851946357313&ei=2Q3USOLoA4rw-gGtsqHGAg&q=Center+for+Inquiry&vt=lf&hl=en


  • #12383
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    It has looped around several times already. All that changes are some of the people involved...

    I wonder will it become self aware!


  • #12384
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I think it's quite sad and unfair TBH....
    that you seem to be cherrypicking the article to make it look like he has been booted out of the scientific community.


    In fact some members of the scientific community reckon Reiss made a good point:


    I must say I agree with Reiss on the issue:


    He is clearly not saying Creationism is right, nor is he even suggesting that it has scientific merit. He is simply putting forward a more diplomatic way of dealing with said topic when it arises.

    As usual, it looks as if the media have tried cooking up a storm where there was only a minor shower.
    Your assessment of Reiss's comments is the same as JC's and mine. I don't agree with his assessment of creationism, but his suggestion for confronting it is reasonable and liberal. So the rabid response by the evolutionary dogmatists shows that science is not their motivation, but Scientism.

    Watch out, or you too will become an enemy of Reason - is that a tumbril I hear? ;)


  • #12385
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Well, I think this strays from the topic at hand but I guess I'll give you my views.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I usually respond by:
    1. Examining the atheistic world-view. I find no meaning there. If I am mistaken about God, nothing matters anyway. Whether I live a selfish or caring life is entirely up to my preferences and carries no meaning.

    I also recall the defences of atheism I have read and I remember how they had no refutation of the above.

    What you are talking about is the loss of "objective" meaning and what comes with that. This impacts on morals too. To the atheist, the world does indeed lack objective meaning, but it always did. We humans created meaning, created morals. This does not mean we should carry on regardless, nor that we should discard all that came before. It means that we must discard the notion that we are bound to an absolute (that we have never actually been following as a species anyway) and embrace collective subjectivity.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    2. Recall the occasions I have found God directly answering my prayers. He is there.

    But do you really find yourself more fortunate or generally happier than the majority. Is there any way in which you can, at least subjectively, prove that your prayers are being answered? Even quite unmotivated and passive people have good fortune often enough that they might be able to consider their prayers answered. You seem to be a rather well-motivated and pro-active sort, perhaps even because of the confidence and drive that your faith provides. What you are witnessing as prayers answered may be nothing more than your own talent and luck.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    3. Reviewing His word. Here I find again the 'ring of truth'. God speaks to my heart and confirms it is His word.

    What does that really mean? You read something you like. When you open a newspaper do you accept the stories of peace, kindness and happiness only to discard the tales of war and death as fabrications?

    The is no rule that says that truth will make us happy.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    4. I get on my knees and ask God to give me a fresh vision of His truth.

    And how do you know that your subjective visions of truth are any more true than the subjective views or opinions of the countless who disagree with you? The scientist view and perhaps by extension the atheist view (though that term is very broad), is that reason must be subject to testing and to external appraisal.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So I can face the reality of life, not cowering in fear, nor manufacturing my own meaning and morality as the godless do to shield them from the blackness of their world-view.

    We all have the same choice Wolfsbane. To choose meaning or to abandon it entirely. All you are doing is accepting a meaning that makes you happy. I have no issue with that at all, but you seem determined to force elements of that upon the world. If your truth is so very obvious and self evident, then you should have no need to do that.


  • #12386
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm sorry you feel like that. I'm always interested in the (honest) arguments of the misguided, and I critique everything - in the light of the Word.

    Funny how you don't critique the Creationist stance half as zealously as the evolutionist one. Looks to me as if you might be afraid to see just how paper thin the creationist stance is.

    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Your assessment of Reiss's comments is the same as JC's and mine. I don't agree with his assessment of creationism, but his suggestion for confronting it is reasonable and liberal. So the rabid response by the evolutionary dogmatists shows that science is not their motivation, but Scientism.

    Watch out, or you too will become and enemy of Reason - is that a tumbril I hear? ;)

    Except it is the Royal Society who are getting the real backlash from the scientific community at large here. In damning Reiss for his stance they have done themselves a load of harm. If anything the scientific community (note evolutionists included) at large has rallied to Reiss' defence.


  • #12387
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Your problem is that I am sceptical of your interpretation of science. But I am indeed sceptical of both side's interpretations, for neither is the infallible word of God. Creationist scientists differ among themselves as to specifics of how Creation developed from Eden till now. I do not - and cannot, as I am not qualified - plump for any specifics of the creation models. I do reject evolution, on theological grounds, and therefore am happy to point to dissenting scientific views on it.

    I'm sorry you feel like that. I'm always interested in the (honest) arguments of the misguided, and I critique everything - in the light of the Word.

    The Word has been tested and found to be false. You claim this cannot be so because the Word is infallible. You use the Word itself to prove that the Word is truth. Without applying your skepticism to the Word itself, all you have is circular reasoning.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So I'm glad I'm not offering my scientific skills, but those of qualified scientists. I stick to the theological truths.

    But you use the word of "scientists" to push your side of the debate. You can't tell scientist from con man. And using "the Word" as a means to judge is worthless unless you are willing to view it with sceptism also.

    If we all take your approach, you can never convert those who refuse to question their various dogmas.


  • #12388
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Your assessment of Reiss's comments is the same as JC's and mine. I don't agree with his assessment of creationism, but his suggestion for confronting it is reasonable and liberal. So the rabid response by the evolutionary dogmatists shows that science is not their motivation, but Scientism.

    Watch out, or you too will become and enemy of Reason - is that a tumbril I hear? ;)

    I think you'd find few scientists approving of the silencing of any side of a debate, irrespective of how much the may disagree. I think what we've seen is not science nor scientism but knee-jerk political correctness.


  • #12389
    2Scoops
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I am happy that is not the case with the large number of creationist scientists I refer you to,

    Except that none of them are actually creation scientists and they have no science in support of creationism.


  • #12390
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I usually respond by:
    1. Examining the atheistic world-view. I find no meaning there. If I am mistaken about God, nothing matters anyway. Whether I live a selfish or caring life is entirely up to my preferences and carries no meaning.
    The exact same is true of Christianity. :confused: It carries no more meaning that what you choose to do. You can choose not to be Christian, you can choose to be Christian. If you choose to take on the beliefs of Christianity you assign that as your lifes meaning. You can do the same with anything else.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So I can face the reality of life, not cowering in fear, nor manufacturing my own meaning and morality as the godless do to shield them from the blackness of their world-view.

    Indeed. But none of that actually makes what you believe true. You can do exactly the same even if it isn't true, look at the Scientologists.

    So as I said before, it comes down to which reality you are prepared to consider. You clearly are not prepared to consider a reality where a pleasing comforting god as described in your Bible, which you view literally, doesn't exist, so all the evidence in the world that you are wrong is irrelevant because you are not open to the consideration that you are or could be wrong because such a reality is unconsiderable to you.

    Which makes any discussion of evidence or science or discovery of knowledge with you rather immaterial.


  • Advertisement
  • #12391
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Except it is the Royal Society who are getting the real backlash from the scientific community at large here. In damning Reiss for his stance they have done themselves a load of harm. If anything the scientific community (note evolutionists included) at large has rallied to Reiss' defence.
    There's one thing that can't be denied the tiny clique of individuals who control the modern day creationist movement. While they're as dumb as a sackful of hammers with the moral compasses of thieves, they play human politics with a finesse that would have impressed Old Nick.

    Phillip Johnson's hands must be raw from slow-clapping the RS this week.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement