The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

TFor example, the mantra that the creationist scientists are not scientists - that is so easily checked, and refuted, that it shows the desperation of your case.

So refute it already!! You can't point out a single creation scientist, only scientists happen also to be creationists. That's not a sleight-of-hand - it means no scientists are actively investigating creation... unless you found some in the last week? :pac:

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thankfully I am spared diverting time to becoming a scientist.

Nobody asked you to become a scientist, or at least not a professional or philosophical scientist. They asked you to to try to understand science. That's well within anyone's grasp, but it takes some effort.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have enough knowledge to recognise spin and evasion, even if I haven't enough to assess the details of the scientific argument. You guys have provided some stunning sleight of hands, something no one with truth on their side would resort to. For example, the mantra that the creationist scientists are not scientists - that is so easily checked, and refuted, that it shows the desperation of your case.

I just don't know how better to explain it to you. The point we're trying to make is that a person who does science and believes in creationism is certainly a scientist. A person who does creationist research is not a scientist irrespective of their qualifications or prior career as they are proceeding from a non-testable position.

Were I to suggest that phenomenon X were being caused by utterly undetectable thing Y and then proceed with connected research based upon the assumption that this is true, I would be going against the scientific method. My work would not be scientific. I would not be a scientist. This is what the creationists are doing. They're not fully and rigorously defining their terms. They're not able to test their initial position. They're not rigorously testing any of the assumption which follow that. And we're not able to independently test any of this because of the vagueness of their language.

Let's put it another way. A pastor graduates through the seminary system and ministers for some 10 years. One day he decides to start preaching in his church that God is a metaphor for naturalistic processes. Is he still a pastor? Perhaps arguably he is (though not a great one), at least in qualification and superficial behaviour. But is he a Christian? Is he adhering to the philosophy of his profession? Absolutely not.

When we talk about a person being a scientist, we're not talking about qualification nor methodology. There are many jobs that a person with a BSc or PhD may do. Lab technician, researcher, principle investigator, administrator. None of those jobs is called "scientist". When we talk about a person being a scientist, we're talking about the philosophy which guides their work.

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A person who does creationist research is not a scientist irrespective of their qualifications or prior career as they are proceeding from a non-testable position.

J C and wolfsbane find this argument too easy to dismiss, since so-called creation scientists can easily test hypotheses related to creation, while not testing creation itself. However, neither J C nor wolfsbane can come up with a single example of this either!! :pac:

marco_polo

Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

http://www.physorg.com/news137679868.html

Enjoy

AtomicHorror

marco_polo wrote: »

Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

http://www.physorg.com/news137679868.html

Enjoy

Wow. Turns out I was pretty much on the money with my take on it. Life is a short cut to entropy. Natural selection favours the "path of least resistance" towards disorder.

Good article, thanks.

Flamed Diving

Yay! I'm drunk! What would Jaysus think of that! Woooooooop!

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You guys have provided some stunning sleight of hands, something no one with truth on their side would resort to.

I'm gonna do a cliched "...and another thing!" on this one.

The side you are supporting in this debate have repeatedly quoted many scientists and philosophers out of context to support their points. The classic Darwin quote on the eye, for example. They've edited video interviews with prominent scientists to exaggerate pauses and remove replies. They've never done any systematic reviews of the scientific literature (a review in which we blind ourselves to source and include data based on the methodology used)- instead they write articles based on the long-discredited practice of cherry picking. And that is an activity conducted by some former scientists who are fully aware of the details of good meta analysis. The ID movement presented themselves as a secular institution, only to have internal documents leaked that revealed them to be a front for conventional creationism. Creationism's defenders upon this very thread engage in straw-man arguments, redefining the theory that they attack. Dishonesty heaped upon dishonesty. I could go on.

So following your logic, how much truth do you have on your side?

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So following your logic, how much truth do you have on your side?

Infinite amounts. Remember, if it's in a musty old book with gold leaf on the cover which comes with one of those nice red page-marker ribbons, is written on paper so thin that you must turn the pages ever-so carefully, is written in old-style English, then it must be true.

Nobody would be so cynical as to write something down simply because they know that they'd be believed and honored for doing so, now would they?

Lucas10101

wolfsbane wrote: »

We are certainly on higher ground morally when we seek to obey God. You and we share some morals, but I'm sure you agree that we differ in many too. One of us must occupy the higher ground. If God is the source of true morality, then it is the Christians.

I'd like to challenge that paragraph.

Firstly, I think you’ve completely disrespected every Atheist that exists today, especially with that first line. Basically what your saying is that if we obey God (and the very fact you say Obey makes me hate Christianity even more) then we become more moral. Well, which God is this, the God of the Old or New Testament…as both are polar opposites in most respects. I am an Atheist, and I think I am equally as moral as anyone who is a person of faith.

You say that “one of us must occupy the higher ground”, what a load of garbage! There is no higher ground when it comes to morality. We all live equally with the ability to be as moral as we possibly can, name me an action that you can say as a person of faith you can do, that I couldn’t do? I can guarantee there is none. So your argument is falsified already.

God is NOT the source of true morality. Evolution through Natural Selection and due to out higher brain allows us to survive, but to advance we need our own morals. Are you suggesting there was a time before Abraham when everyone thought it was okay to murder, rape and theft. Of course not! We always had a built in system where we were kind to people and wanted that favor returned to us. It’s the basis by which natural selection for humans began. We knew all our people in our vicinity in Africa and as a group we were kind to others in order to survive, maybe the Evolutionists can provide more detail on this, as I know the bare minimum. But it’s enough to conclude that Morals are not derived from Religion or the belief that we must subscribe to a supernatural celestial dictator.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Heaven however will be full of those who died in the womb or in childhood, in addition to the adults who responded to the gospel by repentance and faith. And of course the countless millions of holy angels.

Hang on, why are you opposed to abortion, then?

PDN

Lucas10101 wrote: »

I'd like to challenge that paragraph.

Firstly, I think you’ve completely disrespected every Atheist that exists today, especially with that first line. Basically what your saying is that if we obey God (and the very fact you say Obey makes me hate Christianity even more) then we become more moral. Well, which God is this, the God of the Old or New Testament…as both are polar opposites in most respects. I am an Atheist, and I think I am equally as moral as anyone who is a person of faith.

So you are an atheist who hates Christianity and you want to be respected on the Christianity forum?

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Hang on, why are you opposed to abortion, then?

To be fair, whether a foetus/embryo goes to heaven when it dies or not has little bearing of whether in is a "sin" to kill the unborn. Most Christians consider the unborn to be as much alive as the born. The belief that an adult may go to heaven does not reduce the sin of murdering them, so it is no different for the unborn.

wolfsbane

Lucas10101 said:

I'd like to challenge that paragraph.

Firstly, I think you’ve completely disrespected every Atheist that exists today, especially with that first line. Basically what your saying is that if we obey God (and the very fact you say Obey makes me hate Christianity even more) then we become more moral. Well, which God is this, the God of the Old or New Testament…as both are polar opposites in most respects. I am an Atheist, and I think I am equally as moral as anyone who is a person of faith.

The very fact that you disbelieve in and disobey God makes you immoral. Not of course from your viewpoint, but from mine - hence my comment:One of us must occupy the higher ground. If God is the source of true morality, then it is the Christians.[emphasis added].

You say that “one of us must occupy the higher ground”, what a load of garbage! There is no higher ground when it comes to morality. We all live equally with the ability to be as moral as we possibly can, name me an action that you can say as a person of faith you can do, that I couldn’t do? I can guarantee there is none. So your argument is falsified already.

Believe in God and worship Him as you ought - there's two.

God is NOT the source of true morality. Evolution through Natural Selection and due to out higher brain allows us to survive, but to advance we need our own morals. Are you suggesting there was a time before Abraham when everyone thought it was okay to murder, rape and theft. Of course not! We always had a built in system where we were kind to people and wanted that favor returned to us. It’s the basis by which natural selection for humans began. We knew all our people in our vicinity in Africa and as a group we were kind to others in order to survive, maybe the Evolutionists can provide more detail on this, as I know the bare minimum. But it’s enough to conclude that Morals are not derived from Religion or the belief that we must subscribe to a supernatural celestial dictator.

I completely agree that your morals are not derived from God, but are made up to suit your perceived needs. But that is no proof that others did not get theirs from God. True religion comes from God, false religion from man (via Satan). Likewise with morals.

No doubt the eugenicists considered themselves moral when they forcibly sterilized the 'undesirables'; as did the Nazis and Communists in their liquidation campaigns. Their morals were just different to yours, as yours are to mine.

The issue is what is the true morality. Coming to it from your evolutionist position, I fail to see how you can rule out any individual's morality - the individual is the result (you say) of evolution, so whatever morality they develop must be as valid as anyone else's. They've just evolved that wee bit differently from the next person. Almost the same physically, but the chemistry that makes up their mental processes has thrown up a preference for paeodphilia, say, rather than heterosexuality.

Or maybe you are saying the preferences of the majority are what constitutes morality? If the majority agree, then it is moral?

I think you will find that history shows our concept of majority applies mostly to our tribe or nation, not to mankind. That was true before and after Abraham. What is profitable for us has usually been classified as 'moral'; what profits the other tribe or nation, if it weakens our position, is evil.

But let's suppose we get the world united. If the majority decided that Jews or Christians should be exterminated for the greater good, would that be moral?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wow. Turns out I was pretty much on the money with my take on it. Life is a short cut to entropy. Natural selection favours the "path of least resistance" towards disorder.

Good article, thanks.

Yes, very interesting article. I see you have now abandoned the defence that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to living things.

Excellent progress! JC will be pleased.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, very interesting article. I see you have now abandoned the defence that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to living things.

What are you talking about? Nobody said that the second law does not apply to living things. They said that living things do not defy the second law. That is supported in the article provided.

Why are you misrepresenting my position?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Excellent progress! JC will be pleased.

Hopefully when he gets back he'll finally get around to commenting on my logical rebuttal of his use of irreducible complexity as evidence of design.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What are you talking about? Nobody said that the second law does not apply to living things. They said that living things do not defy the second law. That is supported in the article provided.

Why are you misrepresenting my position?

Because without doing so his arguments haven't a leg to stand on.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, very interesting article. I see you have now abandoned the defence that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to living things.

Excellent progress! JC will be pleased.

You do know that people can actually go back and read previous posts on in internet forum? :eek: So outright lying is not a very sound strategy :rolleyes:

Actually how did it feel to read a proper scientific article? I hope it wasn't too strenuous.

Flamed Diving

marco_polo wrote: »

You do know that people can actually go back and read previous posts on in internet forum? :eek: So outright lying is not a very sound strategy :rolleyes:

Actually how did it feel to read a proper scientific article? I hope it wasn't too strenuous.

I find it quite amusing that people claim to take the bible so seriously, and yet abandon its commandments in their very defence.

An odd little paradox, no?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

I just don't know how better to explain it to you. The point we're trying to make is that a person who does science and believes in creationism is certainly a scientist.

Glad we agree on that.

A person who does creationist research is not a scientist irrespective of their qualifications or prior career as they are proceeding from a non-testable position.

So we have a scientist behaving in a non-scientific manner (in your opinion), hence they are now no longer to be classified as scientists. OK, let's take that as a valid way to handle such a situation, and proceed to test your accusation that the creation scientists are proceeding from a non-testable position.

What exactly is non-testable about their model that the universe and its biosphere were formed as mature units some 6000 years ago? As you have strongly insisted that the evolutionary model does not have to explain abiogenesis but must be tested only from the first self-replicating molecule, so too creationists can insist that their model does not have to explain how the mature creation arose, but must be tested from the moment of mature existence.

Seems to me it can be tested by several means - the same means that test the evolutionary model.

Were I to suggest that phenomenon X were being caused by utterly undetectable thing Y and then proceed with connected research based upon the assumption that this is true, I would be going against the scientific method.

I agree. Creationists say the mature creation was subsequently acted on by detectable causes - just as you assert for evolution.

My work would not be scientific. I would not be a scientist. This is what the creationists are doing. They're not fully and rigorously defining their terms. They're not able to test their initial position. They're not rigorously testing any of the assumption which follow that. And we're not able to independently test any of this because of the vagueness of their language.

If you mean by their initial position the act of creation, then they are in the same position as evolutionists with regard to abiogenesis. But if we both start with functioning life - a mature creation for us, a self-replicating molecule for you - then all that follows is testable, as far as any forensics can do so.

I'm not sure what you mean by vagueness of their language. Perhaps you could give examples, contrasted with the clarity of evolutionary language?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What are you talking about? Nobody said that the second law does not apply to living things. They said that living things do not defy the second law. That is supported in the article provided.

Why are you misrepresenting my position?



Hopefully when he gets back he'll finally get around to commenting on my logical rebuttal of his use of irreducible complexity as evidence of design.

My apologies. I did indeed lump your rejection that the 2nd Law prohits increased order spontaneously arising with a quote from an evolutionist that said it did not apply to biological systems (not that it contradicted it, just that it did not apply to it).

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Actual evidence of the reigns of David and Solomon is pretty flaky I understand. This actually represents some pretty solid evidence for a well organised civilisation in the right place, at the right time and with the right extent. So, are you saying that they're wrong?

Yes, it is no proof of Solomon's kingdom. The mine could have been developed to serve any market demand - Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc.

We would want evidence that matched the Biblical descriptions of his kingdom and were perculiar to it.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is no proof of Solomon's kingdom. The mine could have been developed to serve any market demand - Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc.

We would want evidence that matched the Biblical descriptions of his kingdom and were perculiar to it.

Which the research team are currently looking for. If anything they have a bias towards finding evidence for a biblical confirmation since that makes for a much higher-impact publication. Let's face it, it would be much more exciting than yet more Egyptian stuff.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

So we have a scientist behaving in a non-scientific manner (in your opinion), hence they are now no longer to be classified as scientists. OK, let's take that as a valid way to handle such a situation, and proceed to test your accusation that the creation scientists are proceeding from a non-testable position.

What exactly is non-testable about their model that the universe and its biosphere were formed as mature units some 6000 years ago?

That is indeed a falsifiable hypothesis. A scientist could take up this hypothesis and test it and remain a scientist (though he would have difficulty explaining why he decided to start from that position). However, the foundation of the field, the context, within which that hypothesis was formulated (and within which it makes some logical sense) is non-testable and yet assumed to be true. That is where the problem lies. You'll find no such assumption made in biology or any other science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As you have strongly insisted that the evolutionary model does not have to explain abiogenesis but must be tested only from the first self-replicating molecule, so too creationists can insist that their model does not have to explain how the mature creation arose, but must be tested from the moment of mature existence.

Not really correct. Abiogenesis is not the logical basis of the theory of evolution. Evolution did not arise out of the assumption that abiogenesis occurred, but out of the assumption that many life forms were related to each other. We can test and re-test evolution without ever having to consider abiogenesis.

As I stated above, the hypothesis that the Earth is 6000 years old is (in this case) being formulated under the assumption that the Abrahamic God created the universe. It was not formulated, nor is it being tested, independently of that assumption. Indeed, the entire field and context in which both formulation and testing are occurring are based upon that non-testable assumption. Can you point to something similar in biology?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems to me it can be tested by several means - the same means that test the evolutionary model.

Odd then that it has never been scientifically tested by creationists. As I mentioned before (and I suppose you'll have to take my word on this), their testing methodology is invariably flawed. They don't play by the rules of science yet demand to be considered a part of it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. Creationists say the mature creation was subsequently acted on by detectable causes - just as you assert for evolution.

But they've assumed the non-testable to be true and have formulated the rest of their hypotheses based on that assumption. That violates the basic scientific method. For evolution, abiogenesis is not assumed to be true, not is it needed.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you mean by their initial position the act of creation, then they are in the same position as evolutionists with regard to abiogenesis. But if we both start with functioning life - a mature creation for us, a self-replicating molecule for you - then all that follows is testable, as far as any forensics can do so.

Abiogenesis is not assumed to be true. It is not the basis of the field of biology nor the logical context within which the accepted theories of biology were conceived. We are testing abiogenesis and I concede that there is much work to be done in that testing, however it is not accepted by biologists at this time. Creation is assumed to be true. Did Creationists test Creation itself?

You claim we're in the same position, but abiogenesis is testable, even if it is not verified. Can the same be said of divine creation? If so, how might it be tested?

The hypothesis that the world is 6000 years old makes little sense if formulated within the context of modern planetary geology or physics. However, it would still be science, albeit rather ropey and bad science. Formulated within the context of framework based on a non-testable assumption (and requiring that assumption to be true in order for it to make logical sense as a hypothesis) is not science at all. It is conjecture. When conjecture is dressed up with sciencey-sounding terminology, it is called pseudo-science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by vagueness of their language. Perhaps you could give examples, contrasted with the clarity of evolutionary language?

Certainly, though I will invite your participation.

Biologists define a "species" as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Interbreeding capacity is a testable parameter. We can thus identify the emergence of a new species by testing for fertile interbreeding capacity.

Define "created kinds" in purely biological terms with parameters that may be directly tested as well as an outlined means by which the emergence of a new created kind can be tested (assuming for a moment that this were possible, which is what scientist do when testing hypotheses).

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

What exactly is non-testable about their model that the universe and its biosphere were formed as mature units some 6000 years ago?

The "mature creation" claim can say one of two things:

1) The universe was created to look exactly like one which is much older and which developed along the lines that the scientific models of an old universe predict.

or

2) The universe currently looks different to one which is much older and which developed along the lines that the scientific models of an old universe predict.

In the former case, there is nothing testable to distinguish the claim from the scientific position, as this lack of distinction is an explicit part of the claim. This possibility is not ruled out by science, nor are the infinite number of other "made to look exactly like..." possibilities. Of course, given that the scientific model is just that - a model - such a position is tantamount to accepting its validity.

In the latter case, there is - of course - testability. The claim says that there are differences which can be observed, and thus, there must be predictions (regarding those observations) which would produce differing results depending on which model was correct.

2Scoops

Bit on creationism in science class in today's Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1103/1225523316955.html

Arguing for creationism is DUP minister Mervyn Storey. See any familiar (non-)arguments? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That is indeed a falsifiable hypothesis. A scientist could take up this hypothesis and test it and remain a scientist (though he would have difficulty explaining why he decided to start from that position). However, the foundation of the field, the context, within which that hypothesis was formulated (and within which it makes some logical sense) is non-testable and yet assumed to be true. That is where the problem lies. You'll find no such assumption made in biology or any other science.



Not really correct. Abiogenesis is not the logical basis of the theory of evolution. Evolution did not arise out of the assumption that abiogenesis occurred, but out of the assumption that many life forms were related to each other. We can test and re-test evolution without ever having to consider abiogenesis.

