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)
Comments
-
Well no, I wouldn't. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to worship me
Hey me neither but God if He exists is apparently different. Go figure...This is also ignoring the fact that God didn't donate anything to us. God creating the universe was as easy as me sitting here in this chair breathing. What "trauma" did God under go to create the universe?
Well for one we don't know and sure even if there was none then I don't see how that is a reason for not thanking and praising the creator for life.I know you do, but you seem to view these things differently to me, which is probably why you accept all this stuff as quite rational and proper.
It is only rational and proper if it is true. If its not I fail to see what we can measure anything up to in order to ascertain its rationality and properness.That is a nonsense definition of worship designed purely to suit your religion. Me doing my dry cleaning is not worshipping false idols.
You don't have to perfectly break the law in order to have broken the law. If God exist and is the giver of all life including the life that flows through your veins then putting anything before Him is idolatry no matter how mundane you might think that is. If God exists then it is all about what He thinks of things not what we think of it.I can't really see anything more self obsessed than religion Soul Winner. You talk about people being obsessed with looking after themselves but your whole religion is based around saving yourself.
Actually its not, it is about God saving us, we cannot save ourselves. All we can do is have faith in Him and he does the rest.Besides I'm not sure why worshipping God is any better than worshipping yourself. It's not like God needs it or anything.
No but He obviously values it. Maybe He requires it because He knows deep down that we need to give it and to not require it would show an un-caring-ness to His nature.Not in the slightest. Why would he get annoyed by that? He is a god for crying out loud. You think a god get annoyed that one of his creations bought a cinema ticket?
Well I doubt He gets annoyed at people buying cinema tickets per say. I'm talking about attitude towards Him. If your attitude is one that ignores Him completely only then would your buying a cinema ticket would piss Him off. Like if say a family members of yours dies (God forbid) and you find out that one of your best friends couldn't go to the funeral because they went to the cinema then you'd be pretty pissed off with them. Oh you get what I mean.Again if I created A.I I would not require, need or except my little creations to worship me. I wouldn't care if they even knew I existed. I wouldn't be creating them for the pay back, creating them to be worshipped by them. I would be creating them so they exist, and after that I wouldn't care what they thought of me.
What if your A.I. creating eventually ended up with you deciding to create something so different than your previous preprogrammed robots, which took shape in something that you valued so much that you would die yourself for it in order that it never could never get consigned to the eternal skip along with its other broken down predecessors??It is bewildering to me that you guys assign a level of emotional neediness to a god that would seem a bit pathetic in a human.
We don't assign them to Him, God Himself assigns them to Himself.But the whole Bible is anthropomorphizing God, that is the point and probably why he seems to pleasing and rational to you. He is basically a human, he acts like a human, he thinks like a human and he feels like a human, and one that acts in quite a flawed human fashion.And more importantly he acts and feels and behaves like humans 5,000 years ago, strangely enough around the time the Bible stories started to appear in human culture.To believe that an all powerful and eternal god would feel and behave like a mesopotamian king rather stretches the bounds of credibility.And if God is just like an ancient king I see that as a pretty good reason not to worship him or take moral guidance from him.Only if one doesn't understand Occam's razor, which very few around here seem to.The introduction of an assumption of a deity to explain something like the universe is a text book example of doing the opposite of Occam's razor. For a start "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything since no one can tell us what God actually did.0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Could you give a fly-by tour of what it does claim?
Genuinely curious, btw.
The term "big bang" is really an umbrella term for a couple of different models describing the evolution of our universe from approximately 13 billion years ago. It is a theory of origins only insofar as it tells us about the origin of the current state of the observable universe from initial conditions that existed a finite amount of time in the past.
It is true that general relativity predicts a singularity at the beginning of the observable universe's history, but the theory of relativity is not complete, as it does not incorporate quantum mechanics. So we don't have a proper theory of 'quantum gravity' which would be needed to address any speculation regarding the nature of any big bang singularity. Heck, quantum gravity might debunk the idea of a singularity completely.
Even if we restric ourselves to classical theories like relativity, we can't get away with saying the universe came from nothing. Saying the universe came from nothing implies that there was nothing and then there was something. "Then" implies a time before the big bang. Which is as meaningful as saying "north of the north pole".
As for the precise details of the big bang models; I'd recommend the following link
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.2005v1.pdf
Ignore parts 1 to 10 (unless you really want to learn about relativity) and scroll down to part 11:"The Thermal History of the Universe" and start reading from there. If you can spare a half an hour, you should have a good understanding of the main aspects big bang models (any questions are welcome).0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Gryphonboy: That was your first post on Boards? Impressive...
As AH said, welcome to the megathread. Our resident creationist's (there's really only one left arguing) circles are getting smaller and smaller. Enjoy the show.
JC, I know at times it must seem more like raiders attacking the wagons, but Truth will prevail.
[B]1 John[/B] 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them.0 -
0
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »So, we wait weeks and weeks for you to respond to our questions, then we refute your responses and you revert back to quote spamming mode again. You're getting tiresomely predictable, J C.
We answer your questions, your reject the answers. Fair enough, one can't expect a change of mind just like that. But a few post later you are harping back on about us not answering the same questions. I link to creationist research, you say it is only reviews and essays. I point to very extensive research - the RATE project, for example - and you say it is flawed research. OK, but later you revert to saying we have pointed to no research.
Round and round it goes. But something of value is achieved:
1. You have been exposed to the truth about science, both from JC and from the eminent scientists whose quotes you despise as spam.
2. You have been exposed to the truth about God, from JC and several others of us.
What you do with that Truth is up to you. But be warned: despising temporal truth has temporal consequences; despising eternal truth has eternal consequences.0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »I may be wrong in this but I think continuing revelation/personal revelation are features of some denominations of Christianity, but are not features of Catholic belief. That may be why we don't hear it mentioned so often here.0
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »Well, I note that in the Homosexuality thread he explains that he positively identifies a revelation by:
1. Comparing it to things in the bible
2. Comparing it to other revelations described by other people
3. Assessing the outcome of his belief in the context of Christian morality
Problems:
3. Can provide a false positive- many atheists and people of differing religions inadvertently act in accordance with Christian morals. If they claim to have had revelations, that caused them to act as such, but which also contradict scripture then Wolfsbane will consider them deluded. Thus, following this point alone, Wolfsbane himself could as easily be led to do good by delusion as by revelation.
2. Other Christian revelations are determined as true based on 3, 2 and 1 and so 2 in itself is not actually meaningful.
1. Wolfie says that he knows that his revelations are real because the bible says so. However, he also knows that the bible is truthful because his revelations say so. Circular reasoning.
Both his assessment of the literal or general truth of the bible and his assessment of the truth of his revelations as processes lack any means of verification. He's leaving himself no possible exit from the loop.
Does the truth of God match up with what I experience in answer to prayer? Yes. God has specifically answered on numerous occasions.0 -
-
It is you guys who are getting tiresomely predictable, one of the reasons I now only drop in here from time to time.
We answer your questions, your reject the answers. Fair enough, one can't expect a change of mind just like that. But a few post later you are harping back on about us not answering the same questions.
We expect valid answers. We asked for a genetic test and were given a test that doesn't involve genetics; are you surprised that we rejected the answer?I link to creationist research, you say it is only reviews and essays. I point to very extensive research - the RATE project, for example - and you say it is flawed research. OK, but later you revert to saying we have pointed to no research.
I admit I haven't heard of that before.
Just glancing through the first article - it seems extensively footnoted, but most of the footnotes seem to refer to the author's own work. Within the first three sentences of said article, there is one statement of the work undertaken, one unevidenced claim and one non-sequitur. And one exclamation mark, which has no place in an academic article (except as a mathematical symbol).
Seriously, I'm a musician, not a scientist. If even I can see through this rubbish, then it really is badly put together.Round and round it goes. But something of value is achieved:
1. You have been exposed to the truth about science, both from JC and from the eminent scientists whose quotes you despise as spam.
Quotes taken out of context, or misunderstood by J C, or irrelevant. As for J C's 'science', he has been stubbornly refusing to show us any for about fifty pages now. He repeatedly refuses to divulge the names of even a single scientist who is engaged in creation research.2. You have been exposed to the truth about God, from JC and several others of us.
Truth is all fine, but where's the evidence?What you do with that Truth is up to you. But be warned: despising temporal truth has temporal consequences; despising eternal truth has eternal consequences.
And a vague threat. How nice.0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »Naturalistic Explanation = Complex systems arising through complex processes.
Theistic Explanation = God, who has always been there, just made it by speaking.
Wonderful...
Are you a descendant of Caiaphas, the high priest, by any chance?
He too spoke the truth without realising it:
John 11:47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. 48 If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”
49 And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
53 Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.
But to get to your Naturalistic Explanation. Complex systems arising through complex processes - where did the complex processes and systems come from? Remember, only naturalistic explanations allowed.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is you guys who are getting tiresomely predictable, one of the reasons I now only drop in here from time to time.
We answer your questions, your reject the answers. Fair enough, one can't expect a change of mind just like that. But a few post later you are harping back on about us not answering the same questions. I link to creationist research, you say it is only reviews and essays. I point to very extensive research - the RATE project, for example - and you say it is flawed research. OK, but later you revert to saying we have pointed to no research.
Anyone can 'answer' questions. I could answer AtomicHorror's questions with 'blueberry', but it wouldn't get us anywhere.
Each of the questions involves an issue that needs to be addressed by creationists if their 'science' is to be taken seriously. The half-baked answers provided by JC do not address those issues, as AtomicHorror has already pointed out.
The only way for this thread to progress is if you or JC genuinely answers those questions.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Hey me neither but God if He exists is apparently different. Go figure...Soul Winner wrote: »Well for one we don't know and sure even if there was none then I don't see how that is a reason for not thanking and praising the creator for life.
I'm not quite sure what we are supposed to be thankful for. It would be like being thankful that I didn't walk into you as we cross in the street.Soul Winner wrote: »It is only rational and proper if it is true. If its not I fail to see what we can measure anything up to in order to ascertain its rationality and properness.
If you have no problem with an irrational super intelligence then believe away, but to me it seems more plausible that he just doesn't exist.Soul Winner wrote: »If God exist and is the giver of all life including the life that flows through your veins then putting anything before Him is idolatry no matter how mundane you might think that is.
Idolatry is used in the Bible ("avodah zarah") is worshipping idols or objects as one would worship God.
I don't worship my dry cleaning as you worship your god.Soul Winner wrote: »If God exists then it is all about what He thinks of things not what we think of it.Soul Winner wrote: »Actually its not, it is about God saving us, we cannot save ourselves. All we can do is have faith in Him and he does the rest.
It is like saying you don't save yourself from a fire, the fire fighters do. You still do what the fire fighters tell you because you want to save yourself. If you didn't want to save yourself, or say you wanted to save the cat instead of you, you wouldn't. The motivation is to save oneself, just as it is in your religion.Soul Winner wrote: »No but He obviously values it. Maybe He requires it because He knows deep down that we need to give it and to not require it would show an un-caring-ness to His nature.
Why would a god care if we should uncaring to his nature? We are back to an irrational, needy, god, again very similar to a ergonomically Mesopotamian king.Soul Winner wrote: »Like if say a family members of yours dies (God forbid) and you find out that one of your best friends couldn't go to the funeral because they went to the cinema then you'd be pretty pissed off with them. Oh you get what I mean.
But again the analogy doesn't even hold if we assume God is human like because a family member dying is not the same as my creations ignoring me.
