The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

I can live with your condescension, but how can you sleep at night with your hypocrisy? :eek:

Oh, and still waiting for a single example of creation science. Take your time; it's been 3 years, after all. Feel free to write me off, fob me off, or otherwise try to divert and distract from your inability to come up with even a single example... :pac:

You've got the examples - you just refuse to accept them. Blindness, time-wasting, whatever - it's your problem. There's the water; I can't make you drink.

wolfsbane

marco polo said:

Quote:
If someone went into astromony because they were deeply impressed by the vastness of the universe and wanted to see if they could understand the physics that colud give rise to its existence and behaviuor, would that mean they are not a scientist?
The more acurate analogy for a creationist would be someone who cannot accept the vastness of the universe and sets out to prove it is not vast.

You didn't answer the question - from which I assume you concede the point.

As to setting out to prove a preconceived position, yes, that is true. But what the creationist cannot do is make up the evidence. If there is no evidence pointing in his direction, he has to admit it. I would expect that from any honest scientist. He of course sees if he can interpret the evidence in line with his basic presupposition. Maybe he can. If he can't, then he will admit that he as yet has no explanation for the evidence.

How does the (honest) materialist evolutionist handle it? Much the same. He rules out any supernatural cause of any evidence, and interprets the evidence as best he can in line with purely materialist presuppositions. Being honest, he will admit the times when the evidence stumps him.

Maybe I'm mistaken, however, not being a scientist. Maybe the evolutionist is open to all possible explanations of the evidence. Maybe he approaches the fossil record with the idea that it could be no more than 6000 yrs old or hundreds of millions. He impartially examines with both (or more) models in mind and sees which interpretation best fits. If there are pros and cons on each side he acknowledges that and offers his preference on that tenative basis. Somehow that does not seem to be the case with any of them here.

Quote:
I mean, they are taking the information that the universe is vast, something they have been told, for granted. Maybe they will find their research supports that - or not (hypothetically). Doesn't make them any less a scientist than a guy who goes into astromony without an opinion on the size of the universe.
No of course not. The key in that paragraph is "maybe they will find heir research supports that - or not". There is no "Or Not" in creationism. A proper scientist sides with the evidence in front of them irrespective of their belief. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries been made as a result of scientists being able to overcome any preconcieved notion they may have had prior to carrying out experiments. Show me one the "Or not" papers from creationist "science".

I agree that the creationist works at an advantage - he already knows the basic answer. But as I showed above, even then he cannot say the evidence supports his position if he is unable to give a coherent explanation of it.

The evolutionist scientist has overcome certain preconcieved notions - but not those against the basis of their beliefs. An adjustment to evolution is permissible, but not its disproof.

Let me put this to you: suppose a scientist saw a most unlikey event happen. He knows the resultant of forces X,Y and Z caused it, even though it was never known to occur before. Normally forces A,B and C are responsible for such events.

In the scientific investigation of the event, is he to approach it the same way a colleague who never witnessed the event would? Or is he allowed to apply his skill to finding out exactly how X, Y and Z brought this about? Would he be less a scientist for doing the latter?

Of course his colleagues may doubt his report of the observation - after all, they never saw it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to setting out to prove a preconceived position, yes, that is true. But what the creationist cannot do is make up the evidence. If there is no evidence pointing in his direction, he has to admit it.

All dealings with Creationists suggest the exact opposite of that statement. Creationists do anything but admit that the evidence isn't there.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He of course sees if he can interpret the evidence in line with his basic presupposition. Maybe he can. If he can't, then he will admit that he as yet has no explanation for the evidence.

And there lies the problem, because if someone has setting out to do so one can always find a way to interpret the evidence in line with already held belief. Interpretation is at the end of the day purely subjective.

Which is why science is not about interpreting evidence.

wolfsbane wrote: »

How does the (honest) materialist evolutionist handle it? Much the same.

Not in the slightest. Again science is not about interpreting evidence. This has been explained to you before, and I can only figure that you keep ignoring this point because it is devistating to the Creationist claim that they are doing science, since all Creationists have is personal interpretation that some evidence is in line with Biblical Creation.

Creationists would love that to be what science is, as demonstrated by the Dover trial. But it isn't. If it was the world would be in a much worse state and you would probably be learning about astrology in your physics classroom.

So by all means continue coming up with your interpretations of the evidence, interpretations that amazingly and shockingly match Biblical Creationism ... what are the odds :eek:

But don't pretend that it is science. It isn't.

It isn't science because science would not be bothered with such a pointless waste of time. How an individual interprets something is ultimately meaningless. They could simply be wrong. If no one else can determine if they are right or wrong then what is the point. I could interpret this rock as being fossilized elephant poop. Is it? I've no freaking idea. What is anyone else supposed to do with my interpretation? My interpreation doesn't mean anything. Equally the interpretation of a bunch of Creationists wandering around a river valley saying "Ummm, in my opinion this is consistent with a world wide flood" is pointless. They could just be wrong. How does anyone know or determine that?

Personal interpretation of stuff ("evidence") is not science.

Testable models, falsifiable predictions, Wolfsbane. I really don't know how more often I have to say this to you. Testable freaking models.

If you cannot model something and then test your model you are not doing science. You are just looking at stuff and having a guess at what you think it might be.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

marco polo said:

You didn't answer the question - from which I assume you concede the point.

I agree that a persons beliefs does not nescessarly preclude them from being a good scientist.

As to setting out to prove a preconceived position, yes, that is true. But what the creationist cannot do is make up the evidence. If there is no evidence pointing in his direction, he has to admit it. I would expect that from any honest scientist. He of course sees if he can interpret the evidence in line with his basic presupposition. Maybe he can. If he can't, then he will admit that he as yet has no explanation for the evidence.

Call me old fashioned but I like my scientists to interpret their findings in line with the evidence, not their beliefs.

I have yet to hear a creationist without a ready explaination for everything, the more implausible the better.

And what if the evidence is blatently pointing in the opposite direction to your beliefs? (ie. all the time) Is it admitted then? Or does it just not count.

How does the (honest) materialist evolutionist handle it? Much the same. He rules out any supernatural cause of any evidence, and interprets the evidence as best he can in line with purely materialist presuppositions. Being honest, he will admit the times when the evidence stumps him.

Of course it should be admitted when there is no ready explaination for the observed facts. This happens all the time in theoretical physics.

Maybe I'm mistaken, however, not being a scientist. Maybe the evolutionist is open to all possible explanations of the evidence. Maybe he approaches the fossil record with the idea that it could be no more than 6000 yrs old or hundreds of millions. He impartially examines with both (or more) models in mind and sees which interpretation best fits. If there are pros and cons on each side he acknowledges that and offers his preference on that tenative basis. Somehow that does not seem to be the case with any of them here.

Problem there is the evolutionist doesn't have to steamroll over all the knowledge built up by tens of thousands of other scientists from the other disciplines over the past few centuries to make his theories 'fit'. He is building on previously discovered knowledge, from physics, astronomy, geology etc, etc. There is only one logical model for the evolutionist to choose, that the world is billions of years old. Determining the age of the world is not within an evolutionists remit.

I agree that the creationist works at an advantage - he already knows the basic answer. But as I showed above, even then he cannot say the evidence supports his position if he is unable to give a coherent explanation of it.

The evolutionist scientist has overcome certain preconcieved notions - but not those against the basis of their beliefs. An adjustment to evolution is permissible, but not its disproof.

Again I ask how can it possibly be science if he knows the answer?
What 'adjustments' are permissible in creationsism out of curiosity?

Of course it is permissible to disprove evolution. And it could be very easily done, all it would take is one counterexample from genetics, the fossil record etc, etc.

You cannot logically disprove something by meerly pointing to things that are not fully understood as yet.

Let me put this to you: suppose a scientist saw a most unlikey event happen. He knows the resultant of forces X,Y and Z caused it, even though it was never known to occur before. Normally forces A,B and C are responsible for such events.

In the scientific investigation of the event, is he to approach it the same way a colleague who never witnessed the event would? Or is he allowed to apply his skill to finding out exactly how X, Y and Z brought this about? Would he be less a scientist for doing the latter?

Of course his colleagues may doubt his report of the observation - after all, they never saw it.

How would you possibly know the X,Y,Z was the cause of an previously unobserved event? Because he believed it was X,Y,Z? Because that is well short of the standard of proof required. Unless there is evidence to the contrary the most likely explaination is that it was in fact A,B,C. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

You've got the examples - you just refuse to accept them.

With respect, you haven't shown an example of creation science. I don't doubt that you believe they are creation science, but I assure you they are not. The only example you have proffered has been dismantled methodology-wise.

I await with anticipation an actual example of creation science from you or J C.

robindch

marco_polo wrote: »

And try explaining the benifits of ID to this guy.

Your original comment was much funnier

marco_polo

robindch wrote: »

Your original comment was much funnier

I think you may be right, I was little drunk last night though so I can't remember what it was

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Even his Irish comes in weird punctuation. Awesome! :pac:

edit: I just noticed our pacman smiley has eyes on the side of his head like that fish!

.....God is the ONLY really awesome person !!!!:D

....and the Pacman with the 'eyes on the side of his head' WAS Intelligently Designed!!!!:pac:


MBEEP!!!:D

studiorat

J C wrote: »

.....God is the ONLY really awesome person !!!!:D

....and the Pacman with the 'eyes on the side of his head' WAS Intelligently Designed!!!!:pac:


MBEEP!!!:D

Shapes

J C wrote: »

....I am a (Saved/Born Again/True) Christian.:)

Would that see you attending a charismatic church?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....and the Pacman with the 'eyes on the side of his head' WAS Intelligently Designed!!!!:pac:

Much unlike the fish.
I guess their similarities are convergent after all.

J C

Shapes wrote: »

Would that see you attending a charismatic church?

...a small number of Saved/Born Again/True Christians are to be found in ALL churches!!!!:D

J C

studiorat wrote: »

....I see that you are 'self-medicating' again, studiorat......

............do you not know that this stuff will 'rust your pipes'??:eek::):p


MBEEP!!!!:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

"Takes one to know one" is about the best argument you've come up with in over 800 pages. Say, I can recognise the following objects:

Rocks
Houses
Trees
Squirrels

Am I all of these too?

.....I was smiling at the fact that people who believe that the Universe came about through NOTHING exploding....are laughing at a guy who merely believes that the Earth is FLAT!!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What happens if my non-redundant heart fails? What happens if my non-redundant digestive system fails? What happens if my non-redundant thymus fails? The redundancy is random. Bad design.

.....death entered the world through sin....and even if you had two digestive systems ......you would STILL die if ONE of them failed.....

.......and I certainly wouldn't like to be sitting beside you if you had eaten a dollop of Beans...and you had twin 'exhausts'!!!!!:eek::):D:P

MBEEP!!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is why science is not about interpreting evidence.

.......Again science is not about interpreting evidence. This has been explained to you before, ......

.......So by all means continue coming up with your interpretations of the evidence, interpretations that amazingly and shockingly match Biblical Creationism ... what are the odds :eek:

But don't pretend that it is science. It isn't. .....

Personal interpretation of stuff ("evidence") is not science.

Marco Polo
Call me old fashioned but I like my scientists to interpret their findings in line with the evidence, not their beliefs.

....Marco talk to Wicknight.......Wicknight talk to Marco!!!!

.......and BTW if Evolutionists interpreted their findings in line with the evidence .....and not their beliefs.....they would NEVER conclude that Pondslime could EVER spontaneously 'evolve' into Mankind!!!!:D:eek::P

Wicknight wrote: »

Testable models, falsifiable predictions, Wolfsbane. I really don't know how more often I have to say this to you. Testable freaking models.

If you cannot model something and then test your model you are not doing science. You are just looking at stuff and having a guess at what you think it might be.

.....so what 'testable models' and/or 'falsifiable predictions' show that Pondslime 'morphed' into Man over 'Zillions' of years???:):eek:

..................MBEEP!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Wicknight
Again science is not about interpreting evidence. This has been explained to you before, and I can only figure that you keep ignoring this point because it is devistating to the Creationist claim that they are doing science, since all Creationists have is personal interpretation that some evidence is in line with Biblical Creation.

Creationists would love that to be what science is, as demonstrated by the Dover trial.

...Ah yes.....the Dover Trial...that supposedly killed off ID!!!

...well here are some quotable quotes on Intelligent Design......by Evolutionists (and NONE of them are Creationists, as far as I know):-

......and there seems to be a lot of VERY EMINENT Intelligent Design Advocates around......whatever the result of the 'Dover Trial'!!!!

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”


John O’Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”


George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.

Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”


Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.

Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.

Henry “Fritz” Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

..............MBEEP......................................................MBEEP...............................................MBEEP!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

......and there seems to be a lot of VERY EMINENT Intelligent Design Advocates around......whatever the result of the 'Dover Trial'!!!!

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
John O’Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
George Greenstein
(astronomer)
Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
Tony Rothman
(physicist)
Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician)
Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
Arthur L. Schawlow
Henry “Fritz” Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)

Disregarding the vague nature of these comments and how they relate to ID per se, I am particularly amused by the fact that NONE are biologists! :pac:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....so what 'testable models' and/or 'falsifiable predictions' show that Pondslime 'morphed' into Man over 'Zillions' of years???

Neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution

... you might have heard of it

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

(British astrophysicist)
(British astrophysicist)
(British astrophysicist)
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
(NASA astronomer)
(astronomer)
(astrophysicist)
(Nobel prize in physics)
(mathematician and author)
(physicist)
(MIT physicist)
(British astrophysicist)
(Soviet mathematician)
(cosmologist)
(British cosmologist)
(cosmologist)
(cosmologists)
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
(computational quantum chemist)

leaving aside that most of those quotes were taken out of context, its interesting that you quote them as supporting intelligent design yet not a single one of them is a biologist

Perhaps you would like to add in some economists or some historians as well. Maybe a few race car drivers and the guy who works down the local Tesco's :rolleyes:

[EDIT]Noticed that others have notice this strange fact as well JC[EDIT]

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

Neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution

... you might have heard of it

You know, selective deafness being what it is, I don't think he has...

robindch

J C wrote: »

...Ah yes.....the Dover Trial...that supposedly killed off ID!

There's no "supposedly" about it! The Dover trial that was so much of an international embarrassment to the ID marketers, that the whole movement went into a tailspin from which it will not recover. You'll recall that almost all of the very few outfits "researching" ID lost funding almost immediately, closed down and the staff moved on, even the numerologist William Dembski. The only guy who didn't was Behe who has tenure at a real university.

The single most damaging trial admission belonged to Behe himself, when he said that ID was as scientific as astrology.

Hmmm... "ID is a Taurus, from the House of Bull"

.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....I was smiling at the fact that people who believe that the Universe came about through NOTHING exploding....are laughing at a guy who merely believes that the Earth is FLAT!!!!:eek::D

Flat Earthers are only marginally stupider than creationists.

J C wrote: »

.....death entered the world through sin....

Prove it.

J C wrote: »

and even if you had two digestive systems complete with two mouths and two Anal Sphyncters......you would STILL die if ONE of them failed.....

This has nothing to do with anything I wrote and is untrue anyway. Was the point of this tangent just that you got a chance to write the (mis-spelled) word "Sphyncters"?

J C wrote: »

.......and I certainly wouldn't like to be sitting beside you if you had eaten a dollop of Beans...and you had twin 'exhausts'!!!!!:eek::):D:P

Relevance? Just another chance to be puerile? I know you're just dying for a chance to drag us down into the gutter again J C, but you've got one yellow card so please do yourself a favour and try debating the science. How about you refute my comments. On both an organ level and a biochemical cascade level, why are some systems redundant (proof of intelligent design you say) while equally important systems are not (also apparently proof of intelligent design)? How does this equate to anything more than poor planning or moronic design? No more tangents, no more toilet humour, no more morality of the theory. Answer the question, J C.

J C wrote: »

MBEEP!!!!:D

Answer. The. Question.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....so what 'testable models' and/or 'falsifiable predictions' show that Pondslime 'morphed' into Man over 'Zillions' of years???


Wicknight
Neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution

... you might have heard of it

.......that is just a highly speculative THEORY.......no 'testable models'......no 'falsifiable predictions'.....and NO evidence that it EVER happened!!!!:D

MBEEP!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....here are some quotable quotes on Intelligent Design......by Evolutionists (and NONE of them are Creationists, as far as I know):-

......and there seems to be a lot of VERY EMINENT Intelligent Design Advocates around......whatever the result of the 'Dover Trial'!!!!

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”


John O’Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”


George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.

Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”


Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.

Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.

Henry “Fritz” Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”



Wicknight
....leaving aside that most of those quotes were taken out of context, its interesting that you quote them as supporting intelligent design yet not a single one of them is a biologist

.....they are ALL leading 'World Class' SCIENTISTS and EVOLUTIONISTS.....with a direct scientific interest in the 'origins question'.....

......yes, they don't belong to the 'Halleluia Chorus' of the Neo-Darwinian Biologist 'Church'......BUT they are all the more OBJECTIVE in their SCIENTIFIC opinions as a result!!!!!:eek:

MBEEP..........................MBEEP

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....Marco talk to Wicknight.......Wicknight talk to Marco!!!!

.......and BTW if Evolutionists interpreted their findings in line with the evidence .....and not their beliefs.....they would NEVER conclude that Pondslime could EVER spontaneously 'evolve' into Mankind!!!!:D:eek::P



.....so what 'testable models' and/or 'falsifiable predictions' show that Pondslime 'morphed' into Man over 'Zillions' of years???:):eek:

..................MBEEP!!!!:D

Here are just a few

1) A feature which leaps from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another
2) A feature which exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species
3) A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed.
4) Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era
5)Prove that mutations do not occur.
6) Prove that if mutations do occur they are not passed down through the generations

Stop wasting your time here, grab your shovel and get digging for that rabbit

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Flat Earthers are only marginally stupider than creationists.

.....a bit rich coming from someone who believes that he is spontaneously descended from Pondslime.....and a 'Monkey's Cousin'!!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....death entered the world through sin....


AtomicHorror
Prove it.

.....we have a folk memory of the Fall as passed down through the generations.....we have the Word of God in confirmation......and we have the fact that sin today tends to accellerate disease and death.:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.......that is just a highly speculative THEORY.......no 'testable models'......no 'falsifiable predictions'....

so you are saying it is just a theory, not a testable model?

Well I have to say thank you JC for confirming once and for all that you know very little about science.

a scientific theory is a testable model that makes falsifiable predictions.

studiorat

J C wrote: »

.....a bit rich coming from someone who believes that he is spontaneously descended from Pondslime.....and a 'Monkey's Cousin'!!!!

psssst!

so whats the SI unit of sin?

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

.....we have a folk memory of the Fall as passed down through the generations.....we have the Word of God in confirmation......and we have the fact that sin today tends to accellerate disease and death.:D

lol,what?

Also,did you really say 'spontaneously descended'?

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

With respect, you haven't shown an example of creation science. I don't doubt that you believe they are creation science, but I assure you they are not. The only example you have proffered has been dismantled methodology-wise.

I await with anticipation an actual example of creation science from you or J C.

OK, here's another:
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/ICC08_Snake_Hybrid.pdf