As I stated above, the hypothesis that the Earth is 6000 years old is (in this case) being formulated under the assumption that the Abrahamic God created the universe. It was not formulated, nor is it being tested, independently of that assumption. Indeed, the entire field and context in which both formulation and testing are occurring are based upon that non-testable assumption. Can you point to something similar in biology?



Odd then that it has never been scientifically tested by creationists. As I mentioned before (and I suppose you'll have to take my word on this), their testing methodology is invariably flawed. They don't play by the rules of science yet demand to be considered a part of it.



But they've assumed the non-testable to be true and have formulated the rest of their hypotheses based on that assumption. That violates the basic scientific method. For evolution, abiogenesis is not assumed to be true, not is it needed.



Abiogenesis is not assumed to be true. It is not the basis of the field of biology nor the logical context within which the accepted theories of biology were conceived. We are testing abiogenesis and I concede that there is much work to be done in that testing, however it is not accepted by biologists at this time. Creation is assumed to be true. Did Creationists test Creation itself?

You claim we're in the same position, but abiogenesis is testable, even if it is not verified. Can the same be said of divine creation? If so, how might it be tested?

The hypothesis that the world is 6000 years old makes little sense if formulated within the context of modern planetary geology or physics. However, it would still be science, albeit rather ropey and bad science. Formulated within the context of framework based on a non-testable assumption (and requiring that assumption to be true in order for it to make logical sense as a hypothesis) is not science at all. It is conjecture. When conjecture is dressed up with sciencey-sounding terminology, it is called pseudo-science.



Certainly, though I will invite your participation.

Biologists define a "species" as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Interbreeding capacity is a testable parameter. We can thus identify the emergence of a new species by testing for fertile interbreeding capacity.

Define "created kinds" in purely biological terms with parameters that may be directly tested as well as an outlined means by which the emergence of a new created kind can be tested (assuming for a moment that this were possible, which is what scientist do when testing hypotheses).

Excellent post, though I fear Wolfsbane will completely ignore your points, as usual

Zombrex

2Scoops wrote: »

Bit on creationism in science class in today's Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1103/1225523316955.html

Arguing for creationism is DUP minister Mervyn Storey. See any familiar (non-)arguments? :rolleyes:

I like this bit from Conant

Discussing the age of certain geological samples, he says: "The problem . . . has been that we only have a narrow interpretation . . . as to how these particular stones were formed." What a strange view of the nature of a fact. A rock has an origin and an age, just as it has a height. We would never say that there are differing, yet equally valid schools of thought about the height of a mountain.

It is an excellent point. Imagine how far Creationists would get if they started arguing that a mountain was in fact not the height measured by most people but a different height based on what their holy book says. They would be laughed out of it. But when dealing with equally reliable measurement processes but ones that most lay people do not use in every day life, they are some how listened to by people ignorant of these measurement processes.

On thing I've learned on this forum is that you can spot nonsense coming a mile away when people start talking about different interpretations. Which is basically say we don't have the science, but we want to fudge the issue by trying to undermine the whole process of science in the first place.

Wolfsbane often, inaccurately, represents the difference between Creationism and Evolution as the same evidence just different interpretations.

As if science came down to simply a matter of opinion :rolleyes:

robindch

2Scoops wrote: »

Arguing for creationism is DUP minister Mervyn Storey. See any familiar (non-)arguments?

What a moron.

2Scoops

robindch wrote: »

What a moron.

Unsurprisingly, this is the same fellow who wanted a creationism disclaimer at the tourist centre for the Giant's Causeway saying that it could be 6000 years old.

And he's also on the record as saying that his "ideal" would be the removal of evolutionary teaching from the curriculum altogether. Not even slightly interested in 'fairness' in the curriculum, which makes his argument ever so slightly disingenuous.

Did I mention he's on the Stormont education committee?

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Excellent post, though I fear Wolfsbane will completely ignore your points, as usual

Most of what I've written lately has been ignored by Wolfie and J C. Or has resulted in vast volumes of copy-pasted spam...