The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

More Behe = Creationist

A lot is made by Creationists about Behe seemingly being a non-religious, unbiased, proponent of Intelligent Design. This is done in a sort of "Hey look, serious proper scientists agree with us" way.

Dig a bit deeper into quotes and passages from Behe, such as his testemony at the Dover trial, and Behe seems to be a pretty standard Creationist.

This isn't an attempt to paint all ID proponents as Creationist, there are actually people who believe ID but who do so outside of a religious frame work. But Behe doesn't seem to be one. He is basically just a common garden Creationist who realised that it is better to keep relatively quite about that.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Anyone for setting up a charity that promotes understanding of evolution?

....you could start by telling us how it works...on this thread....and it won't cost you a cent!!!:)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

More Behe = Creationist

A lot is made by Creationists about Behe seemingly being a non-religious, unbiased, proponent of Intelligent Design. This is done in a sort of "Hey look, serious proper scientists agree with us" way.

Dig a bit deeper into quotes and passages from Behe, such as his testemony at the Dover trial, and Behe seems to be a pretty standard Creationist.

This isn't an attempt to paint all ID proponents as Creationist, there are actually people who believe ID but who do so outside of a religious frame work. But Behe doesn't seem to be one. He is basically just a common garden Creationist who realised that it is better to keep relatively quite about that.

....as MOST Theistic Evolutionists believe in Evolution WITHIN a religious framework....I guess that makes MOST Theistic Evolutionists 'Creationists'...in the eyes of Materialistic Evolutionists.....and therefore deserving of automatic sacking .....and having their toe nails pulled out, for good measure!!!!:pac::):D

J C

....and now for some more 'mind-expanding' quotes from Evolutionists....for Evolutionists:-

The great Dr Norman Geisler (b. 1932) PhD Philosophy on 'origins' science....and the errors of logic that Evolutionists continue to make!!!!:-

"The domain of origin science was taken over by operation science. Even the unique, unrepeated events of the origin of the universe, of life, and of new life forms were treated as though the were observed regularities in the present. The difference between unobserved past singularities (origin science) was obscured. "


.....and here he explains HOW those 'peskey' Creationists got back in through the doors of science....after the Atheists thought they had thrown them out!!!!:-:eek:

"The search for natural (secondary) causes for how the universe and life operate in the present was gradually extended to how they originated in the past. Overlooked was the fact that events of origin are not a recurring pattern of events against which a theory of origin can be tested. Hence, even the very naturalistic theories of origin, which had replaced the supernaturalisitic ones, would lack scientific status unless a special category is made for them.

Such is possible by distinguishing origin science from operation science (as forensic science differs from empirical science). However, once this difference is recognized then the possibility of creationism as science is again resurrected, and we have come full circle. " Origin Science (1987) pp.86-87:pac::):cool::eek::p:D

J C

...or how about the great Richard Goldschmidt Late Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley .....who ruled out gradualistic Neo-Darwinian Evolution as the agent of speciation...and thereby showed HOW the 'Great Speciation Event' after Noah's Flood actually occurred!!!!

"Microevolution within the species proceeds by accumulation of micromutations and occupation of the available ecological niches by the preadapted mutants. Microevolution, especially geographic variation, adapts the species to the different conditions existing in the available range of distribution. Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system. The theory of genes and of the accumulation of micromutants by selection has to be ruled out of this picture. " The Material Basis of Evolution (1982) p.396

2Scoops

More profound quotes, thanks J C! If this thread was about creation English Lit. you would have scored points for your impressive collection. But do you have any creation science? Some kind of substantive evidence? Stuff that that isn't hidden from prying eyes or inquisitive minds, that is...

That reminds me: what were the results of your scientific investigations into creation and how did you find out about a creation group using DNA sequencing?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....as MOST Theistic Evolutionists believe in Evolution WITHIN a religious framework....I guess that makes MOST Theistic Evolutionists 'Creationists'...in the eyes of Materialistic Evolutionists.....and therefore deserving of automatic sacking .....and having their toe nails pulled out, for good measure!!!!:pac::):D

ummm .. how about you get back to answering the numerous questions from a few pages ago that you didn't answer and are now hoping will just be forgotten about ... scientific definition of a "kind" perhaps, or the process biologists should use to classify an organism into one kind or another ....

we are still waiting ....

rockbeer

While you're at it you can answer my question in post 13,484.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....you could start by telling us how it works...on this thread....and it won't cost you a cent!!!:)

It has been explained to you countless times. You understand it, but would rather it were impossible. Now you're just pleading ignorance. Just as you did when I dismantled irreducible complexity. Just as you do whenever I make an argument that upsets you.

So to repeat myself, did you deliberately quote Dr. Gee out of context on the previous page, or did you just copy and paste the quote from a website without researching it properly?

Does the dishonesty demonstrated by many creationists in their publications and websites not worry you? Does it not cause you to question motives, methods, the validity of what paltry research they do?

AtomicHorror

rockbeer wrote: »

While you're at it you can answer my question in post 13,484.

Seconded.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

ummm .. how about you get back to answering the numerous questions from a few pages ago that you didn't answer and are now hoping will just be forgotten about ... scientific definition of a "kind" perhaps, or the process biologists should use to classify an organism into one kind or another ....

we are still waiting ....

Yep, lots of selective quoting going on. Whatever can be answered with some frivolous implications and a flurry of emoticons.

Mind you, he did define created kinds for us. I think we'll have some fun with that.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

ummm .. how about you get back to answering the numerous questions from a few pages ago that you didn't answer and are now hoping will just be forgotten about ... scientific definition of a "kind" perhaps, or the process biologists should use to classify an organism into one kind or another ....

we are still waiting ....

.......this thread is beginning to sound like 'Grounhog Day'....
....you repeatedly ask me to define 'Kind'....and I say :-

....“A Kind is a group of organisms that are directly descended from a Created Pair of organisms.”


….then you ask me to show how we can scientifically test which organism belongs to which Kind…...and I say:-
“The first primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with each other....even with infertile offspring.
The second primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with an intermediate organism. For example, if Organism A cannot interbreed with Organism C, but both organism A and C can interbreed with Organism B then Organisms A, B and C are members of the one Created Kind.

.....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

....is it 'spamming' to keep asking the SAME questions over and over again????

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....and now for some more 'mind-expanding' quotes from Evolutionists....for Evolutionists:-

The great Dr Norman Geisler (b. 1932) PhD Philosophy on 'origins' science....and the errors of logic that Evolutionists continue to make!!!!:-

"The domain of origin science was taken over by operation science. Even the unique, unrepeated events of the origin of the universe, of life, and of new life forms were treated as though the were observed regularities in the present. The difference between unobserved past singularities (origin science) was obscured. "


.....and here he explains HOW those 'peskey' Creationists got back in through the doors of science....after the Atheists thought they had thrown them out!!!!:-:eek:

"The search for natural (secondary) causes for how the universe and life operate in the present was gradually extended to how they originated in the past. Overlooked was the fact that events of origin are not a recurring pattern of events against which a theory of origin can be tested. Hence, even the very naturalistic theories of origin, which had replaced the supernaturalisitic ones, would lack scientific status unless a special category is made for them.

Such is possible by distinguishing origin science from operation science (as forensic science differs from empirical science). However, once this difference is recognized then the possibility of creationism as science is again resurrected, and we have come full circle. " Origin Science (1987) pp.86-87:pac::):cool::eek::p:D

J C wrote: »

...or how about the great Richard Goldschmidt Late Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley .....who ruled out gradualistic Neo-Darwinian Evolution as the agent of speciation...and thereby showed HOW the 'Great Speciation Event' after Noah's Flood actually occurred!!!!

"Microevolution within the species proceeds by accumulation of micromutations and occupation of the available ecological niches by the preadapted mutants. Microevolution, especially geographic variation, adapts the species to the different conditions existing in the available range of distribution. Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system. The theory of genes and of the accumulation of micromutants by selection has to be ruled out of this picture. " The Material Basis of Evolution (1982) p.396

Copied and pasted verbatim from:

http://bevets.com/equotesg.htm

This does not constitute a debate J C.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

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

What is the genetic test of a created kind? We have the breeding type definition but that only works for animals which sexually reproduce.

J C

rockbeer wrote:

While you're at it you can answer my question in post 13,484.

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
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.

....whatever!!!!

I implied NOTHING...I just quoted Dr Gee!!!!:D:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....whatever!!!!

I implied NOTHING...I just quoted Dr Gee!!!!:D:)

That is an outright lie J C. I really wonder at your hypocrisy. Below you strongly imply that the quote that follows refers to the theory of evolution when it does not.

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

So again I ask you, did you deliberately misrepresent the context of this quote, or did you fail to closely examine the quote you merely copied from one of your trusted sites?

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....whatever!!!!

I implied NOTHING...I just quoted Dr Gee!!!!:D:)

In a typically dishonest creationist way.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......this thread is beginning to sound like 'Grounhog Day'....

Yes, your consistent evasion and refusal to explain why you won't disclose your creation science results or how you know that creation scientists are doing DNA sequencing in secret is highly repetitive.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What is the genetic test of a created kind? We have the breeding type definition but that only works for animals which sexually reproduce.

....the Kind of asexually reproducing animals is provisionally determined by morphology...and DEFINITIVELY determined by assessing mutual recombination and conjugation compatability:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....the Kind of asexually reproducing animals is provisionally determined by morphology.:D

That is not a testable definition, nor has it anything to do with the DNA sequencing you keep mentioning.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....the Kind of asexually reproducing animals is provisionally determined by morphology.:D

What a rigorous and scientific definition! :rolleyes:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
Dr. Gee is not trashing evolution at all.

....he is not exactly giving it a 'ringing endorsement' either!!!:pac::):D

Dr Gee wrote:

"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. "

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....he is not exactly giving it a 'ringing endorsement' either!!!:pac::):D

The quote you provided does not address the theory of evolution at all, so it could hardly be read as endorsement or criticism.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

What a rigorous and scientific definition! :rolleyes:

...there you go!!!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The quote you provided does not address the theory of evolution at all, so it could hardly be read as endorsement or criticism.

Dr Gee wrote:

"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. "

....the quote that I provided IS addressing a major deficiency in the so-called fossil record of Human Evolution....the inability to draw any meaningful conclusions about any link between so-called Hominid fossils....which he describes as floating "around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.":pac::):D

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....he is not exactly giving it a 'ringing endorsement' either!!!:pac::):D

For the sake of balance, and because quoting scientists' opinions seems to be the order of the day, here's some more from Dr Henry Gee:

"That my cat Fred and I really have a common ancestor is not in doubt"
In Search of Deep Time, p.37

"Even though it is impossible to know for certain whether one species is the ancestor of another, we do know that any two organisms found on Earth must be cousins in some degree."
In Search of Deep Time, p.155

And most tellingly:

"The Discovery Institute has used unauthorized, selective quotations from my book In Search of Deep Time to support their outdated, mistaken views."

He could now, of course, include J C in that accusation.

J C, you clearly have no respect for the people you quote so selectively, nor for their science, which must cast doubt on your own claims to be a scientist.

You indulge relentlessly in the degraded and desperate practice of argument from authority with no regard for who you misrepresent nor how badly.

And you don't even have the personal integrity or honesty to acknowledge this when caught red handed.

Enough said.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....it is addressing a major deficiency in the so-called fossil record of Human Evolution....the inability to draw any meaningful conclusions about any link between so-called Hominid fossils....which he describes as floating "around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.":pac::):D

He's pointing out that the fossil record is limited. That's not a criticism of the theory of evolution, it's a simple statement of opinion regarding one of the means we use to test the theory and one that we understand well. Finding a fossil that doesn't fit the model would be be a challenge or criticism. So I ask you again, where is the fossil evidence that breaks the model?

Also you placed my comment (made at 23:44) about "the quote your provided" (I was referring to the one about the "pre-existing story") next to a quote that you edited into post # 13526 at 23:57. I clearly wasn't referring to that quote yet in your response you put them side by side as if I were. A very poor show.

AtomicHorror

J C you are extremely dishonest in your presentation of other people's opinions. How can you expect to hold a moral or scientific high ground when you demonstrate a willingness to misrepresent the opinions of the people you quote and of the people on this board? How can you expect to promote your view when you not only use such tactics but cheerfully dismiss us when we point out what you have done?

You wonder why creationism dismays so many people. This is one of the main reasons. You talk holy but you play anything but.

Flamed Diving

How is that ninth commandment holding up?

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So again I ask you, did you deliberately misrepresent the context of this quote, or did you fail to closely examine the quote you merely copied from one of your trusted sites?

To be fair to JC I don't think he actually understand any of the things he copy and pastes here. :pac: