Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1459460462464465822

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Awesome. Free to download and distribute. I'll see if I can find a torrent link for us a bit later. Let the seeding begin.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    If they were employees of an evolutionary theory advocacy group, I would consider them likely to be biased. I might call them propagandists. I would expect them to make their affiliation clear to the interviewee or be considered dishonest.



    Again, if they were in the employ of an advocacy group for evolution, then that would indeed immediately suggest a bias in them. It would be fair for you to question that bias.



    Indeed. But we are entitled to frown upon that, especially if done under false pretences. I can think of similar cases I've seen in which I was in favour of the stated position of the interviewer but found the ambush tactic distasteful. Michael Moore's ambushing of Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine, for example.



    There is the omission of a statement of affiliation to AiG and there is the name dropping of a BBC producer. There is a list of topics for discussion which make no mention of creationism, nor of any criticisms of evolution whatsoever. Misleading.



    No, it was not. Dawkins is a leading spokesperson for evolution, so evolution is probably the topic of a considerable majority of interviews he would give. So the topic, vaguely stated as it was, would ring no alarm bells. Dawkins would have no reason to suspect he was being misled on that point.

    Dawkins has made his decision not to engage directly with creationists clear and public. So an honest crew and honest journalists, in the interests of giving the interviewee a fair chance, would state any potentially contentious affiliations, conflicts of interest or any intended contentious issues. So once again, Dawkins had little reason to suppose that an openly-creationist group were approaching him for an interview.

    Do you suggest that Dawkins should be reasonably expected to screen any and all interview requests for a hidden creationist connection? Are you suggesting that such deception should be expected of them?

    I'd imagine Dawkins screens interview requests now. Live and learn.



    Perhaps one was made. Can we be sure that they displayed any greater honesty? Besides, the interview was being accepted on the basis of a conversation that Dawkins and Brown had the year previous. In essence it was pre-approved.



    Only if he was aware of that group in 1998. The Discovery Institute didn't really begin to impact on the public consciousness until Behe's book in 1996 and Dembski's various publications from 1998 onwards.



    I'm sorry, are you under the impression that you just made a convincing case? Please point to where in the application Brown states her affiliation or the subject of the interview. Again, she was not technically nor legally obligated to make these things clear, but certainly was morally obliged. She ambushed Dawkins. AiG ambushed Dawkins.
    I just don't see how Dawkins needs protection. Maybe it's my experience of doing TV and radio interviews on the late conflict here in Ulster, but I certainly would never assume that any interviewer was not a supporter of something I detested and that they might not use the interview to further their ends. If I was concerned enough, I would have lifted the phone to find out more about them.

    If Dawkins could not think of that, he must be extremely naive - and shouldn't be out without his mother.

    No deceit, just straight forward journalism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam



    whats the dvd called, what bittorrent should i be searching for


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    MooseJam wrote: »
    whats the dvd called, what bittorrent should i be searching for

    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/madeeasygroup/?v=1&t=search&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=group&slk=1


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I just don't see how Dawkins needs protection. Maybe it's my experience of doing TV and radio interviews on the late conflict here in Ulster, but I certainly would never assume that any interviewer was not a supporter of something I detested and that they might not use the interview to further their ends.

    That's fair enough, but my question to you is whether you think it is morally right, whether you think it is fair for a journalist or interviewer to do this?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    If I was concerned enough, I would have lifted the phone to find out more about them.

    If Dawkins could not think of that, he must be extremely naive - and shouldn't be out without his mother.

    If Dawkins decides to leave his front door unlocked at night, are burglers free of moral responsibility for stealing all his fossils? This is nonsense Wolfsbane, you are evading the core question.

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dawkins was negligent or naive and should have screened his interviewer. Does that make what the interviewer did morally right?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No deceit, just straight forward journalism.

    Straightforward journalism often includes behaviours many would consider morally wrong, including deceit.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    I can't use Bitorrent, im on a college network.

    :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    I can't use Bitorrent, im on a college network.

    :(

    I'll see if I can find somewhere to host it over the next few days. Failing that I could always burn it for you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    I'll see if I can find somewhere to host it over the next few days. Failing that I could always burn it for you.

    That would be great, thanks.

    :)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Made Easy DVD
    "Let's keep crap out of the science classroom".

    It's as easy as that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Guys, I'm assuming that this is a legal torrent?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Guys, I'm assuming that this is a legal torrent?

    Absolutely legal and free to re-distribute Mr. Cradock sir. As per the YouTube vid above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Cool!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    It is.

    I'm seeding the Pirate Bay torrent of that DVD and it looks like there's plenty of other seeders too- I'm getting 300 k/sec download on it which is pretty good!

    Trying to figure out if Google will let me host this monstrosity on my blog. I suspect... not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    .....it appears that Richard Dawkins has become a THEIST of sorts.....and may be going down the route of Anthony Flew!!!!!!:pac::):D:eek::cool::rolleyes::cool:

    .....and you can read all about it here:-

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    J C wrote: »
    .....it appears that Richard Dawkins has become a THEIST of sorts.....and may be going down the route of Anthony Flew!!!!!!:pac::):D:eek::cool::rolleyes::cool:

    .....and you can read all about it here:-

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml
    This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:
    A serious case could be made for a deistic God.
    This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn't believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies.

    Theist?
    Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?

    Which he has justified and outlined countless times.



    Deuteronomy 5:20


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    .....it appears that Richard Dawkins has become a THEIST of sorts.....and may be going down the route of Anthony Flew!!!!!!:pac::):D:eek::cool::rolleyes::cool:

    .....and you can read all about it here:-

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

    Good to have you back. This is already being discussed on another thread.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055435485

    Big fat "meh", tbh. I've read stuff by Melanie Phillips before and find it pretty weak.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    .....it appears that Richard Dawkins has become a THEIST of sorts.....and may be going down the route of Anthony Flew!!!!


    Flamed Diving
    Theist?
    Quote:
    Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet.
    ......oh yes ..... I almost forgot ... he seems to be becoming a bit of an Intelligent Design Advocate as well!!!!!:pac::):D

    .....and possibly even a teency weency bit of a Creationist!!!!:):D

    ....admittedly not of the 'six day' variety.....but he is making good progress in the right direction nonetheless....

    ......I guess you could say that his thinking is 'evolving' towards Theism, ID and Creationism!!!!:pac::):D:eek:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    J C wrote: »
    ......oh yes ..... I almost forgot ... he seems to be becoming an Intelligent Design Advocate as well!!!!!:pac::):D

    .....and possibly even a teency weency bit of a Creationist!!!!:):D

    ....admittedly not of the 'six day' variety.....but he is making good progress in the right direction nonetheless....

    ......I guess you could say that his thinking is 'evolving' towards Theism, ID and Creationism!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

    I provided a video where the man himself is stating his position, and where he points out that he doesn't find it to be very likely, but it is more likely than a god/s. But he doesn't support the position.

    Deuteronomy 5:20


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    I provided a video where the man himself is stating his position, and where he points out that he doesn't find it to be very likely, but it is more likely than a god/s. But he doesn't support the position.
    ...like I said, his thinking is 'evolving' towards Theism, ID and Creationism!!!!

    ....not there yet.....but going in the right direction!!!!:pac::):D


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    J C wrote: »
    ...like I said, his thinking is 'evolving' towards Theism, ID and Creationism!!!!

    ....not there yet.....but going in the right direction!!!!:pac::):D

    He doesn't support the position.

    Deuteronomy 5:20


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ...like I said, his thinking is 'evolving' towards Theism, ID and Creationism!!!!

    ....not there yet.....but going in the right direction!!!!:pac::):D

    Assuming this were true, so what?

    Expecting the anti-theist masses to follow the megapope? I think you're still struggling with just how different we are to your bunch.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    He doesn't support the position.

    Deuteronomy 5:20

    Indeed, accepting the logical validity of a position is not the same as supporting it and not the same as tending towards support.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Indeed, accepting the logical validity of a position is not the same as supporting it and not the same as tending towards support.
    ....In my own case, as a former Evolutionist, it all started when I found that it was mathematically impossible to produce a sequence for a functional simple protein using non-intelligently directed means!!!!

    .....it all starts with accepting the the logical validity of the theistic position ....and who knows what can happen then ....perhaps Prof Dawkins, with his new-found enlightenment, will have a 'Pauline Conversion' and become a great Christian Evangelist ... one never knows ... and certainly, stranger things have happened!!!!

    Prof Dawkins is a very talented man. As I have previously said on this thread I have greatly enjoyed reading his writings ... I disagreed with most of his conclusions ... but I enjoyed his turn of phrase!!!

    ......and now that Prof Dawkins thinking is 'evolving' in the right direction ... I look forward to his next book .... possibly entitled the 'Anti-God Delusion'!!!!:pac::):D

    Prof Sir Anthony Flew had the following words of advice for Prof Dawkins in relation to neo-Darwininan Evolution:-
    "It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

    .....Prof Dawkins seems to be taking Prof Anthony Flew's advice seriously!!!

