The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

J C and co. The questions you keep avoiding. Or at least not answering. Questions 9 through 13 have not been addressed by anyone here at this time.

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?

12. J C, why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?

13. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

Natural selection can operate on both living and non-living entities (although I realize such a distinction in chemical terms is somewhat arbitrary) at all levels of complexity. This is well demonstrated by a whole range of data. I want to ask you two very simple questions:

1. Are you prepared to concede that this statement of yours is incorrect? (if not, please provide evidence to support it) and

2. What would such a concession mean for the rest of your argument?

1. No. Evolutionists continually point out that Evolution and Abiogenesis are two SEPARATE concepts ... and they therefore presumably believe that NS ONLY operates post-Abiogenesis ... and therefore only on living reproducing entities!!!!

....you guys are so 'mixed up' ....that ye are starting to meet yourselves coming backwards!!!!:D:)

...and your thinking is so 'wet' that a 'flood' belches forth onto my computer screen every time I log onto this thread!!!!!:D:)

2. I haven't made any concession ... so it has NO implications for any part of my argument!!!!:D:)

....I love you all and I want to Save you all!!!!:D

Fanny Cradock

JoBlog wrote: »

Sorry about all that white space in the last post - I do not know how I did that!

No problem. Maybe it was just a glitch in the matrix!

AtomicHorror

JoBlog wrote: »

I agree that most people's def. of God is not threatened by evolution. Neither is mine. My point was that if evolution was disproven and accepted by all as disproven, aetheism would be untenable. [Unless some new third way of explaining life was found].

I can think of two off the top of my head.

1. Design by an identified and naturalistic intelligence. Not a God in the sense that it would not be supernatural, omnipotent or omniscient.

2. Spontaneous generation from some form of matter not previously identified but with naturalistic traits.

Both allow atheism without evolution.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by JoBlog
Sorry about all that white space in the last post - I do not know how I did that!

Fanny Cradock
No problem. Maybe it was just a glitch in the matrix!

...or some new naturalistically generated 'information'.....

....or perhaps it is the 'well known' Evolutionist 'information force' of the white space !!!:pac::):D:eek:

........so may the Evolutionist 'force' of the white space be with you!!!:pac::):D:eek:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

1. No. Evolutionists continually point out that Evolution and Abiogenesis are two SEPARATE concepts ... and therefore presumably the believe that NS ONLY operates post-Abiogenesis ... and therefore only on living reproducing entities!!!!

Wrong. And simplistic, broken logic. We state that the theory of evolution, the model of the emergence of variation in life, is separate to abiogenesis which is understood as a group of hypotheses at this time. That does not mean that none of the mechanisms that underlie evolution can be active in abiogenesis. We would fully expect both mutation and natural selection to be a part of abiogenesis- but that process is still hypothesis, and still describes a different event to evolution, whilst evolution is much better understood.

J C wrote: »

....you guys are so 'mixed up' ....that ye are starting to meet yourselves coming backwards!!!!:D:)

No, you've just confused yourself in what would be a very embarrassing manner, if you could spot it.

J C wrote: »

...and your thinking is so 'wet' that a 'flood' belches forth onto my computer screen every time I log onto this thread!!!!!:D:)

Explains the complete lack of logic I suppose.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I can think of two off the top of my head.

1. Design by an identified and naturalistic intelligence. Not a God in the sense that it would not be supernatural, omnipotent or omniscient.

2. Spontaneous generation from some form of matter not previously identified but with naturalistic traits.

Both allow atheism without evolution.

...like I have already said to Jo and Fanny.....

........may the Evolutionist 'force' of the white space be with you!!!:eek::pac::):D

...for all the use that it is going to be to you ... or anything else!!!!

MBEEP!!!.................MBEEP!!!!.................M..BEEP!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said to Jo and Fanny.....

........may the Evolutionist 'force' of the white space be with you!!!:eek::pac::):D

MBEEP!!!.................MBEEP!!!!.................M..BEEP!!!:D

What does that have to do with my reply to JoBlog? Or anything, for that matter? You type nonsense when you could be trying to answer Questions 9-13 on the list of Questions you can't answer.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We state that the theory of evolution, the model of the emergence of variation in life, is separate to abiogenesis which is understood as a group of hypotheses at this time. That does not mean that none of the mechanisms that underlie evolution can be active in abiogenesis. We would fully expect both mutation and natural selection to be a part of abiogenesis- but that process is still hypothesis, and still describes a different event to evolution, whilst evolution is much better understood.

...so you ARE saying that Evolution and Abiogenesis share the exact same mechanisms (of mutation and natural selection)....only Abiogenesis is an even greater load of 'cobblers' than Evolution!!!

...and that's saying something!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, you've just confused yourself in what would be a very embarrassing manner, if you could spot it.

....touché .... with bells...and a great big swinging pendulum on it!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...so you ARE saying that Evolution and Abiogenesis share the exact same mechanisms....only Abiogenesis is an even greater load of 'cobblers' than Evolution!!!

I'm saying abiogenesis probably uses many of the same mechanisms that evolution does. I'm sure there are some differences. We don't know how abiogenesis happened, so we can't be certain of that, but it seems likely.

They also both share mechanisms with "micro-evolution". If the above are wrong because of the sharing of mechanisms, then I guess your version of evolution is crap too. Or maybe it doesn't work that way and you're trying to make conclusions based on rubbish logic.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm saying abiogenesis probably uses many of the same mechanisms that evolution does. I'm sure there are some differences. We don't know how abiogenesis happened, so we can't be certain of that, but it seems likely.

They also both share mechanisms with "micro-evolution". If the above are wrong because of the sharing of mechanisms, then I guess your version of evolution is crap too. Or maybe it doesn't work that way and you're trying to make conclusions based on rubbish logic.

....whatever!!!!!

......yawn!!!!!:pac::pac::pac:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....whatever!!!!!

......yawn!!!!!:pac::pac::pac:

In the end, that's all you've got, isn't it?

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

....whatever!!!!!

......yawn!!!!!:pac::pac::pac:

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In the end, that's all you've got, isn't it?

Hats off to you, AH.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....whatever!!!!!

......yawn!!!!!


Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
In the end, that's all you've got, isn't it?

.... I've got Jesus Christ which is far better!!!

...and the reason that I am yawning ... is that I have heard it all before, I am tired ... and I have better things to do with my time ... like going to bed....with the wife of my youth!!!:pac::):D;)

....before we both become pensioners!!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.... I've got Jesus Christ which is far better!!!

I'm sure that's just great. Evolution won't take that away from you, if your faith is strong.

J C wrote: »

...and the reason that I am yawning ... is that I have heard it all before

Funny, I don't think we've discussed the abiogenesis/evolution division in this manner before. Though you have been shown to be spouting nonsense many times before.

J C wrote: »

I am tired ... and I have better thing to do with my time ... like going to bed....with the wife of my youth!!!:pac::):D;)

Perhaps you can answer the many, many unanswered points on the previous page whenever you return then. Perhaps this time you won't be away for such an extended rest.

rockbeer

JoBlog wrote: »

Until someone suggests a third possibility my argument seems valid to me.

I just don't see why you would favour one particular hypothesis for which there is no evidence over any other.

JoBlog wrote: »

I was not making a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. Since it has been raised, it seems that a satisfactory materialist explanation for the first living creatures would make the aetheist position more comfortable. If it could be proven that no such explanation could be true, again how would aetheism be tenable?

It's difficult to see how such an explanation could ever be proven impossible, nor that there would be any mileage in attempting to do so. What would really be needed is an alternative hypothesis for which there is stronger evidence. Such a hypothesis may or may not have implications for atheism, it would depend entirely on what it was. I personally can't see any value in speculating about it in the absence of evidence.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Perhaps this time you won't be away for such an extended rest.

....I wasn't resting!!!!:pac::):D

.....anyway I think I will let the logic of the past few pages sink into the brains of the Evolutionists on this thread ... as they marinate slowly in the 'cutting edge' logic of Creation Science!!!!

....and while you are stewing in the hot ashes of Evolution here are a few more 'brain expanding' quotes for Evolutionists from the great Prof Phillip Johnson from Berkeley:-

...this is how the Darwinists do it!!!
"Persons who want naturalistic evolution to be accepted as unquestioned fact must therefore use their cultural authority to enact rules of discourse that protect the purported fact from the attacks of unbelievers. First, they can identify science with naturalism, which means that they insist as a matter of first principle that no consideration whatever be given to the possibility that mind or spirit preceded matter. Second, they can impose a rule of procedure that disqualifies purely negative argument, so that a theory which obtains some very modest degree of empirical support can become immune to disproof until and unless it is supplanted by a better naturalistic theory." Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990

...and this is how the Darwinists continue to do it!!!
"The assumption of naturalism is in the realm of speculative philosophy, and the rule against negative argument is arbitrary. It is as if a judge were to tell a defendant that he may not establish his innocence unless he can produce a suitable substitute to be charged with the crime. " Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990


...and this is why the Darwinists don't 'prick' the Theistic Evolutionists 'bubbles' .... just yet!!!
"They (Theistic Evolutionists) believe that the Earth is billions of years old and that life evolved gradually from simple to complex forms. But they also believe that evolution was a means by which God carried out a plan to create humans. For tactical reasons, Darwinists don’t rush to tell all these people that they are missing the point, but all in good time. Let people first learn that evolution is a fact. They can be told later what evolution means." Unbelievers Unwelcome in the Science Lab Los Angeles Times November 3 1990


..and here is an excellent description of that great 'Weasel Word' ....EVOLUTION
....methinks it CERTAINLY IS a Weasel!!!!
"The choice of words is important, because "evolution" is a vague term with immense power to confuse...The important claim of "evolution" is that life developed gradually from nonliving matter to its present state of diverse complexity through purposeless natural mechanisms that are known to science. Evolution in this sense is a grand metaphysical system..."Evolution" also designates some relatively modest modifications in biological populations that result from environmental pressures. Bacterial populations evolve resistance to antibiotics: evolution causes dark moths to preponderate over light moths when the background trees are darkened by smoke. These examples have nothing to do with whatever creative process formed bacteria and insects in the first place, but since the same word is used to designate both limited adaptive modification with fixed boundaries and the whole naturalistic metaphysical system, it is easy to give the impression that naturalistic evolution (all the way from microorganism to man) is a "fact."...To borrow Irving Kristol's prescription, "Our goal should be to have biology and evolution taught in a way that points to what we don't know as well as what we do." I would only add that it would help if we could get the science educators to define that word "evolution" precisely and use it consistently. " A Reply to My Critics First Things November 1990

The Mad Hatter

More spam, J C?

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

More spam, J C?

...no ... just great mind expanding quotes for all those in desperate need of mind expansion!!!!:pac::D:D;)

....and this is how Darwinists REALLY do it!!!!


"Evolution" in Darwinist usage implies a completely naturalistic metaphysical system, in which matter evolved to its present state of organized complexity without any participation by a Creator. But "evolution" also refers to much more modest concepts, such as microevolution and biological relationship. The tendency of dark moths to preponderate in a population when the background trees are dark therefore demonstrates evolution -- and also demonstrates, by semantic transformation, the naturalistic descent of human being from bacteria.

If critics are sophisticated enough to see that population variations have nothing to do with major transformations, Darwinists can disavow the argument from microevolution and point to relationship as the "fact of evolution." Or they can turn to biogeography, and point out that species on offshore islands closely resemble those on the nearby mainland. Because "evolution" means so many different things almost any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest meanings of the term, and treat it as proof of the complete metaphysical system." Darwin on Trial (1993) p.153

The Mad Hatter

You know, your attempts to avoid answering AtomicHorror's questions are as painfully transparent as they are sad.

Deicida

J C wrote: »

"Persons who want naturalistic evolution to be accepted as unquestioned fact must therefore ...

Nobody wants scientific theories to be unquestionable.

J C wrote: »

"... evolution was a means by which God carried out a plan to create humans. For tactical reasons, Darwinists don’t rush to tell all these people that they are missing the point, but all in good time.

Evolution works just fine without invoking a God.

"tactical reasons..." and what would those be?

... and the rest is mostly nonsense.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You know, your attempts to avoid answering AtomicHorror's questions are as painfully transparent as they are sad.

...and I love you both MH & AH!!!!!
....in a purely Christian way I hasten to add!!!:eek:

J C

Deicida wrote: »

Nobody wants scientific theories to be unquestionable.

.....oh yes they DO ... when Evolution is being questioned by Creationists!!!!

Darwinists have DELIBERATELY defined Science to EXCLUDE anything other that 'naturalistic' origins explantions!!!!!

.....so Creation Scientists ... and indeed Intelligent Design Theists are BANNED from questioning Materialistic Evolution !!!!

Deicida wrote: »

Evolution works just fine without invoking a God.

