The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

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:-

Thinking about it it I can come up with three research scenarios.

One, they are performing unauthorised 'creation research' without disclosing it to their employers, perhaps with research funding that is supposed to be earmarked for useful purposes like discovering HIV or cancer cures or new antibiotics :eek:. In this case it would be unsurprising that they would be reluctant to publisise their findings.

Two, It could be that they are doing it on their own time in a shed at the back of their houses? But I would imagine that the equipment needed for dna sequencing is quite expensive and this is a most unlikely scenario.

Three, they are being funded by creationists organisations. In that case I can see no reason why they would be so afraid to disclose their findings.

Surely it would not give too much away to indicate which of the above three research scenarios is most accurate?

No need for names or addresses or anything like that, I will be far too busy looking for leprechauns next week to have time to go looking for 'creation scientists' to oppress.

AtomicHorror

It's quite possible to get breakdowns of the research funding going to all the universities in Ireland. I wonder if it is possible to get groups such as the Discovery Institute to state how much of their budget goes into primary research? Are there equivalent YEC groups? Can we see budget breakdowns for them? Can we see how much of that budget goes on secondary research (in other words, literature review and meta-analysis)? Can we see how much is spent on publicity?

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's quite possible to get breakdowns of the research funding going to all the universities in Ireland. I wonder if it is possible to get groups such as the Discovery Institute to state how much of their budget goes into primary research? Are there equivalent YEC groups? Can we see budget breakdowns for them? Can we see how much of that budget goes on secondary research (in other words, literature review and meta-analysis)? Can we see how much is spent on publicity?

And how much on salaries for their surprisingly unproductive research fellows?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

...all science is paradigm based...but the evidence MUST 'stack up'...whether that paradigm is Evolution or Creation.

I have found that the evidence for Creation does stand up to close and intense scrutiny...while the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution doesn't exist!!!!

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

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.



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

....could I gently point out that Prof Behe isn't even a Creation Scientist...he is a Theistic EVOLUTIONIST.

I have reviewed his work and I have found his ideas to be original and thought provoking. I disagree with his 'long-ages' and Evolutionist outlook...but nobody is perfect!!!

Despite disagreeing with Prof Behe on many issues I have great respect for this man and I deplore your outrageous statement above in relation to his acaedemic standing.:(:(

....it also illustrates the degree of vindictiveness amongst Evolutionists against 'one of their own'...and I shudder to think what you would propose to be done with Prof Behe if he stated that he was a 'young earth six day' Creationist!!!!

...I have no problem with anybody's research being challenged ... that is how scientific advances are often made ... but naked threats to the acaedemic's job are TOTALLY unacceptable!!!

...and no objective person will accept that ALL ID Proponents are 'dossers'...no more that any other category of scientist is entirely made up of 'time-wasters'. Give the man his acaedemic space... and go get SOME evidence for your own scientifically invalid faith that you are a direct descendant of 'Primordial Soup'!!!

.....you could start by addressing Dr Henry Gee's concerns about the very poor evidence for Spontaneous Evolution :-
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. " In Search of Deep Time (2001) p. 32

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

"All the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted indo a small box." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.202

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether." Nature July 12 2001 p. 131

...and BTW Henry Gee (b. 1962) is a Materialistic Evolutionist...so leave him alone as well...and DON'T go trying to get him sacked, just because he points towards a few (very) inconvenient facts for those in the 'Spontaneous Soup is my Grandfather' brigade!!!!.:eek:

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

...all science is paradigm based...but the evidence MUST 'stack up'...whether that paradigm is Evolution or Creation.

I agree with you so far...

J C wrote: »

I have found that the evidence for Creation does stand up to close and intense scrutiny...while the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution doesn't exist!!!!

Well, once again after a good start to a post you've gone and messed things up.
1. If the evidence for Creation is so good then why not show us your research?
2. Your refusal to accept the existence of evidence for evolution wreaks of denial.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...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!!!!

I would have thought that the only implication of 'say but the words' is that you only say the words.

Also, 'believe on' is nonsense English. It's like saying 'think under'.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I would have thought that the only implication of 'say but the words' is that you only say the words.

Also, 'believe on' is nonsense English. It's like saying 'think under'.

King James translation. I gather J C is pentecostal/evangelical or somesuch.

AtomicHorror

Oh here we go again. Refute my points please J C, I would be very interested in seeing you defend this rubbish.

J C wrote: »

.....you could start by addressing Dr Henry Gee's concerns about the very poor evidence for Spontaneous Evolution :-
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. " In Search of Deep Time (2001) p. 32

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

"All the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted indo a small box." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.202

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether." Nature July 12 2001 p. 131

...and BTW Henry Gee (b. 1962) is a Materialistic Evolutionist...so leave him alone as well...and DON'T go trying to get him sacked, just because he points towards a few (very) inconvenient facts for those in the 'Spontaneous Pondslime is my Grandfather' brigade!!!!.:eek:

Four points:

1. Once again, the opinion of a scientist is not science and should not need to be rebutted in this debate. Stop spoofing, give us DATA.

2. Spontaneous evolution is not addressed by Henry Gee, is not an accepted theory and is a straw man "theory" you created with a neat (yet changeable) definition you find easier to attack than the actual theory of evolution. Stop misrepresenting Dr. Gee's acceptance of your straw man, stop implying that we are supporting it and please just drop your usage of the term altogether.

3. You have quoted Dr. Gee out of context. When he says "New fossil discoveries are fitted into this pre-existing story..." you are implying that "this" refers to spontaneous evolution or to the theory of evolution. It does not refer to either. He is instead referring to the common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Had you been bothered by context, the line that precedes your first quote, and to which "this pre-existing story" refers is:

Henry Gee wrote:

The conventional linear view easily becomes a story in which features of humanity are acquired in a sequence that can be discerned retrospectively; first an upright stance, then a bigger brain, then the invention of toolmaking and so on, with ourselves as the inevitable consequence.

Dr. Gee is not trashing evolution at all. He is trashing human-centric misunderstandings of it. The notion that we are in some mannner the logical apex of evolution. On the very same page he stresses the need to understand the branching nature of the theory of evolution, and he fully understood how the fossil record is a test of that hypothesis.

So, either deliberately or inadvertently due to lazy copying from a creationist website you, J C, have lied by omission.

4. The evidence in the fossil record is fragmentary, no doubt about that. And yet every transitional fossil we find is predicted by the theory of evolution. So it holds.

If I have three data points on a scatter plot that seem to indicate a Gaussian curve and I construct a hypothesis to suggest that the distribution is indeed a Gaussian, then how many more data points do I need to solidify my hypothesis? If I keep finding new points that fit to the line I've struck between my points, does it really make sense to point at the space between points as evidence that my hypothesis is wrong? No. My hypothesis can be falsified only by a contradictory data point. One that is way off the line, an outlier. If many are found, my hypothesis is in ruins.

There are gaps in the fossil record, but what is there fits the hypothesis perfectly. Where is the evidence that falsifies the hypothesis?

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I wonder if it is possible to get groups such as the Discovery Institute to state how much of their budget goes into primary research? Are there equivalent YEC groups? Can we see budget breakdowns for them? Can we see how much of that budget goes on secondary research (in other words, literature review and meta-analysis)? Can we see how much is spent on publicity?

Charity Navigator is a good place to start and it has a unhelpfully short breakdowns of expenses at the ICR, the DI and of course, our friends at AIG.

In 2006, the head of the DI took home $160,000 while Ken Ham helped himself to $180,000 from the kitty, not including his considerable expenses or the costs of his car. Meanwhile, the Bearded Wonder is on record saying that it's not his job to do any research, just to publicise the work of others, so one can conclude fairly safely, that there's little or no research being done now that William Dembski had his place shut down for him a couple of years ago.

Anyhow, if they were interested in research, they'd pony up the cash and do it, then publish the results in respectable journals. Instead, they publish it in their own private mags, complete with level-indicators for the hard of thinking (I just love them:)), and yell until their throats go red for "public debates" as though accuracy is something that you arrive at by showtrial. As it is, Ken makes money from selling other idiots' work.

Unbelievable business, isn't it?

.

Galvasean

I'm in the wrong line of work...

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm in the wrong line of work...

Anyone for setting up a charity that promotes understanding of evolution? Does such a thing even exist? Can we get Dawkins to be the boss?

rockbeer

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You have quoted Dr. Gee out of context. When he says "New fossil discoveries are fitted into this pre-existing story..." you are implying that "this" refers to spontaneous evolution or to the theory of evolution. It does not refer to either. He is instead referring to the common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

Dr. Gee is not trashing evolution at all. He is trashing human-centric misunderstandings of it. The notion that we are in some mannner the logical apex of evolution. On the very same page he stresses the need to understand the branching nature of the theory of evolution, and he fully understood how the fossil record is a test of that hypothesis.

So, either deliberately or inadvertently due to lazy copying from a creationist website you, J C, have lied by omission.

J C, I'm curious: how does it make you feel when you're caught red-handed misquoting or misrepresenting scientists as in the above example?

Humiliated? Ashamed?

How do you imagine your god feels about you defending him with such dishonest and underhand methods?

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Anyone for setting up a charity that promotes understanding of evolution? Does such a thing even exist?

You could become a regular scientist - one who uses scientific investigations to test hypotheses and elucidate previously unclear issues. However, it would require actual scientific work and doesn't pay as well as being a creation journalist.

2Scoops

rockbeer wrote: »

J C, I'm curious: how does it make you feel when you're caught red-handed misquoting or misrepresenting scientists as in the above example?

Humiliated? Ashamed?

How do you imagine your god feels about you defending him with such dishonest and underhand methods?

I'd say it bothers him not one jot, much like his refusal to reveal his creation research or explain how he came to know that a group of creation scientists are using DNA sequencing in their research, despite that information not being in the public domain.

AtomicHorror

2Scoops wrote: »

You could become a regular scientist - one who uses scientific investigations to test hypotheses and elucidate previously unclear issues.

I am one. The pay sucks. I'm still a postgrad but it's not gonna get a whole lot better is it? I want Ken Ham's income!

AtomicHorror

rockbeer wrote: »

J C, I'm curious: how does it make you feel when you're caught red-handed misquoting or misrepresenting scientists as in the above example?

Humiliated? Ashamed?

How do you imagine your god feels about you defending him with such dishonest and underhand methods?

He does this frequently. The quotes from Hoyle, Darwin, Gould etc. are the same. Preceding lines or general context reveal that the subject was not talking about what J C (or rather CreationOnTheWeb etc) is claiming. I'd like to be able to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he merely lifts these quotes verbatim from the maintained lists on creationist websites, but once the misquoting is pointed out J C does nothing to correct himself. In fact he regularly returns to the same misquotes.

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I am one. The pay sucks. I'm still a postgrad but it's not gonna get a whole lot better is it? I want Ken Ham's income!

Sell your soul! AiG would love to have a single scientist who has actually done some science - you could be a research fellow in no time. Grow a beard, talk nonsense and start cashing those cheques, baby!

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Anyone for setting up a charity that promotes understanding of evolution? Does such a thing even exist? Can we get Dawkins to be the boss?

We could email him with the idea. He's usually game for such things..

AtomicHorror

2Scoops wrote: »

Sell your soul! AiG would love to have a single scientist who has actually done some science - you could be a research fellow in no time. Grow a beard, talk nonsense and start cashing those cheques, baby!

Well sure I'd have money, but I'd also hate myself. But I'd have money. Why am I against this again?

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....could I gently point out that Prof Behe isn't even a Creation Scientist...he is a Theistic EVOLUTIONIST.

If it walks like A duck, and talks like a duck ...

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

If it walks like A duck, and talks like a duck ...

I think that you misunderstand the distinction between the two.

marco_polo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that you misunderstand the distinction between the two.

Are refering to the theistic evolution part of JC post? which I frankly did not bother to correct. You will find in fact that Behe is a well know proponent of intelligent design, which is a fancy title for a creationist as far as I am concerned.

Fanny Cradock

Maybe confusion on my part then. I thought you were stating that creation scientist = theistic evolutionist.

marco_polo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe confusion on my part then. I thought you were stating that creation scientist = theistic evolutionist.

Oh no, just economic posting

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why am I against this again?

The researcher's genetic predisposition to seek out low-paying, undervalued roles in society. With little or no job security.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm in the wrong line of work...

...you said it...Galvasean!!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well sure I'd have money, but I'd also hate myself. But I'd have money. Why am I against this again?

....good question!!!!:pac::):D

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

The researcher's genetic predisposition to seek out low-paying, undervalued roles in society. With little or no job security.

....and they have no eternal security either......if they are unsaved!!!!!
.....they must be a bunch of masochists!!!!!:pac::):D

.....is being an Evolutionist a secular form of self-flagellation, I wonder???:eek:

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe confusion on my part then. I thought you were stating that creation scientist = theistic evolutionist.

...they WERE stating that creation scientist = theistic evolutionist.!!!!!

.....you see anybody who isn't an out and out Materialistic Evolutionist is a 'Creationist' in their eyes!!!:pac::):D

marco_polo wrote: »

Are refering to the theistic evolution part of JC post? which I frankly did not bother to correct. You will find in fact that Behe is a well know proponent of intelligent design, which is a fancy title for a creationist as far as I am concerned.

....even Theistic Evolutionists like Prof Michael Behe...whom Marco Polo apparently wants to sack...if he could!!!!

marco_polo 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.