The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Yup... Read a lot of those articles already. If you would like me to show you their errors, post up your favourite article from the "countering the critics" section and I'll show you what the scientific community thinks of it.

As I've said before, I am not qualified to check your figures, etc., so giving me a mathematical refutation, for example, would be fruitless. I only want folk to know that the issues are debated out there and those able to follow the details can do so.

Anyway... You asked for an example... So here's one

Thanks for that. Beyond my ken to assess whether it is successful in its refutation. But I will be looking for a direct response to it. Here's something I have found in my initial search that you may find interesting:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_df_r01

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

While I don't deny your right to decide what is to be taken literally in the Bible, it appears that this entire thread boils down to the fact that we don't accept your interpretation. Personally, I consider your interpretation both narrow and self-serving - not only that, but as far as I can tell, that's its sole purpose.

It is the historic Christian interpretation, so that is only as narrow as one should expect for a Christian. As to self-serving, I don't know what you mean by that: no one is paying me to make these arguments; and as it is pseudonomic, no 'honour' can come of it (only a few members have made personal contact and so know my identity).

Certainly I am happy to know that my labours for the Lord are not in vain and I will have His joy to look forward to when I go to be with Him, Romans 2:6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality But even without that prospect, I would gladly seek to vindicate His honour in defending His gospel from all who seek to deny it.

Obviously, I don't deny that others share your intepretation, but we have to note that they represent a small minority of Christians. You differ from many of them on specific points of intepretation, so there is only really an illusion of a large body of your opinion.

Most of those whom you regard as Christians, I do not. I am happy to acknowledge that Christianity in the Biblical sense is a small minority in the world.

It is also true that many true Christians have swallowed the evolution delusion, usually in an unthinking acceptance of what it entails. From my own discussions with fellow-believers in many churches, I have found most to be creationist. When challenged with the biblical arguments, there seems to be a growing rejection of evolution amongst previously unaware believers, right across the theological spectrum from Pentecostal to Reformed.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

As I've said before, I am not qualified to check your figures, etc., so giving me a mathematical refutation, for example, would be fruitless. I only want folk to know that the issues are debated out there and those able to follow the details can do so.

In short, you're here to proselytise?

Scofflaw

Parsley

I used to care about this thread and try to argue, then I realised it is utterly pointless. The fact that this has reached 62 pages is testament to that. Neither side in this argument is going to be swayed even slightly by the other side.

Bottom line is: in the end, no-one really cares.

*ducks behind wall to avoid the mod's banhammer*

robindch

> I am happy to acknowledge that Christianity in the Biblical sense is a
> small minority in the world.

Just out of interest, does this mean that you believe that only the very few people who agree with you will be going to heaven, with the far, far greater proportion of humanity will be cast into the outer darkness/burn in hell/unmade/etc.etc?

> many true Christians have swallowed the evolution delusion, usually in
> an unthinking acceptance of what it entails.

Unthinking acceptance of the notion that alleles change in frequency over time -- quick, to the lifeboats, we're doomed!

Anyway, as a bit of light relief, the good folks at talkorigins produced their own version of esr's Jargon File at http://www.ediacara.org/jargon.html (or in html here). The Watchmaker entry is good -- enjoy.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

As I've said before, I am not qualified to check your figures, etc., so giving me a mathematical refutation, for example, would be fruitless. I only want folk to know that the issues are debated out there and those able to follow the details can do so.

It would be fruitless for you, but it would be fruitful for others who are willing to learn and understand the issues, and realise that creationist arguments amount to nothing.

Thanks for that. Beyond my ken to assess whether it is successful in its refutation. But I will be looking for a direct response to it. Here's something I have found in my initial search that you may find interesting:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_df_r01

All of those arguments fall under the list of refuted arguments I have given you. Heck... Even answers in Genesis has abandoned some of them (i.e. The Lunar dust 'argument')

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

In short, you're here to proselytise?

That's a bit of a loaded word. But I gladly admit that I'm here for several reasons, the evangelization of the lost being a key one; along with the edification of those already Christian, and utlimately to glorify the Lord.

Indeed, that is a summary of any Christian's duty. But maybe you can tell us why you are here: is it to 'proselytise' for evolutionism?

wolfsbane

Parsley said:

Bottom line is: in the end, no-one really cares.

Perhaps, but they can be made to care. Isaiah 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

That is how God converts sinners and sanctifies His people.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Just out of interest, does this mean that you believe that only the very few people who agree with you will be going to heaven, with the far, far greater proportion of humanity will be cast into the outer darkness/burn in hell/unmade/etc.etc?

Yes. That is, agree with the essentials of the Faith, not every truth being necessary for salvation. Creationism is one of the non-essentials.

All who hold to the essential truths of Christianity are a small proportion of mankind. Luke 13:23 Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”
And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

All of those arguments fall under the list of refuted arguments I have given you. Heck... Even answers in Genesis has abandoned some of them (i.e. The Lunar dust 'argument')

Yes, refuted in your opinion, maybe.

And ,Yes, in true scientific fashion creationists revise/abandon scientific theories as new facts come to light. They even provide lists of those.

BTW, here's notice of an anti-creationism lecture that may be of interest: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/event.asp?id=4140 It is to be given by Professor Steve Jones, University College London, to the Royal Society on Tuesday 11 April 2006 at 6:30pm. I think it is to be broadcast live.

I heard him interviewed on radio this morning and was not impressed. He is either grossly uninformed about creationism or is deliberately misleading the audience. Example, he knows of only 1 biologist who is a creationist. A quick check on the creationist sites would give him many more.

wolfsbane

My latest find for Morbert:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ Note the section, “Talk.Origins Archive” Rebuttals

wolfsbane

And another valuable resource:
http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:are you here to proselytise?

That's a bit of a loaded word. But I gladly admit that I'm here for several reasons, the evangelization of the lost being a key one; along with the edification of those already Christian, and utlimately to glorify the Lord.

Indeed, that is a summary of any Christian's duty. But maybe you can tell us why you are here: is it to 'proselytise' for evolutionism?

Hmm. I think I would say that "the evangelization of the lost being a key one; along with the edification of those already Christian, and utlimately to glorify the Lord" fits the word "proselytisation" quite well.

I don't know how one would proselytise for the theory of evolution - it's not like there's a belief system there to convert people to.

On the other hand, if you mean "proselytising science" - well, that isn't a belief system either, so, again, difficult to see what I would be converting people to.

Personally, I've always considered that proselytising atheism/agnosticism would be in poor taste, and I don't believe in unrelieved materialism, so if either of those are what you mean to indicate by 'evolutionism', I'm afraid I couldn't or wouldn't proselytise those points of view.

I don't really have an issue with people believing in Creationism - I'm not in the US, so I find it slightly irrelevant. In fact, I'm slightly anti-American, so I'm probably pleased rather than anything.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, refuted in your opinion, maybe.

And ,Yes, in true scientific fashion creationists revise/abandon scientific theories as new facts come to light. They even provide lists of those.

Well, some of them do, although I note that there are still plenty of Creationists who believe in the discovery of the Ark. Sometimes the evidence against the pseudo-science becomes too much even for the most dedicated Creationist, and they abandon a line, but mostly they do hang in there.

wolfsbane wrote:

BTW, here's notice of an anti-creationism lecture that may be of interest: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/event.asp?id=4140 It is to be given by Professor Steve Jones, University College London, to the Royal Society on Tuesday 11 April 2006 at 6:30pm. I think it is to be broadcast live.

I heard him interviewed on radio this morning and was not impressed. He is either grossly uninformed about creationism or is deliberately misleading the audience. Example, he knows of only 1 biologist who is a creationist. A quick check on the creationist sites would give him many more.

Actually, I suspect that's about right - he's in the UK, and there would be virtually no "Creationist scientists" in the UK.

Scofflaw

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

And ,Yes, in true scientific fashion creationists revise/abandon scientific theories as new facts come to light.

Except they keep the same conclusion all the time. They don't abandon theories, they abandon arguments for how a given piece of evidence supports a literal interpretation of genesis.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

My latest find for Morbert:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ Note the section, “Talk.Origins Archive” Rebuttals

yes yes.. I know about that website already.

Again, it provides nothing which hasn't already been addressed in talk origins despite its rebuttals claim.

And no, it's not just my opinion.

Oh, and you still haven't posted a response to the Super-novae faq.

And ,Yes, in true scientific fashion creationists revise/abandon scientific theories as new facts come to light.

Once again, you have not presented a scientific theory of creationism, so your statement is plain wrong from the start.

But anyway, as I have said... All of the rantings from creationists have been dealt with. You're just not willing to learn enough about evolution/science in general to recognise that.

So answer me this: If you aren't willing to learn about science and evolution, (and you have admitted to only understanding the thrust of arguments) then why should I pay attention to your opinion that there is still a debate?


And again... My offer is still open. Post any article you want and I will show you why it's nonsense... Anything... From answersingenesis/trueorigins/ICR/DI, any website you like.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Actually, I suspect that's about right - he's in the UK, and there would be virtually no "Creationist scientists" in the UK.

But he should know of the creationist biologists listed on the creationist sites - if he claims to have some knowledge of creationism.

As for U.K. Creationist scientists: you surely cannot have been ignorant of the recent news item: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1979840.stm

See also: http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/educational_issues/bcs116.html

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Except they keep the same conclusion all the time. They don't abandon theories, they abandon arguments for how a given piece of evidence supports a literal interpretation of genesis.

And evolutionists do something different? Of course not: it is only when the evidence for the theory (of creation or evolution) is so overwhelmed by the evidence that one would expect the whole theory to be abandoned. Specific mechanisms may be mooted and discarded without the theory itself being falsified; otherwise both evolution and creation would have been abandoned long ago.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

And evolutionists do something different? Of course not: it is only when the evidence for the theory (of creation or evolution) is so overwhelmed by the evidence that one would expect the whole theory to be abandoned. Specific mechanisms may be mooted and discarded without the theory itself being falsified; otherwise both evolution and creation would have been abandoned long ago.

I have bad news for you. Creation was abandoned long ago, as a scientific theory. Funnily enough, this was done because of the overwhelming evidence against it.

Oh wait, I'd forgotten - it's a conspiracy.

Scofflaw

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

And evolutionists do something different?

What the hell is a evolutionist?
It isn't an ideology and basically that is what this bolis down to.

To you this is political, a clashing of ideologies.
To scientists, it's a clashing of a well supported theory and vague collection of "not even wrong" pseudo-scientific ideas.

I'm going to take this away from evolution into cosmology, where I'm more familiar with their work.
They write rubbish papers full of vague ideas and without any mathematics.
They're pushing an ideology not a scientific theory, so I can see why they do this, but it is poor science.

Before you say anything let me remind you that I've read their papers and you haven't.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:

And evolutionists do something different? Of course not: it is only when the evidence for the theory (of creation or evolution) is so overwhelmed by the evidence that one would expect the whole theory to be abandoned. Specific mechanisms may be mooted and discarded without the theory itself being falsified; otherwise both evolution and creation would have been abandoned long ago.

What?

Now you're just making unfounded remarks in the hope that we won't recognise bull**** when we see it.

Your above paragraph is blatantly untrue, and unless you support it with evidence, you're going to lose what little credibility you had left.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Oh, and you still haven't posted a response to the Super-novae faq.

Not being an astro-phyicist , I'm still looking for articles. When I find something, I'll post it.

Once again, you have not presented a scientific theory of creationism

Once again, can you tell me what exactly this would involve, if it is not a matter of origins.

If you aren't willing to learn about science and evolution, (and you have admitted to only understanding the thrust of arguments) then why should I pay attention to your opinion that there is still a debate?

Because equally well-qualified scientists are disputing evolutionist assertions.

All of the rantings from creationists have been dealt with. You're just not willing to learn enough about evolution/science in general to recognise that......My offer is still open. Post any article you want and I will show you why it's nonsense... Anything... From answersingenesis/trueorigins/ICR/DI, any website you like.

So you not only know enough about science in general, you also are able to refute experts in all the fields of science? Or are you just talking about rehashing some evolutionary scientists' works? Does that not make you only less dependant than I am on the experts' opinions?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

You surely cannot have been ignorant of the recent news item: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1979840.stm

Except that this is riddled with all the usual Creationist flaws:

Item: that the spokesperson is not a biologist, nor in any field related thereto. Why was a biologist not chosen as spokesperson?
Item: it presupposes that there is a "scientific controversy" over evolution, when there is not. There was such a debate, but it is so long ago that it more properly belongs in the history of science.
Item: that science is considered to have only one method of verification of theories: "experimental" verification. This is not the case - experiments are a special case of observation (the use of observed facts), which are only necessary when nature does not provide observations that properly test the theory. This is not the case in evolutionary biology, nor in geology, both of which are historical sciences rather than experimental ones.
Item: the letter claims that a "large body of scientific evidence in biology, geology and chemistry, as well as the fundamentals of information theory, strongly suggest that evolution is not the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe". This claim is unsubstantiated. On any occasion when it has really needed to stand up (either legally or scientifically), it has been found to be bunkum.
Item: despite the authors' claims that evolution has not been "experimentally verified", they do not seem to want such a standard to apply to their own preferred theories ("not the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe""). This is special pleading. A dismissive description has been applied to the verification available for evolution, and a positive description has been applied to exactly the same verification when used against evolution.

I will leave out the supposition that this is not actually pleading for a proper consideration of "all possible origin theories", but I'm prepared to bet it isn't - it's a plea for special consideration of the Biblical Genesis account (one or the other of them, anyway).

Scofflaw

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:

Not being an astro-phyicist , I'm still looking for articles. When I find something, I'll post it.


Once again, can you tell me what exactly this would involve, if it is not a matter of origins.

It involves putting forth testable hypotheses and a theoretical framework.

Because equally well-qualified scientists are disputing evolutionist assertions.

No they're not. I'm sorry but it's as simple as that. Evolution is not disputed within the scientific community.

So you not only know enough about science in general, you also are able to refute experts in all the fields of science? Or are you just talking about rehashing some evolutionary scientists' works? Does that not make you only less dependant than I am on the experts' opinions?

But that's just it... I'm not asking you to become an expert. You only need to become familiar with the basic facts and principles of the relevant areas to be able to determine whether or not such arguments are genuine. I've been exposed to scientific papers and theories quite a lot in the last 3 years, and I am well aware of the rigorous demands placed on any article or paper. And none of the AiG articles meet that standard. For a bunch of 'experts' they are very poor at practising science.

And I would not dream of expressing an opinion on string theory or RNA template postulates, as I am not an expert, but we thankfully require only a basic level of scientific understanding to see creationist arguments for what they are. crap

And again.. You keep referring to 'experts' yet I have told you in previous posts that their articles are sub-standard when it comes to scientific criteria. So calling them experts will not help your case.

And I notice you're dodging my offer.... post up an article and I will tell you why it's crap. Of course, you're free to keep your fingers in your ears and deny the facts of science. Because if you aren't willing to study and dissect such creationist arguments then none of this matters does it?

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Your above paragraph is blatantly untrue, and unless you support it with evidence, you're going to lose what little credibility you had left.

So you now say scientists don't propose specific mechanisms to explain the evidence, and then discard those proposals when a better solution is found? Just a little bit from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
In this respect, going along with the "scientific consensus" of the day can prove dangerous in some situations: nothing looks worse on a record than making drastic decisions based on theories which later turned out to be false, such as the compulsory sterilization of thousands of mentally ill patients in the US during the 1930s under the false notion that it would end mental illness.

Now any proposed mechanism/s of mental illness may be debated and discarded - but that does not falsify the basic theory of mental illness. So to with, e.g, water canopy in creationism and punctuated equilibrium or uniformitarianism in evolution.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:

So you now say scientists don't propose specific mechanisms to explain the evidence, and then discard those proposals when a better solution is found? Just a little bit from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
In this respect, going along with the "scientific consensus" of the day can prove dangerous in some situations: nothing looks worse on a record than making drastic decisions based on theories which later turned out to be false, such as the compulsory sterilization of thousands of mentally ill patients in the US during the 1930s under the false notion that it would end mental illness.

Now any proposed mechanism/s of mental illness may be debated and discarded - but that does not falsify the basic theory of mental illness. So to with, e.g, water canopy in creationism and punctuated equilibrium or uniformitarianism in evolution.

Of course they propose mechanisms etc. And of course mechanisms are discarded in light of new evidence, but you're implying that theories are immune from being discarded. This is blatantly untrue, and there are numerous examples of hypothetical evidence that, if found, would completely overturn evolution.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

It involves putting forth testable hypotheses and a theoretical framework.

Like the prediction that we will find dinosaur bones not fully fossilized?

No they're not. I'm sorry but it's as simple as that. Evolution is not disputed within the scientific community.

Check the list of scientists who are writing and lecturing against evolution. They ARE scientists.

And again.. You keep referring to 'experts' yet I have told you in previous posts that their articles are sub-standard when it comes to scientific criteria. So calling them experts will not help your case.

As we have covered before, when it comes to choosing which PhD scientist I think is lying, I will believe those Christians with proven honesty before any unbeliever who is operating in a deluded state anyway. Your opinion on their articles must be evaluated in that light.

And I notice you're dodging my offer.... post up an article and I will tell you why it's crap. Of course, you're free to keep your fingers in your ears and deny the facts of science. Because if you aren't willing to study and dissect such creationist arguments then none of this matters does it?

Post anything you like. I just see no point if I can already read it on the anti-creationist sites.

This debate matters whether I get a degree in physics/mathematics/chemistry/biology or not. The point is to make folk aware that evolution is being challenged by scientists of equal intelligence/learning to the evolutionists. You want everyone to think there is no scientific debate on origins, but do so on the self-imposed basis that there is only one side - yours. The creationist sites contain enough to show that is mere evolutionary propaganda masquerading as science.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Except that this is riddled with all the usual Creationist flaws:

It was a BBC article, and it did show there were British creationist scientists - which was my point. The 'flaws' have been deal with elsewhere.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

but you're implying that theories are immune from being discarded.

Morbert, you need to read what I said again: I'm implying nothing of the sort. All I stated was that discarding any particular mechanism does not necessarily disprove the theory.

there are numerous examples of hypothetical evidence that, if found, would completely overturn evolution.

I completely agree.:D

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

This debate matters whether I get a degree in physics/mathematics/chemistry/biology or not. The point is to make folk aware that evolution is being challenged by scientists of equal intelligence/learning to the evolutionists. You want everyone to think there is no scientific debate on origins, but do so on the self-imposed basis that there is only one side - yours. The creationist sites contain enough to show that is mere evolutionary propaganda masquerading as science.

What about their challenges to cosmology?
They challenge the Big Bang and yet every theory they propose doesn't match experiment.