... and the rest is mostly nonsense.

....schhhss... don't say that in front of the Theistic Evolutionists .....you might 'prick' their Evolutionist 'bubbles' .... and you wouldn't want that to happen .... just YET!!!!:eek::pac::):D

....they still command considerable influence amongst Christians .... although the rapidly emptying pews in mainstream churches means that the Atheists can now be more open about the so-called 'fact of Evolution' ... being the effective 'death' of God!!!!:eek:

....of course Evolution is neither a 'fact' nor true ... so God still reigns supreme over the Universe!!!:D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...and I love you both MH & AH!!!!!
....in a purely Christian way I hasten to add!!!:eek:

Yes, that's nice. So are you going to answer his questions? As I've said before, he has very clearly stated why your answers to his questions 1-8 were invalid (due to his poor phrasing in one case - that question has since been amended). Questions 9-13 have not been addressed by you or anyone at all.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Darwinists have DELIBERATELY defined Science to EXCLUDE anything other that 'naturalistic' origins explantions!!!!!

No, I think you'll find that it is scientists who have deliberately defined science to exclude anything other than naturalistic explanations. That's what science philosophically is and has been since long before evolution came on the scene. The attempt to model the natural world. Some of your friends have sought to re-define science from the outside so that it includes their ideas, but thankfully few are fooled by that tactic.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, that's nice. So are you going to answer his questions? As I've said before, he has very clearly stated why your answers to his questions 1-8 were invalid (due to his poor phrasing in one case - that question has since been amended). Questions 9-13 have not been addressed by you or anyone at all.

Thanks for being so dogged on my behalf I'm not holding my breath, but I'm certainly not going to stop asking those questions.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XHbRGiQccM

santing

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
Darwinists have DELIBERATELY defined Science to EXCLUDE anything other that 'naturalistic' origins explantions!!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, I think you'll find that it is scientists who have deliberately defined science to exclude anything other than naturalistic explanations. That's what science philosophically is and has been since long before evolution came on the scene. The attempt to model the natural world. Some of your friends have sought to re-define science from the outside so that it includes their ideas, but thankfully few are fooled by that tactic.

I think the problem is not so much the definition of science (although the definition of science belongs to the philosophy department - is that a science as well?) but knowing the limitation of your definition.

If we define science as targeting naturalistic explanations, than we must admit that we have excluded all non naturalistic explanations. And since science doesn't study those (but excludes them) it can never say anything scientifically about this.

So if I find that the most likely explanation is non naturalistic, I am making a statement outside the scientific realm. Since I know that science only covers the natural world, I am not obset by that.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
Darwinists have DELIBERATELY defined Science to EXCLUDE anything other that 'naturalistic' origins explantions!!!!!

I think the problem is not so much the definition of science (although the definition of science belongs to the philosophy department - is that a science as well?) but knowing the limitation of your definition.

If we define science as targeting naturalistic explanations, than we must admit that we have excluded all non naturalistic explanations. And since science doesn't study those (but excludes them) it can never say anything scientifically about this.

So if I find that the most likely explanation is non naturalistic, I am making a statement outside the scientific realm. Since I know that science only covers the natural world, I am not obset by that.

But nature is merely the observable. The measurable. And so science is the study of all that can be observed. If we can observe and measure a thing previously called "supernatural" then it is no longer supernatural but merely natural. So what you are really suggesting is that it is reasonable to suggest that a thing may be caused by a defined thing that we cannot observe. That is quite different to saying "cause unknown" and quite different to constructing a hypothesis that we can test.

Do you think that it is reasonable to point to a phenomenon with an unknown cause and suggest that the most likely explanation is not something that we can observe but is instead a specific thing that we cannot observe? Is that not merely the same as wild speculation? If we do not have specific evidence, could we not be equally justified in claiming any one of an infinite number of random things fits into the gap in our understanding?

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But nature is merely the observable. The measurable. And so science is the study of all that can be observed.

I think this is where you go wrong. The reality is more than can be observed or measured. How do you measure love or pain?

Science excludes in its focus many other things. Unique events and unique "objects" such as you and me, the individual. Science doesn't say anything about your lifespan, but has lots to say about the average lifespan and life expectancie. Science looks at collection of data, and looses therefore the individual.
Now God is an individual, and therefore lost to science.
Science is about knowledge. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom