The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

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)

....try replacing the word 'creationists' with the name of any other minority ....and see how your statement sounds...bearing in mind that we are talking about eminently (and conventionally) qualified WORKING scientists here!!!!:):D:(

....it is quite obvious that you are just playing with words here .....and you are REALLY saying that scientifically qualified Creationists aren't scientists!!!!

....your statement is less blunt and more subtle than statements by other Evolutionists that Creationists shouldn't be allowed to qualify in conventional science...and if it subsequently emerges that a conventionally qualified scientist is a Creationist that s/he should have their conventional degree(s) rescinded...but it amounts to roughly the same thing!!!

....to illustrate my point what would you think of the following statement ??(which I DON'T endorse BTW):-
"Evolutionists are not precluded from being scientists because they are evolutionists, they are precluded from being scientists purely because they don't perform any scientific activity."
The key aspect these statements is the inherent assumption that the Evolutionist/Creationist target group ARE precluded from being scientists!!!!:eek:

J C

robindch wrote: »

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.

....I was already fully aware of Dr Andrew Snelling's paper on this subject!!!

...anyway, it is great to see you quoting (and apparently accepting) what Dr Snelling has to say about the Moon Dust controversy....wonders will never cease!!!!:D

.....does this mean that you have now become a fan of Dr Snelling???:eek:

....anyway, the particular paper that you cite doesn't impact on the point that I was making.
I am old enough to recall the debate (amongst 'long agers') at the time, about the possibility of the Lunar Module getting lost/stuck in the dust on the Moon.
Whilst the landing of un-manned lunar probes in advance of the Apollo missions did give some comfort in relation to the dust, many 'long agers' were still worried that the dust could be dangerously deep in localised areas...because they still clung to the idea that the dust MUST be there somewhere on the Moon....due to the COMBINATION of settling interstellar dust as well as the creation of vast quantities of dust via the impact of billions of meteors over billions years on a lunar body with no atmospere to protect it from such impacts and no water to petrify the resultant dust.

Look Robin, I was an eyewitness of the debate at the time myself...and as a young 'long ager' I believed that vast quantities of dust HAD TO BE there somewhere on the Moon and I too was quite concerned that if the Apollo mission landed in the 'wrong' place it could end in disaster!!!!
.....had I been a Creation Scientist at the time I wouldn't have been as worried about the Lunar dust issue.... and the un-manned probe data would have fully reassured me....just like it did Dr Von Braun!!!:D


The point that Dr Snelling is making is that the Lunar Dust has proven to be so LITTLE (and the rate of interstellar dust deposition is so low) that NOTHING can be definitively concluded (one way or the other) about the age of the Moon from such ephimeral (and non-uniform) data...and he therefore recommends that it should not be used (by either side) in arguing over the age of the Moon!!!:):D
......glad that you agree with him on this!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror

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.

Unsurprising, since comparative analysis of the results of such sequencing neatly falsifies the hypothesis that kinds are not related.

So, to return to your earlier assertion about the biological definition of created kinds. Your claim is that species belong to the same created kind if they capable of interbreed directly or through an intermediate species to produce fertile or sterile offspring. How many intermediates are allowed?

Imagine that species A and B cannot breed. Species A can breed with species C, but B cannot breed with C. B can however breed with D. C and D can interbreed. So A and B thus breed through two intermediates in this case. What is the intermediate species limit on a created kind?

condra

Say but the words "I believe on Jesus Christ" and you WILL be saved (Acts 16:31).

I said it dude. Nothing happened.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Unsurprising, since comparative analysis of the results of such sequencing neatly falsifies the hypothesis that kinds are not related.

So, to return to your earlier assertion about the biological definition of created kinds. Your claim is that species belong to the same created kind if they capable of interbreed directly or through an intermediate species to produce fertile or sterile offspring. How many intermediates are allowed?

Imagine that species A and B cannot breed. Species A can breed with species C, but B cannot breed with C. B can however breed with D. C and D can interbreed. So A and B thus breed through two intermediates in this case. What is the intermediate species limit on a created kind?

....comparative DNA analysis has fasified most of the so-called 'Tree of Evolution' allright...but it is NOT falsifying the conclusions of Baraminology!!!!

When I discussed the scientific tests for Created Kinds, I used an example of three species (A, B and C) for brevity and clarity of illustration.....but there are no limits on the number of such intermediates...or the complexity of interbreeding abilities....for example, ALL members of a 'ring species' group are DEFINITIVELY members of the one Created Kind under the Second Primary Test.:cool::)
....equally, where one or more members of 'ring species' group X can interbreed with one or more members of 'ring species' group Z...then ALL members of BOTH 'ring species' groups X and Z are DEFINITIVELY members of the one Created Kind under the Second Primary Test!!!:D

AtomicHorror

womoma wrote: »

I said it dude. Nothing happened.

Try waving your hands as you say it.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....I used three species for brevity and clarity of illustration.....but there are no limits on the number of such intermediates...or the complexity of interbreeding abilities....for example, ALL members of a 'ring species' group are DEFINITIVELY members of the one Created Kind under the Second Primary Test.:cool::)
....equally, where one or more members of 'ring species' group A can interbreed with one or more members of 'ring species' group B...then ALL members of BOTH 'ring species' groups A and B are DEFINITIVELY members of the one Created Kind under the Second Primary Test!!!

So to summarise:

A Created Kind is a group of species in which all of the members can either:

A) Interbreed directly to produce fertile or sterile offspring.

Interbreed indirectly through any number of directly-breeding species, again producing fertile or sterile offspring.

Correct?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Say but the words "I believe on Jesus Christ" and you WILL be saved (Acts 16:31).


womoma
I said it dude. Nothing happened.

....the question isn't whether you said these words......the question is whether you BELIEVED them.

.....this isn't some empty formula of words, like a majic spell or some other incantation with which the unsaved confuse themselves....
.....the exact words DON'T matter.....but this commitment to Jesus Christ MUST be made with your heart .... and you must BELIEVE and really MEAN what you say!!!

....so DID you believe and mean what you said?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by womoma
I said it dude. Nothing happened.

AtomicHorror
Try waving your hands as you say it.

.....'handwaving' may well be instinctive behaviour for Evolutionists....but it won't Save you!!!!

.....try BELIEVING what you are saying!!!!:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So to summarise:

A Created Kind is a group of species in which all of the members can either:

A) Interbreed directly to produce fertile or sterile offspring.

Interbreed indirectly through any number of directly-breeding species, again producing fertile or sterile offspring.

Correct?

.....correct....that is how the DIFINITIVE members of a Created Kind are scientifically determined......

....provisional membership designations may also be made for other species by expert Baraminologists using 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

.....you have the potential to be a 'straight A' student ..... of Creation Science!!!!:):D

....you really are taking to CS 'like a duck to water'....or perhaps as a Evolutionist, you may feel that you are taking to it 'like an amphibian to land'!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

......either way.....maith an buachaill....keep up the good work!!!!:pac::):D

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....the question isn't whether you said these words......the question is whether you BELIEVED them.

.....this isn't some empty formula of words, like a majic spell or some other incantation with which the unsaved confuse themselves....
.....the exact words DON'T matter.....but this commitment to Jesus Christ MUST be made with your heart .... and you must BELIEVE and really MEAN what you say!!!

....so DID you believe and mean what you said?

But J C, that's true of ANYTHING that ANYONE really believes. I gave up smoking by REALLY BELIEVING that I wasn't hooked. And 'miraculously' I was no longer hooked. The power of the mind is spectacular but it has nothing to do with objective truth.

This is no more than psychological trickery.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......maith an buachaill....keep up the good work!!!!:pac::):D

I intend to.

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

But J C, that's true of ANYTHING that ANYONE really believes. I gave up smoking by REALLY BELIEVING that I wasn't hooked. And 'miraculously' I was no longer hooked. The power of the mind is spectacular but it has nothing to do with objective truth.

This is no more than psychological trickery.

.....being Saved ISN'T like giving up smoking by 'psyching' yourself into overcoming your physical cravings for Nicotene.....or trying achieve something through the supposed power of 'positive thinking' or some other such psychic manipulation!!!

....being Saved is more analogous to making a contractual commitment (like marriage, for example) that you really mean when you make it.

...so I would encourage you to believe on Jesus Christ to Save you.....but please say what you mean...and mean what you say.

....myself and all of the Christians on the Thread are praying for you.

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

The power of the mind is spectacular but it has nothing to do with objective truth.

....the power of the mind is indeed spectacular...so think about it...and ask yourself if such power could EVER come about from purely materialistic origins!!!!!:)

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....the power of the mind is indeed spectacular...so think about it...and ask yourself if such power could EVER come about from purely materialistic origins!!!!!:)

It did.

Therefore it could.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

....the question isn't whether you said these words......the question is whether you BELIEVED them.

.....this isn't some empty formula of words, like a majic spell or some other incantation with which the unsaved confuse themselves....
.....the exact words DON'T matter.....but this commitment to Jesus Christ MUST be made with your heart .... and you must BELIEVE and really MEAN what you say!!!

....so DID you believe and mean what you said?

But the Bible says 'say', not 'BELIEVE and really MEAN'. What are you saying?that there are parts of the bible which aren't meant to be taken literally?

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....try replacing the word 'creationists' with the name of any other minority ....and see how your statement sounds...bearing in mind that we are talking about eminently (and conventionally) qualified WORKING scientists here!!!!:):D:(

....it is quite obvious that you are just playing with words here .....and you are REALLY saying that scientifically qualified Creationists aren't scientists!!!!

....your statement is less blunt and more subtle than statements by other Evolutionists that Creationists shouldn't be allowed to qualify in conventional science...and if it subsequently emerges that a conventionally qualified scientist is a Creationist that s/he should have their conventional degree(s) rescinded...but it amounts to roughly the same thing!!!

....to illustrate my point what would you think of the following statement ??(which I DON'T endorse BTW):-
"Evolutionists are not precluded from being scientists because they are evolutionists, they are precluded from being scientists purely because they don't perform any scientific activity."
The key aspect these statements is the inherent assumption that the Evolutionist/Creationist target group ARE precluded from being scientists!!!!:eek:

Here is a random sample of the quality of creationist scientists from the AIG list that some fine individual took the time to research:

http://www.sluggy.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10864&start=60&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

OK, ya know what, top 11 PhDs on the list is a reasonable sample, here's the findings:

The majority of these names have no Google presence apart from repetitions of this same list.

E. Theo Agard - PhD Physics, University of Toronto 1971 as Eugene Agard, alternately given as University of London. Actually a radiologist for chemotherapy at an obscure Ohio hospital. Only one article on the effect of Radiation on organs published in 1985. No publications on cosmology or stellar evolution. No publication on Radiometric geological dating.

Jim Allan - Masters of Agricultural Science from the University of Stellensbosch (South Africa), PhD University of Edinburgh. Research involved in genetic sequencing for agriscience. Late life Creationist convert, resigned his teaching position at Stellensbosch rather than continue to teach evolution. No published articles were to be found. A Jim Allan of York University must be presumed to be another individual.

Russell Arndts - PhD in Organic Chemistry from LSU, 1968. Author of the 2008 book "Geocentricity, Relativity and the Big Bang". I **** you not. He is actually trying to deny Copernicus. Former teacher at St. Cloud State University, supposedly. St Clouds' webspace has no reference to him. I can find no evidence of any publications.

Steven Austin - PhD in Geology from Penn State University, 1979. "Depositional Environment of the Kentucky No. 12 Coal Bed (Middle Pennsylvanian) of Western Kentucky with Special Reference to the Origin of Coal Lithotypes". I have no idea how he got this by Penn State, as it apparently was arguing in favor of a flood model for coal formation. I can find no reference to any published geological articles by him.

Geoff Barnard - PhD in Biochemistry, University of London. Most recently employed at the "Centre for Veterinary Science, University of Cambridge", however, I question the veracity of this, as the cureent staff picture of Geoff Barnard there (http://www.vet.cam.ac.uk/research/inves ... rnard.html) looks completely different from the photo at Creationwiki. (http://creationwiki.org/Geoff_Barnard). I think the latter is actually trying to claim credit for the former's work to justify his own Creationist position. I have emailed the Cambridge Vetrinary school my suspicions.

Don Batten - PhD in Agricultural Science, University of Sydney, 1976, actually has a publication history on horticultural research from 1978 to 1996. Has never held a teaching position and his acdemic publications came to a halt at the same time as he began his creationist ministry.

John Baumgardner - PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics, 1983. His published co-authored articles actually argue for the standard old earth model. He does physics work and then lets geologists publish this in their articles. See interview here: http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/ ... -john.html

Michael Behe is a simple fraud. He obtained his PhD and Tenure by pretending to support evolution and then started promoting Intelligent Design. His own University would fire him if they could. http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

Jerry Bergman - "In 1992 he received a Ph.D. in human biology, from Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California. The degree is legal, but the university faced various accusations and had its accreditation removed in 1997." Disqualified automatically.

Kimberly Berrine - I went through 4 pages of google results for her, every single one of which was a copy of this list. I do not believe she actually exists.

Raymond Bohlin - University of Texas at Dallas, 1991. "Complementation of a Defect in Complex I of the Mammalian Electron Transport Chain by DNA-Mediated GNE Transfer" He appears to have had limited publication in the 70s and 80s. He is now a full time Creationism Evangelist and does not appear to have ever held a teaching post.

That comes to, out of 11:

1 Phantom Person
1 Scumbag claiming credit for another researcher's work
1 Bogus Degree
2 Who obtained degrees and went directly into ministry with no pretence of further research
1 Backwater geneticist who gave up teaching after conversion
1 Hospital Radiologist
1 Agricultural researcher who abandoned his career
1 Disgraced geophysicist who contributes to articles supporting standard geophysics to maintain the appearance of academic credibility
1 Former Professor whose opinions on Geocentrism place him very much in the lunatic fringe
1 Michael Behe, a tenured professor who has been publicly disowned by his department

I see no reason to assume the rest of the Alphabet will produce an increase in quality.

1) Are they qualified scientists, in the most part yes.

2) Are they doing any worthwhile research? No.

By your low standards, I am sure you consider them to be fine scientists.

2Scoops

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????

It is sinister that so-called creation scientists hide their results, which would lead some to believe that they have none at all.

For example, where is the creation science that uses DNA sequencing? You know who's doing it, even though it's not in the 'public domain.' How did you find out? Also, why are you hiding the results from the creation science investigations that you yourself conducted?

Wolfsbane, how do you feel about your champion of creation science, the man/woman you defer to on matters of science, hiding the very creation science he/she claims to support and preventing interested people from learning about it?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....try replacing the word 'creationists' with the name of any other minority ....and see how your statement sounds...bearing in mind that we are talking about eminently (and conventionally) qualified WORKING scientists here!!!!:):D:(

Marco Polo said they are precluded from being scientists purely because they don't perform any scientific activity. Why don't you think scientists should be people who conduct science? The logical extension would be that creation scientists are scientists who scientifically investigate creation. Can you provide a single example of someone who fits this description? (btw, it doesn't count if the information is being hidden from the public domain).

2Scoops

marco_polo wrote: »

2) Are they doing any worthwhile research?

Are they doing ANY research?! In the public domain, that is... :pac:

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

But the Bible says 'say', not 'BELIEVE and really MEAN'. What are you saying?that there are parts of the bible which aren't meant to be taken literally?

...it is implicit that saying that you believe on Jesus Christ means that you DO believe on Jesus Christ...otherwise such a statement would be just mockery of God...which is certainly not endorsed by the Bible!!!!

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

It is sinister that so-called creation scientists hide their results, which would lead some to believe that they have none at all.

For example, where is the creation science that uses DNA sequencing? You know who's doing it, even though it's not in the 'public domain.' How did you find out? Also, why are you hiding the results from the creation science investigations that you yourself conducted?

Wolfsbane, how do you feel about your champion of creation science, the man/woman you defer to on matters of science, hiding the very creation science he/she claims to support and preventing interested people from learning about it?

....with attitudes like the following quoted by Marco Polo do you think that it is any wonder that I would protect anybody that I knew by not publishing their names or their research:-

wrote:

"Michael Behe is a simple fraud. He obtained his PhD and Tenure by pretending to support evolution and then started promoting Intelligent Design. His own University would fire him if they could."

.....I really don't need to say anything more.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Marco Polo said they are precluded from being scientists purely because they don't perform any scientific activity. Why don't you think scientists should be people who conduct science? The logical extension would be that creation scientists are scientists who scientifically investigate creation.

...I too believe that scientists are people who conduct science...and Creation Scientists are scientists who scientifically investigate creation.:D:eek:

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

...I too believe that scientists are people who conduct science...and Creation Scientists are scientists who scientifically investigate creation.:D:eek:

Except their investigations come with the notion that the Biblical account of creation cannot be wrong and anything which contradicts this cannot possibly be right even if all the evidence says otherwise.
This is not science.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....with attitudes like the following quoted by Marco Polo do you think that it is any wonder that I would protect anybody that I knew by not publishing their names or their research:-

If they are so sensitive and easily upset by random internet posters then perhaps they are in the wrong business. Defending ones research in the academic world can be a very tough business, but in the end if the facts are correct they will stand up for themselves.

.....I really don't need to say anything more.

Indeed not, luckly for Behe commiting blatent fraud to obtain an academic position is not a sackable offence.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....with attitiudes like the following quoted by Marco Polo do you think that it is any wonder that I would protect anybody that I knew by not publishing their names or their research:-



.....do I need to say anything more???

Scientific revolutionaries rise and turn whole fields on their heads on a regular basis. They generate controversy, they anger people. Their views are attacked and in the end, the truth remains. Funny how those who rebel against science in the most vocal and aggressive manner only find their jobs at risk in the rarest circumstances; when they don't have the goods to back up their word. It's quite possible to be on the wrong side of the revolution and come out just fine if your position was justified; you'll find work, maybe even find more of it due to your now controversial image. It's quite possible to hold onto a position that is not widely held in science, if you've got the data and the testability. I've seen some biologists hold on to some very unpopular hypotheses and yet they find plenty of work. But if you practice bad science, if the data is not there and your ideas cannot be defined nor tested, if you do so openly and unashamedly and call conspiracy at every turn, you will not be employable as a scientist.

This goes as much for scaremongering medics, perpetual motion physicists and hand-waving alternative therapists as it goes for creationists. You are not getting ****-canned because we're afraid of your ideas, or because we don't understand them. It's because you can't test them, have not tested them and deny every piece of data produced that falsifies them as "delusion" or "misinterpretation". That is not science, and anyone who carries on in this manner should not be employable as a professional scientist. There's no conspiracy, you are doing this to yourselves.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...I too believe that scientists are people who conduct science...and Creation Scientists are scientists who scientifically investigate creation.:D:eek:

Outline a test for Creation, not its implications but Creation itself.

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....with attitudes like the following quoted by Marco Polo do you think that it is any wonder that I would protect anybody that I knew by not publishing their names or their research:-

Withhold the names by all means, but why not tell us what research they're doing? Why should that be a problem? Assuming there is any proper scientific research, of course.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....with attitudes like the following quoted by Marco Polo do you think that it is any wonder that I would protect anybody that I knew by not publishing their names or their research

What's the point in conducting research if you won't let anybody see it? Behe has not been fired and most so-called creation scientists work for creationist institutes, where I sincerely doubt marco's opinion carries much weight.

So, really, you have no reason to hide this information. Which creationists are using DNA sequencing in their research?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

...I too believe that scientists are people who conduct science...and Creation Scientists are scientists who scientifically investigate creation.:D:eek:

And, yet, you cannot identify even one (bar yourself) and refuse to identify any of their research whatsoever.