    .....Prof Flew wrote a book last year on his renunciation of Atheism entitled "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind"

    .....eh.....em....hint ... hint!!!!:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    J C wrote: »
    Prof Sir Anthony Flew had the following words of advice for Prof Dawkins in relation to neo-Darwininan Evolution:-
    "It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

    Oh, for ****s sake.

    Evolution ≠ Abiogenesis

    This Anthony Flew fella is a complete moron. Simple as.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    This Anthony Flew fella is a complete moron.
    Not as simple as that.

    According to reports, Flew seems to be suffering from senile dementia or some other wasting disease.

    Now, in the light of his declining ability to reason, you can make what you like of his "conversion" from atheism to deism (or theism or whatever at the hands of a christian fundamentalist named Roy Varghese), but Antony Flew does not appear to be a well man so I think it's unfair to call him a moron.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    robindch wrote: »
    Not as simple as that.

    According to reports, Flew seems to be suffering from senile dementia or some other wasting disease.

    Now, in the light of his declining ability to reason, you can make what you like of his "conversion" from atheism to deism (or theism or whatever at the hands of a christian fundamentalist named Roy Varghese), but Antony Flew does not appear to be a well man so I think it's unfair to call him a moron.

    Ah, well I didn't know that. I was more frustrated at this incessant 'evolution doesn't explain the origin of life' straw-manning. I retract my comment about him, personally.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    robindch wrote: »
    Not as simple as that.

    According to reports, Flew seems to be suffering from senile dementia or some other wasting disease.

    Now, in the light of his declining ability to reason, you can make what you like of his "conversion" from atheism to deism (or theism or whatever at the hands of a christian fundamentalist named Roy Varghese), but Antony Flew does not appear to be a well man so I think it's unfair to call him a moron.

    Indeed. At the height of intellectual ability he clearly wasn't a moron.

    I have mixed feelings towards Flew's conversion. There clearly has been a deterioration in his mind over the last couple of years. But I believe that it was back in 2004 when, after much speculation, Flew finally admitted to his radical new position - and it appears as if he still had his ability to reason when he did this. One would also imagine that he had been thinking about these matters for some time before this admission. I mean, you don't just suddenly decide you were wrong all along after so many years refuting God's existence. As for the influence of Varghese in penning his book, we may never know if he was simply aiding a friend in an honest manner or manipulating a sick old man.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ....In my own case, as a former Evolutionist, it all started when I found that it was mathematically impossible to produce a sequence for a functional simple protein using non-intelligently directed means!!!!

    What does that have to do with evolution?

    Or abiogenesis for that matter? Only people I've ever seen describe abiogenesis that way are creationists and Fred Hoyle. Hoyle didn't know what he was talking about as evidenced by a number of fairly critical misunderstandings of biology in his work.
    J C wrote: »
    .....it all starts with accepting the the logical validity of the theistic position ....and who knows what can happen then ....perhaps Prof Dawkins, with his new-found enlightenment, will have a 'Pauline Conversion' and become a great Christian Evangelist ... one never knows ... and certainly, stranger things have happened!!!!

    Don't hold your breath. Or do. Whatever.
    J C wrote: »
    Prof Dawkins is a very talented man. As I have previously said on this thread I have greatly enjoyed reading his writings ... I disagreed with most of his conclusions ... but I enjoyed his turn of phrase!!!

    Sounds like you think he's got a decent argument. I guess your opinion is "evolving" in the right direction... J C :confused::eek::pac::D
    J C wrote: »
    ......and now that Prof Dawkins thinking is 'evolving' in the right direction ... I look forward to his next book .... possibly entitled the 'Anti-God Delusion'!!!!:pac::):D

    Hold your breath.
    J C wrote: »
    Prof Sir Anthony Flew had the following words of advice for Prof Dawkins in relation to neo-Darwininan Evolution:-
    "It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

    So Flew is saying that Darwin didn't explain abiogenesis. So what? Everyone knows that. The theory of evolution does not address abiogenesis. I type this for what must be the fiftieth time on this thread. Fifty-one. The theory of evolution does not address abiogeneis. Getting it yet?
    J C wrote: »
    .....Prof Dawkins seems to be taking Prof Anthony Flew's advice seriously!!!

    .....Prof Flew wrote a book last year on his renunciation of Atheism entitled "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind"

    .....eh.....em....hint ... hint!!!!:D

    Are you suggesting that the conversion of Flew, or the possible conversion of Dawkins would somehow impact on reality?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    The current list of Questions Creationists Can't Seem to Answer. Just becuase it's been several pages and the creationists are back with us again after yet another holiday.

    1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.

    2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.

    3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.

    4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.

    5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.

    6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.

    7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.

    8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".

    9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.

    10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.

    11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement