The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Mark Hamill

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:

Can we email in and complain about this guy for lying? At the very least for saying:

Mervyn Storey wrote:

The central, core belief of naturalistic evolution is that somewhere in the universe at some time in the far distant past, non-living matter of itself, with no outside influence or mind to guide it, gave rise to living creatures.

It doesn't matter what else is said to have followed. It doesn't matter what vehicle or engine is described to explain how life developed from that point in space and time.

The foundation of each and every form of naturalistic evolution is that basic, unscientific piece of superstition.

How many times do we have to say it? Evolution=/=Abiogenesis.:mad:

AtomicHorror

Actually, I might just write into them on that very point.

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

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:

I love that line Wolfsbane often repeats how creationists are interpreting the same evidence as evolutionists, only differently. Yes, incorrectly!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

.....I'm a person who does science and believes in creationism ...and you say that I am therefore "certainly a scientist"!!!

....and the fact that I apply science to scientifically testing the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for Creation ALSO means that I am a Creation Scientist!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

...so are you saying that just like there are Apostate Christians....there are also Apostate Scientists???

.....and Science is therefore some kind of a 'Religion' for Atheists....with it's very own 'high priests'.....and 'heretics'????:):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
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.


wolfsbane
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.

.....a nice 'welcome back present' from AH!!!!

.....who has admitted that "Natural Selection favours the "path of least resistance" towards disorder."....kinda rules Natural Selection out as a mechanism capable of turning Pondslime into Man...don't you think??!!!:pac::):D:eek::cool:

....unless AH considers himself to be MORE 'disordered' than Pondslime??!!!:D:)

J C

PDN wrote: »

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

....but we will LOVE him and pray for his eternal welfare nonetheless!!!!:)

Galvasean

http://www.gnmagazine.org/evolution/?S=2&gclid=CNW-jNjo2ZYCFQ2Y1QodFwu33A

Hmmm, might order a copy. Whose with me?

Hi J C (I think you missed a couple of posts).

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....and the fact that I apply science to scientifically testing the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for Creation ALSO means that I am a Creation Scientist!!!!:D

Please show us the results from your scientific investigations into creationism. It's the missing piece from your argument and that of every self-proclaimed creation scientist you have mentioned over the course of this thread.

Where is the SCIENCE?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....I'm a person who does science and believes in creationism ...and you say that I am therefore "certainly a scientist"!!!

You could well be, of course. What field do you work in?

J C wrote: »

....and the fact that I apply science to scientifically testing the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for Creation ALSO means that I am a Creation Scientist!!!!:D

Define for me how creation occured and how that process is tested.

J C wrote: »

...so are you saying that just like there are Apostate Christians....there are also Apostate Scientists???

In a manner of speaking, yes. It's not really correct to describe the abandonment of a philosophy as apostacy though. If the philosophy is a religion, the term is correct, but otherwise is only correct as a metaphor.

J C wrote: »

.....and Science is therefore some kind of a 'Religion' for Atheists????:):D

No, as I said; a philosophy.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....a nice 'welcome back present' from AH!!!!

.....who has admitted that "Natural Selection favours the "path of least resistance" towards disorder."....kinda rules Natural Selection out as a mechanism capable of turning Pondslime into Man...don't you think??!!!:pac::):D:eek::cool:

The order generated by the formation of a snowflake creates disorder in the long-run. This obeys the second law. Life is order that also accelerates entropy, and does so in environments with relatively low energy input. This also obeys the second law. So natural selection is in line with thermodynamics. Thus the argument that life represents a special case is false, as is the notion that evolution is forbidden by physics.

J C wrote: »

....unless AH considers himself to be MORE 'disordered' than Pondslime??!!!:D:)

I cause more disorder by my existence than an equivalent mass of pondslime, as do you. Which is not at all the same as being more disordered than pondslime. We are the transiently ordered mechanism that causes the disorder, not the disorder itself.

Now, please address my rebuttal of irreducible complexity. You've had a week to think about it.

J C

During my sabbatical in 'La Belle France' I read "The Devil's Delusion" by David Berlinski.

I would like to share some quotes which brought a wry smile to my lips.....enjoy!!!!

"Unlike Particle Physicists, whose natural level of aggression compares favourably with that of a Timber Wolf, Cosmologists are often languid in argument, and they attend to the deficiencies of one another's work with the studied elegance of men with silk hankerchiefs in their sleeves."
In fairness to Particle Physicists (and Timber Wolves) I have to say that I once knew a very beautiful young Particle Physicist...who was the epitomy of lady-like deportment and decorum.....and I have equally known Cosmologists who wouldn't know what a silk hankerchief was......if it jumped up and bit them!!!!:)


Dr. Berlinski, who is a Mathematician, and former fellow at the French Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques then goes on to make the following observation about Quantum Cosmology :-
"Quantum Cosmology is a branch of Mathematical Metaphysics. It provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, and so does not answer the first cosmological question, and it offers no reason for the existence of the universe, and so does not address the second."

"If the mystification induced by its modest mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains (of Quantum Cosmology)
would not appear appreciably different in kind from various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities".

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I cause more disorder by my existence than an equivalent mass of pondslime,

......you could very well be right about that!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Which is not at all the same as being more disordered than pondslime. We are the transiently ordered mechanism that causes the disorder, not the disorder itself.

.....the phenomenon that Evolution FAILS to explain is precisely the ultimate origins of the "transiently ordered mechanism" that you undoubtedly are!!!!:)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Now, please address my rebuttal of irreducible complexity. You've had a week to think about it.

....as I have already said, your so-called 'rebuttal' made no sense to me!!!!
....in fact, all you achieved was to hopelessly confuse yourself, in your imaginary 'comings and goings' in relation to Irreducible Complexity and Redundancy in living systems!!!!:pac::):D

J C

.....another witticism from Dr. David Berlinski...to brighten your day!!!!

"Discussions on various Internet postings are endless. Often they contain an eerie mixture of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Or the other way around. The willingness of physical scientists to explore such strategies in thought might suggest to a perceptive psychoanalyst a desire not so much to discover a new idea as to avoid an old one.":eek::D

.

J C

Dr. Berlinski has the following very perceptive comment on the inordinate efforts of Darwinists to defend Darwinism (which he compares to something like 'The Emperor's New Clothes'):-
"The effort by Darwinian Biologists to promote Darwin is simply explained.
Within the English-speaking world, Darwin's theory of evolution remains the only scientific theory to be widely championed by the scientific community and widely disbelieved by everyone else.
No matter the effort made by biologists, the thing continues to elicit the same reaction it has always elicited (from the public): You've got to be kidding, right?"

.....and the stakes are VERY high for the Darwinists.....so I guess we should have some loving compassion for their distress:-
"There is a wide appreciation of the fact that if biologists are wrong about Darwin, they are wrong about life and if they are wrong about life, they are wrong about everything.":pac::):D

J C

On page 187 Dr. Berlinski opinions that:-
"Suspicions about Darwin's theory arise for two reasons.
The first:the theory makes little sense. The second:it is supported by little evidence."
....one is tempted to add.....that apart from this, Evolution is a great theory!!!!:D


...and on the so called scientific validity of Evolution Dr. Berlinski has this to say:-
"As one might expect, a theory whose assumptions are empty may be widely confirmed by evidence that is negligible."

....and on the comparison of the validity of Evolution with Gravity (which has been repeatedly made by Evolutionists on this thread) Dr. Berlinski has this to say:-
"Although Darwin's theory is very often compared favourably to the great theories of Mathematical Physics on the grounds that Evolution is as well established as Gravity, very few physiscists have been heard observing that Gravity is as well established as Evolution. They know better and they are not stupid.":pac::):D:eek:.....MBEEP!!!!!:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......you could very well be right about that!!!!:D

Then we agree on something. Wonderful.

J C wrote: »

.....the phenomenon that Evolution FAILS to explain is precisely the ultimate origins of the "transiently ordered mechanism" that you undoubtedly are!!!!:)

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. This would be about the hundredth time you have been reminded of that.

J C wrote: »

....as I have already said, your so-called 'rebuttal' made no sense to me!!!!

Please indicate where I can clarify further.

J C wrote: »

....in fact, all you achieved was to hopelessly confuse yourself, in your imaginary 'comings and goings' in relation to Irreducible Complexity and Redundancy in living systems!!!!:pac::):D

Please indicate where in the text I did this?

If my argument were so hopelessly confused (rather than confusing to you) you should have no trouble writing a rebuttal of it. However, you've also indicated that you did not understand my argument, which makes me wonder how you can judge that I confused myself? As I have said, I will happily clarify any and all points you would care to pick out.

J C

.....and finally I came across the following very moving dedication of 'The Devil's Delusion' by Dr Berlinski:-

To the memory of my maternal grandfather
Samuel Goldfein

15.1.1877 Pruzani
aufdem Transportlisten von 19.9.42 um 17.2.43 gestrichen
am 27.2.43 nach Dresden
am 29.3.43 nach Theresienstadt
am 18.12.43 nach Auschwitz deportiert
in Auschwitz vershollen.

AtomicHorror

Please stop spamming, it isn't fair to anyone responding to you that their posts are lost in a torrent of copypasted text.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Please stop spamming, it isn't fair to anyone responding to you that their posts are lost in a torrent of copypasted text.

....I'm NOT spamming.....I'm giving the opinion of leading scientists on the subject at hand......since you will not accept my opinion!!!!:)

......and at last the Evolutionists have discovered that the Appendix ISN'T a useless, so-called 'Vestigial' Organ, after all.......any Creation Scientist could have told them that for the past ten years!!!!:pac::):D
http://www.physorg.com/news110864235.html

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....I'm NOT spamming.....I'm giving the opinion of leading scientists on the subject at hand......since you will not accept my opinion!!!!:)

......and at last the Evolutionists have discovered that the Appendix ISN'T a useless, so-called 'Vestigial' Organ, after all.......any Creation Scientist could have told them that for the past ten years!!!!:pac::):D
http://www.physorg.com/news110864235.html

Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut. That's the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week.

Congratulations you have finally found one scientific theory that is of interest to you. :eek:
I hope it is the first of many.

And it only took ONE paper to convince you of its validity. Imagine if you took the time to read all the hundreds of thousands of papers in all the other areas of science you have no clue about.

(See what I did there JC :pac:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......and at last the Evolutionists have discovered that the Appendix ISN'T a useless, so-called 'Vestigial' Organ, after all.......any Creation Scientist could have told them that for the past ten years!!!!:pac::):D
http://www.physorg.com/news110864235.html

Has been suspected for a very long time by conventional scientists. As it stands, the case is not clearly made, but I think you'll find that the appendix argument is hardly a pivotal piece of evidence for evolution.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think you'll find that the appendix argument is hardly a pivotal piece of evidence for evolution.

....never said it was.....but I think you will find that the so-called 'Evolutionary Tree' WAS central to Evolutionary Theory.....
......and it has just come crashing down....and 'the sky has just fallen in' for Evolution!!!!:pac::D

DNA studies are overturning the traditional evolutionary assumption that organisms with similar features are related!!!!

....the following EXTRAORDINARY quotes are from New Scientist 194 (2608):48-51 16 June 2007:-

"These are turbulent times in the world of phylogeny, yet there has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase. Now even that is in doubt."
....they should have listened to the ID Proponents when the told them that Specified Complexity cannot increase without an input of Intelligence!!!!:D

The New Scientist Article also contains the following amazing statements:-
"The whole concept of a gradualist tree ... is wrong."
"Some evolutionary biologists now suggest that loss ... is the key to understanding evolution."
......but the loss of genetic information isn't much use in understanding how Pondslme supposedly evolved into Man!!!!!

The article makes the following amazing pronouncement about the import of these discoveries:-
"(We) need to rethink the process of evolution itself".
....yes indeed they DO.....and they need to talk to their local friendly ID Proponent....and get 'up to speed' on Intelligent Design.....before doing their 'Post Grad'......in Creation Science!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

....perhaps ye should book 'grinds' with Ken Ham....I would do it sooner rather than later....before Ken gets all booked up!!!:D:eek:
.......MBEEP!!!!.................MBEEP!!:)

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....never said it was.....but I think you will find that the so-called 'Evolutionary Tree' WAS central to Evolutionary Theory.....
......and it has just come crashing down....and 'the sky has just fallen in' for Evolution!!!!:pac::D

DNA studies are overturning the traditional evolutionary assumption that organisms with similar features are related!!!!

You mean like this close relative of the wolf? Remind me as to which 'kind' does this fall under again?

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

(See what I did there JC :pac:)

....NO.....WHAT did you do????

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....NO.....WHAT did you do????

Just applauding your new found appetite for scientific theories, I'm so proud. I hope you have been reading all about seed dispersal as well.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

You mean like this close relative of the wolf? Remind me as to which 'kind' does this fall under again?

....it is only Evolutionists who believe that placentals and marsupials share a common ancestor!!!!!:D:):eek:

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....it is only Evolutionists who believe that placentals and marsupials share a common ancestor!!!!!:D:):eek:

So why not reuse a perfectly good existing wolf design? Surely an all powerful creator would not be so careless as to lose the blueprints?

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Just applauding your new found appetite for scientific theories, I'm so proud. I hope you have been reading all about seed dispersal as well.

....I almost wet myself with the excitement of it all!!!!!:pac::):D:p

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

So why not reuse a perfectly good existing wolf design? Surely an all powerful creator would not be so careless as to lose the blueprints?

......God was sovereign in these matters....and He did what suited Himself!!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

......God was sovereign in these matters....and He did what suited Himself!!!!:D

You believe a rhino and a dinosaur are of the same 'kind' but not a wolf and a thylacine?