The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....Creation Science uses DNA sequencing AS WELL......can I gently remind you what I have already said about this matter:-
".....and just like conventional Taxonomy, further organisms can be provisionally allocated to a particular Kind on the basis of morphology.......and increasingly today, DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of definitively allocating particular organisms (that don't meet either of the two primary tests) to particular Kinds.":pac::):D

right .... yeah, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that DNA sequencing has never, ever in the history of the humanity, been used by Creationists to evalute organisms into "kinds" :rolleyes:

J C

.....another sinister quote from the not-so-great Evolutionist Francis Galton (1822 – 1911) Founder of Eugenics and Cousin and admirer of Charles Darwin

"Is it, then, I ask, too much to expect that when a public opinion in favour of eugenics has once taken sure hold of such communities and has been accepted by them as a quasi-religion, the result will be manifested in sundry and very effective modes of action which are as yet untried, and many of them even unforeseen? " Nature October 22 1908 p.647


.....and here he can barely contain his pride in his cousin Charles Darwin's writings:-
"I felt little difficulty in connection with the Origin of Species, but devoured its contents and assimilated them as fast as they were devoured, a fact which perhaps may be ascribed to an hereditary bent of mind that both its illustrious author and myself have inherited from our common grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin."
....an "hereditary bent of mind" indeed!!!!!:(:eek:

....and he also said:-
"I was encouraged by the new views to pursue many inquiries which had long interested me, and which clustered round the central topics of Heredity and the possible improvement of the Human Race." Memories of My Life (1908) p.288

.....I bet he was encouraged allright!!!!:(:eek:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....Creation Science uses DNA sequencing AS WELL.....

Where is the creation science that has used DNA sequencing? Is this the secret science you were conducing in your garden shed? Wolfsbane, are you watching this?

marco_polo

Too lazy to reply, so since it is all the rage:

"In the creation story, in the creeds of Christianity, and in countless stories in the biblical drama, a nonoperative, pre-scientific, and clearly false view of the world is perpetuated. Those who seek to preserve these biblical understandings have to become anti-intellectual or must close off vast portions of their thinking processes or twist their brains into a kind of first-century pretzel in order to maintain their faith system.It is no wonder that they are afraid of knowledge . Their faith security system is built on sand. It cannot and will not survive, and they have no sense that there is any alternative save despair, death and meaninglessness. This is enough to cause fear to erupt in anger.'"
(Spong 1991)


"Our nation went from the Earth to the Moon a few years ago, and discovered these worlds date back billions of years. Now it is sticking its head in the sand, claiming the whole lot was made in a flash a few millennia ago by one entity. They even argue that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, like they do in The Flintstones. That's not healthy.'"
(Robin McKie The Observer 24 February 2002)


"Creationism cannot offer a scientific hypothesis that is capable of being shown wrong. Creationism cannot describe a single possible experiment that could elucidate the mechanics of creation. Creationism cannot point to a single piece of scientific research that has provided evidence for any supernatural intervention into natural law. Creationism cannot point to a single prediction that has turned out to be right, and supports the creationist case. Creationism cannot offer a single instance of research that has followed the normal course of scientific inquiry, namely, independent testing and verification by skeptical researchers, because it has no research program, no hypotheses, no predictions. Creationists can point to no source of their theory, no basis for their claims, other than the authority of the Bible. Science consists of posting testable, falsifiable hypotheses; making predictions about what is not yet known; performing critical experiments or observations that can disprove certain alternative hypotheses and lend credence to others; seeking explanations in natural rather than supernatural causes; trying to falsify hypotheses rather than to prove them; remaining skeptical until independent investigators are able to corroborate new claims; and subjecting one's ideas and data to the merciless criticism of other scientists. Creationism has none of these qualifications."

Douglas J. Futuyma

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Where is the creation science that has used DNA sequencing? Is this the secret science you were conducing in your garden shed? Wolfsbane, are you watching this?

.....'read my lips'.....as Bill Clinton used to say!!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....Creation Science uses DNA sequencing AS WELL......can I gently remind you what I have already said about this matter:-
".....and just like conventional Taxonomy, further organisms can be provisionally allocated to a particular Kind on the basis of morphology.......and increasingly today, DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of definitively allocating particular organisms (that don't meet either of the two primary tests) to particular Kinds."

.....THAT is ALL I have said....nothing less and nothing more!!!!:(

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....'read my lips'.....as Bill Clinton used to say!!!!

I read your lips. They said:

J C wrote: »

Creation Science uses DNA sequencing AS WELL

Now, read my lips: where is the creation science that has used DNA sequencing?

I also read your lips when you said this:

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!!!!

Why are you hiding the results from your scientific investigations?

marco_polo

Still waiting for a good link on 'Created Equilibria' BTW.

Google it does nothing. :eek:

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Too lazy to reply, so since it is all the rage:

"Our nation went from the Earth to the Moon a few years ago, and discovered these worlds date back billions of years. Now it is sticking its head in the sand, claiming the whole lot was made in a flash a few millennia ago by one entity. They even argue that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, like they do in The Flintstones. That's not healthy.'"
(Robin McKie The Observer 24 February 2002)

.....and guess what........ there were a number of Creation Scientists directly involved in the US trips to the Moon ... including Dr. Wernher Von Braun, who was the lead scientist responsible for the Apollo Moon Landings and a Creationist !!!!!

....and you can read all about Dr. Von Braun's amazing life (including his disillusionment with the German war effort which caused him to be jailed by the Nazis.....and his eventual escape to American lines during World War II) here:-
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BVonBraun96.htm

....and Apollo 15 Astronaut Jim Irwin, who actually LANDED and WALKED on the Moon was also a Creationist....and you can read his amazing story here :-
http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4.htm

......so being a Creationist can be a POSITIVE ADVANTAGE when it comes to pursuing scientific advancement!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Still waiting for a good link on 'Created Equilibria' BTW.

Google it does nothing. :eek:

....you obviously don't appreciate my ironic juxtaposition of 'Created Equilibria' against 'Punctuated Equilibria'....


.....ah well, better luck next time!!!!:D

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....you obviously don't appreciate my ironic juxtaposition of 'Created Equilibria' against 'Punctuated Equilibria'....

.....ah well, better luck next time!!!!:D

My bad, although in my defence it is an excellent example of how easy it is to mistake 'creation science" for nothing.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.....and guess what........ there were a number of Creation Scientists directly involved in US trips to the Moon ... including Dr. Wernher Von Braun, who was the lead scientist responsible for the Apollo
Moon Landings and a Creationist !!!!!

....and you can read all about Dr. Von Braun's amazing life (including his disillusionment with the German war effort which caused him to be jailed by the Nazis and his eventual escape to American lines during World War II) here:-
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BVonBraun96.htm

....and Apollo 15 Astronaut Jim Irwin, who actually LANDED and WALKED on the Moon was also a Creationist....and you can read his amazing story here :-
http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4.htm

......so being a Creationist is a POSITIVE ADVANTAGE when it comes to pursuing scientific advancement!!!!!:pac::):D

Someones personal beliefs need not have any effect on a their ability as a scientist.

I am intrigued as to how creation science helped a succcessful moon landing. What was the vital piece of unique creationist knowledge that made all the difference between mission success and failure?

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

I
Now, read my lips: where is the creation science that has used DNA sequencing?

....it's being done.....please remember that there are Creation Scientists across ALL scientific disciplines...including Molecular Biology!!!!:D:)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....it's being done.....please remember that there are Creation Scientists across ALL scientific disciplines...including Molecular Biology!!!!:D:)

So, what you're telling me is that there are no documented examples of creation science employing DNA sequencing? Is that right?

And, question 2: what were the results of your creation science investigations?

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Someones personal beliefs need not have any effect on a their ability as a scientist.

I am intrigued as to how creation science helped a succcessful moon landing. What was the vital piece of unique creationist knowledge that made all the difference between mission success and failure?

....one simple example would be that Von Braun would NEVER have attempted a Moon Landing IF he was an Evolutionist....because the Evolutionists, at the time, argued that the Lunar Module would be lost in hundreds of feet of Lunar Dust due to the constant settling of space dust on the lunar surface over billions of years !!!!:D:)

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....one simple example would be that Von Braun would NEVER have attempted a Moon Landing IF he was an Evolutionist....because the Evolutionists, at the time, argued that the Lunar Module would be lost in hundreds of feet of Lunar Dust due to the constant settling of space dust on the lunar surface over billions of years !!!!:D:)

Lucky that the solidity of the moon was mentioned in Genesis I guess, also lucky he ignored that bit about the earth being the center of the universe of it could have been a disaster.

There were Evolutionary Biologists on the Apollo mission teams? :rolleyes: I would have thought a team of astromomers and physicists would have been more appropriate.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

So, what you're telling me is that there are no documented examples of creation science employing DNA sequencing? Is that right?

And, question 2: what were the results of your creation science investigations?

...I understand that there are documented examples of creation science employing DNA sequencing....but I am not aware of them being in the public domain.

....no comment on question 2.

marco_polo

marco_polo wrote: »

My bad, although in my defence it is an excellent example of how easy it is to mistake 'creation science" for nothing.

J C wrote: »

...I understand that there are documented examples of creation science employing DNA sequencing....but I am not aware of them being in the public domain.

....no comment on question 2.

See what I mean

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Lucky that the solidity of the moon was mentioned in Genesis I guess, also lucky he ignored that bit about the earth being the center of the universe of it could have been a disaster.

There were Evolutionary Biologists on the Apollo mission teams? :rolleyes: I would have thought a team of astromomers and physicists would have been more appropriate.

....there were 'billions of years' physicists and astonomers who believed that they were evolved from base chemicals on the team....and to stop them panicking - and to keep them (somewhat) happy that the thing wouldn't sink without trace (due to the supposed 'billions of years' of Moon dust).....Von Braun put extra-large discs on the 'legs' of the first Lunar Module!!!:):D

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....there were 'billions of years' physicists and astonomers who believed that they were evolved from base chemicals on the team....and to keep them (somewhat) happy that the thing wouldn't sink without trace.....Von Braun put large discs on the 'legs' of the Lunar Module!!!:):D

There is no disputing his greatness as a scientist, but how specifically did the findings of "creationist science" contribute to the successful Apollo Moon landings?

In case you missed it I draw your attention to the use of the word specifically there. What was the enormous advantage that it bestowed, as you claimed a few posts ago.
Even a passage in Genesis mentioning lunar dust levels would suffice.

Also, any evidence he didn't believe the universe was billions of years old? Seems he was more into the whole thestic evolution / possibly ID thing rather than your beloved YEC.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

...I understand that there are documented examples of creation science employing DNA sequencing....but I am not aware of them being in the public domain.

How did you come by this information? Do you know what creation scientists are doing this work?

J C wrote: »

....no comment on question 2.

What reason do you have to keep this information secret? And what of the creation scientists keeping their DNA sequencing work out of the public domain? It's all so sinister. What are creation scientists trying to hide?

marco_polo

2Scoops wrote: »

It's all so sinister. What are creation scientists trying to hide?

Nothing (Literally)

robindch

J C wrote: »

....one simple example would be that Von Braun would NEVER have attempted a Moon Landing IF he was an Evolutionist....because the Evolutionists, at the time, argued that the Lunar Module would be lost in hundreds of feet of Lunar Dust due to the constant settling of space dust on the lunar surface over billions of years !!!!

You should keep up to date with the people who are selling you your beliefs!

AiG deprecated the bogus moondust argument over fifteen years ago. See here.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...I understand that there are documented examples of creation science employing DNA sequencing....but I am not aware of them being in the public domain

not in the public domain? ... so apparently that includes the name of the scientific papers these researchers have publish and in fact the names of the Creationists themselves ... because you have to be careful, if you told us the name of these mythical Creationists doing serious DNA classification and I mistakenly believed that was in the public domain I might assume I can take that name as my own ...:rolleyes:

perhaps it would be helpful of us ignorant "evolutionists" if you read the private top secret papers yourself and explained how they classify a "kind" and what names the Creationists have come up for each kind grouping.

Heck, how about you simply tell us how many kind groups have been discovered so far using these advance DNA methods

robindch

marco_polo wrote: »

Lucky that the solidity of the moon was mentioned in Genesis I guess, also lucky he ignored that bit about the earth being the center of the universe of it could have been a disaster.

Quite right.

But I think Von Braun was braver to ignore the canopy of water over the earth that Genesis 1:6-9 clearly mentions. Imagine Apollo splashing down by mistake while on the way to the moon!

Genesis wrote:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

It must have required supreme faith on his part to send the astronauts to what he ust have thought was certain death.

Unless, of course, he didn't actually believe any of it.

studiorat

J C wrote: »

....and when I defend Jesus Christ and His Word on the Boards.ie He provides me with the words ....and that is why one modest Creation Scientist is able to demolishavoid ALL of the arguments of scores of top Evolutionist Scientists.

Indeed...



Chuir do laimh i do bas fein, JC.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Someones personal beliefs need not have any effect on a their ability as a scientist.

....I fully agree....so could you please tell your Evolutionist friends to stop shunning Creation Scientists!!!!:pac::):D

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

How did you come by this information? Do you know what creation scientists are doing this work?



What reason do you have to keep this information secret? And what of the creation scientists keeping their DNA sequencing work out of the public domain? It's all so sinister. What are creation scientists trying to hide?

.....intellectual knowhow and intellectual property AREN'T 'sinister'....they are simply knowhow and property!!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by 2Scoops
It's all so sinister. What are creation scientists trying to hide?

marco_polo
Nothing (Literally)

.....make up your minds lads....WHICH do you believe Creation Science to be??
.....'nothing' or 'sinster'......or a well founded PHYSICAL Science.....that you would like to provide with more funding to do its very valuable research????

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

....I fully agree....so could you please tell your Evolutionist friends to stop shunning Creation Scientists!!!!:pac::):D

They wouldn't shun creation scientists if they ever met one. So, to save 2Scoops repeating the question - where's the science?!

J C wrote: »

.....make up your minds lads....WHICH do you believe Creation Science to be??
.....'nothing' or 'sinster'......or a well founded PHYSICAL Science.....that you would like to provide with more funding to do its very valuable research????

I'm sure they can each make up their own mind.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....I fully agree....so could you please tell your Evolutionist friends to stop shunning Creation Scientists!!!!:pac::):D

They are not precluded from being scientists because they are creationists, they are precluded from being scientists purely because they don't perform any scientific activity. (Except invisible genome sequencing obviously)