TBH it would be like being annoyed a computer program I wrote didn't thank me for writing it. I seriously seriously doubt I would care, and even if I did I would not get that worked up about it (plus I'm a needy human remember)
The idea of a jealous God seems totally nonsensical to me. Possibly not to you, but to me it does.Soul Winner wrote: »What if your A.I. creating eventually ended up with you deciding to create something so different than your previous preprogrammed robots, which took shape in something that you valued so much that you would die yourself for it in order that it never could never get consigned to the eternal skip along with its other broken down predecessors??
That would be the eternal skip I was sending them to for not praising me in the first place?
Personally I would just not send them to the eternal Trash folder, rather that going through a highly convoluted and illogical process so I can say I'm not going to send them to the Trash folder.Soul Winner wrote: »We don't assign them to Him, God Himself assigns them to Himself.Soul Winner wrote: »Humans still act and feel like humans 5000 years ago. We have emotions, values, morals just like those of 5000 years ago. What’s changed?Soul Winner wrote: »To what Mesopotamian king are you referring?Soul Winner wrote: »I don’t think that He acts like any king I’ve ever read about.Soul Winner wrote: »Maybe they try to act like Him. God first revealed Himself to Abraham and gave Him promises. That is not like any king I know.
The authors of Genesis were describing why they believed their people were special or chosen using a quite ordinary and common human frame of reference that most of those reading the story would have been familiar with.Soul Winner wrote: »Occam’s razor says that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the right explanation.
Occam's razor says that if you can remove an assumption from a theory and still have the same level of explanation then remove the assumption, it is unnecessary.
An example would be a stone on a hill. You go away for an hour and come back and the stone is at the bottom of the hill. You suppose that the stone rolled down to the bottom of the hill. You test this and see that yes that seems likely. Someone else supposes that the stone rolled down the hill, then half way stopped rolled back up the hill, then rolled all the way down again.
The second hypothesis introduces the unnecessary assumption that the stone stopped some how, turned back up, and then rolled down.
Given that the first hypothesis explains the evidence, and there is no evidence that needs explaining from the second, it is safe to drop the second.
That is Occam's Razor.
"God did it" is unnecessary, it doesn't explain anything nor does it increase understanding because you don't understand what God did, or even if he did anything at all.Soul Winner wrote: »“God created the Universe!” Is the simplest explanation as to how it came about and as such according to Occam’s razor, must be the most plausible explanation.
I would be very interested in you explaining what God actually did :pac:
And no, "He spoke" isn't an explanation.Soul Winner wrote: »We don’t know how He did, how He was able to do it, why He did or exactly when He did it but one these can’t be grounds o which to say that He didn’t create it.
No, but they are very good grounds to invoke Occam's razor.
If you don't know what he did then saying "He did something" isn't an explanation. It does not increase our understanding of the universe and how it came into being, and more importantly it doesn't give any framework to testing if God was or was not responsible.
It is a useless, unfounded, untestable, assumption that doesn't go to explaining anything about the universe.Soul Winner wrote: »The theist holds that God did it and can find within the structure of it evidence which suggests a super intelligence
That is meaningless. Anything can "suggest" anything to anyone. Someone could claim that my iPod suggests that their wife is having an affair.
What matters is what you can model and test, not what something may or may not suggest to you.Soul Winner wrote: »so until it can be shown that a universe can just pop into existence from nothing by itself then I don’t see why the theist should abandon his intuitive belief that God did it.
Well a good start would be because it is an intuitive belief, and those things are nearly always wrong when it comes to physics.0 -
I thought I would grab a few scientific papers and put them up, just to show what one is and for people to contrast with the journalistic articles our creationist friends assert are on a par with them. I will use non-evolution-y ones.
http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&afpf=g00-042.pdf&journal=gen&volume=43
http://eccentric.mae.cornell.edu/~tcg/pubs/Muradoglu_PC_CF_99.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/Citations/ETC_Russom_1997_v16p948.pdf
Note the use of mathematics and empirical, verifiable data.
Note the lack of this in creationist articles.
This is why creationism is not science.
You dont need to be a scientist to see this.0 -
I link to creationist research, you say it is only reviews and essays.
Well, that's because it is just that. I'd be equally unsatisfied if I asked for essays and you gave me scientific investigations. Give me something with an experiment, results and it has to be about creation.I point to very extensive research - the RATE project, for example - and you say it is flawed research.
It is flawed but it is research. But it is not creation research. Really, we've been over this. Perhaps the real reason you frequent this thread less and less is your embarrassment at your inability to answer the most straight-forward of questions?You have been exposed to the truth about science
What is the 'truth' about science to which you are referring??0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »I thought I would grab a few scientific papers and put them up, just to show what one is and for people to contrast with the journalistic articles our creationist friends assert are on a par with them.
Exactly. This is not a difficult concept. Perform an experiment. Document your results. Present the results. = science. Write an essay about creation with no evidence and that is not science.
Wolfsbane are you listening? First it was the atheist conspiracy to not publish creation science. No evidence of this could be found because no creation science was ever submitted to a journal. Then it was the science is there but you couldn't actually find any! You are out of excuses. The ONLY creation science science that exists is the stuff that J C (y'know, that guy/girl that we orbit?) did and he won't tell ANYONE what it is! He won't pick out a single creation scientist because he knows none will have a record of ever performing creation science. You freely point to people who you think are creation scientists (even though none perform creation research). Why do you think that he won't?! :pac:0 -
AtomicHorror said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not with the givens of both systems. God being eternal, self-existent is a given. Your materialistic universe, however, has only original energy as the given. It has to account, using physical/chemical explanations, for how that energy became so organised that basic life came about, and that evolved to the incredible complexity we see today.
We don't really have givens in our model of absolute cause, partly because we don't have a model of absolute cause and partly because any such model would itself surely be all about explaining the givens. We don't know what everything came from. It may all simply have existed in another configuration prior to the big bang. Or that might really be the origin of everything, though that still leaves questions. The point is, we're making models based on what we know, and beyond that we have hypotheses. Putting God into the mix is suggested by nothing we have observed except a book.We may have much to account for.But if you are to approach this scientifically, you have to account for all of the same stuff we can observe, then account for the existence of an irreducibly complex being in an extradimensional space without time, and then explain how (without any time within which to be a causal agent or to become complex) that being created and interacted with a new universe of a nature entirely alien to it.
So one cannot approach God scientifically. Reality is more than science. Science is just a part of reality.That's a real mess, but one which you seek to avoid by calling God a given.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Perhaps you need to read a bit of Pullman? In his promotion of atheism he resorts to pantheism - that matter itself has a desire/purpose that causes it to develop from simple energy to complex lifeforms. To be fair, he was writing a fantasy story. He's an atheist, so if he's referring to matter having purpose (I haven't read the books) that's hardly an indication of his beliefs. And of course, that could in fact be our old friend metaphor. Matter, anthropomorphized, could be said to have purpose. It "wants" if you like, to follow the laws of physics. We often use such language when learning about concepts in science. We say that atoms "want" to fill their electron shells, though of course we know they have no wants.
But he wants to prevent kids from being theists, especially from becoming Christians. It seems he knows materialistic atheism cannot account for the reality kids will encounter. He therefore opts for pantheism as an explanation of the spiritual dimension that is evident to all but the wilfully blind.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A desperate attempt to avoid the truth about God, but a more coherent explanation of reality than your dead-dog mechanistic model.
Tell me Wolfie, have you worked out a way to test the difference between revelation and delusion yet? Since delusion or rebellion are the only possible motives we might have to desperately avoid the truth about God, such a test would be very useful.
I have found the gospel to produce wonderful change for the better in the lives of all who sincerely embrace it. I have found the God of the Bible to be a Deliverer and Provider in all my needs.0 -
Anyone can 'answer' questions. I could answer AtomicHorror's questions with 'blueberry', but it wouldn't get us anywhere.
Each of the questions involves an issue that needs to be addressed by creationists if their 'science' is to be taken seriously. The half-baked answers provided by JC do not address those issues, as AtomicHorror has already pointed out.
The only way for this thread to progress is if you or JC genuinely answers those questions.
Or if you guys stop rejecting answers just because you don't like them. But, hey, I've seen how secular scientists rubbish each other's work, so I don't expect anything less when you deal with creation scientists. A bit of honesty would be nice, however.0 -
-
Flamed Diving wrote: »I thought I would grab a few scientific papers and put them up, just to show what one is and for people to contrast with the journalistic articles our creationist friends assert are on a par with them. I will use non-evolution-y ones.
http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&afpf=g00-042.pdf&journal=gen&volume=43
http://eccentric.mae.cornell.edu/~tcg/pubs/Muradoglu_PC_CF_99.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/Citations/ETC_Russom_1997_v16p948.pdf
Note the use of mathematics and empirical, verifiable data.
... and many Creation Scientists ALSO produce such (non-origins) peer reviewed work ... in addition to their peer-reviewded Creation Science work!!!!:D:)0 -
Gryphonboy wrote: »Equally, what “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution? None of the following questions are valid scientific questions. Using big words and scientific terminology you clearly do not understand does not make them scientific. Fail.
1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true? That’s not what evolution is. See Abiogenesis...Fail.
2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility? See answer to question 1. Fail
3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, evolutioists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God? It’s not an if / therefore question. Fail
4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure? It is, there are and they have. Every fossil is an intermediary and every living organism is an intermediary between its parents and its offspring. Fail
5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman? Two words, Common Ancestor. There was a first ‘human’ woman but she wasn’t created from thin air, she was born just like the rest of us. Fail
6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man?See answer to question 5. Fail
7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind? See, Theory of Evolution. It explains it quite well. Fail
8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems? See, Theory of Evolution. It explains it quite well. Fail
9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – while they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design? I don’t know, why don’t you ask them. I do know that they don’t believe it was an accident of nature. Fail
10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual? Please provide evidence of perfection in all species. Most biological systems fail within a relatively short period even if they survive predation for any length of time. Fail.
11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time? It is not the ‘only’ mechanism...see Descent, Migration(Gene flow), Genetic Drift and Natural selection. Nor does it invariably damage the genome. Most times it has no effect at all. Fail
12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ? Natural selection, that’s how. Are you even listening? Fail>
13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true? I don’t understand the question. Fail
14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”? Hard to say, there isn’t much fossil evidence of ancient dna/rna.Fail
15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there? What in Gods name are you blathering about? Fail
16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82? Making up odds and then using them to disprove an argument is the definition of a ‘Strawman’. Fail
17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery? See answer to question 1. Fail.
18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life? The Cambrian explosion is quite well explained by evolution. It certainly makes more sense than God looking at his creation and thinking, "You know what, I didn't create enough ****. Lets add some stuff."Fail
19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred? Source? Fail. At any rate, adaptation appears to have been taking place here, therefore...evolution.Fail
20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory? Because it is. Fail
21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like? The theory of evolution makes no philosophical/moral arguments. The evidence is what it is. Deal with it. Fail
.....thanks also for 'marking' the answers ... it saved me the bother ... and I do agree ....all of the answers were a big fat 'F' for Fail!!!:pac::):D0 -
Advertisement
-
santing wrote:The popular "All About Science" websites starts with:
Quote:
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
'First there was nothing ... and then it blew up'!!!
OR
'In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth'
....I don't know about you ... but I know which one I would stake my eternal life on...
....but everyone to their own taste ... or fantasy ... if you are a Materialist!!!!:):D:eek:0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Perhaps you'd like to have a pop at AtomicHorror's thirteen questions, then?
J C's attempt was obviously an utter failure, but - who knows? - you might fare better.
...anything an Evolutionist can do ... a Creation Scientist can do better!!!!:pac::):D:eek:0 -
....yes they are science papers ... that have nothing to do with Evolution.
*sigh* No-one said they did. They're just examples of what science papers look like.... and many Creation Scientists ALSO produce such (non-origins) peer reviewed work !!!!:D:)
Then why won't you show us any?
Edit: I've just realised that this seems to be an admission that creationist scientists don't produce creation science, merely science that has nothing to do with creationism. No-one's disputed that. What we're looking for is science that has something to do with creationism....I will deal with any criticism of my answers to AH's 13 questions ... when you properly answer my 21 questions!!!!:pac::):D
...anything an Evolutionist can do ... a Creation Scientist can do better!!!!:pac::):D:eek:
Um...Gryphonboy answered them in his own post. Now, at least AtomicHorror had the decency to say why he rejected your answers - surely you don't think we're just going to accept you saying 'fail'.0 -
-
-
It is you guys who are getting tiresomely predictable, one of the reasons I now only drop in here from time to time.
We answer your questions, your reject the answers. Fair enough, one can't expect a change of mind just like that. But a few post later you are harping back on about us not answering the same questions.
When a person asks for an example of a natural process and the reply is "cement", is that an answer? More to the point, you have never answered any of those questions. If I am wrong please do point me to the relevant posts.I link to creationist research, you say it is only reviews and essays. I point to very extensive research - the RATE project, for example - and you say it is flawed research. OK, but later you revert to saying we have pointed to no research.
The RATE project is the only primary research you have yet shown us. You seemed unable to understand it yourself. From my own reading of it, it seemed to contradict what chemistry and physics I do know. So perhaps if you give me some biology, some genetics, I can assess that primary research.What you do with that Truth is up to you. But be warned: despising temporal truth has temporal consequences; despising eternal truth has eternal consequences.
Perhaps, though we cannot test the second assertion. You just know it because a book you just know is correct says so. You know all of this is okay because you just know it.
I can tell you that there is evidence that allowing a book to dictate your morals and your assessment of reality has consequences. But you'll tell me that you just know that isn't so.0 -
Well, I note that in the Homosexuality thread he explains that he positively identifies a revelation by:
1. Comparing it to things in the bible
2. Comparing it to other revelations described by other people
3. Assessing the outcome of his belief in the context of Christian morality
Problems:
3. Can provide a false positive- many atheists and people of differing religions inadvertently act in accordance with Christian morals. If they claim to have had revelations, that caused them to act as such, but which also contradict scripture then Wolfsbane will consider them deluded. Thus, following this point alone, Wolfsbane himself could as easily be led to do good by delusion as by revelation.
2. Other Christian revelations are determined as true based on 3, 2 and 1 and so 2 in itself is not actually meaningful.
1. Wolfie says that he knows that his revelations are real because the bible says so. However, he also knows that the bible is truthful because his revelations say so. Circular reasoning.
Both his assessment of the literal or general truth of the bible and his assessment of the truth of his revelations as processes lack any means of verification. He's leaving himself no possible exit from the loop.
You seem to have, er, overlooked my other 'test':
Does the truth of God match up with what I experience in answer to prayer? Yes. God has specifically answered on numerous occasions.
How does this "test" really allow you an exit from your circular reasoning? Is prayer subject to testing? Can we do a large scale study with controls?
What percentage of times does prayer outcome match up with The Word?
To what extent is each match compatible?
How much time passes on average between request and response?
How do you determine a causal rather than temporal connection between prayer and response?
How do you control for confirmation bias?
How often do things happen in line with The Word that you have not asked for? How often do your prayers go entirely un-answered?
How do you determine this if you are only looking for responses which are compatible with the word?
How does this system compare to experiences in people of your faith?
How does it contrast with people of differing faiths?
What makes you right and them wrong?
This is what being open minded is really all about. As Minchin says (roughly), show me evidence and I'll turn on a dime. For anything.0 -
We have the Book, and we have a spiritual awareness (if we are honest enough to admit it) that naturalism cannot account for.
Once, naturalism could not account for the sunrise. So they made a God of it. We are willing to try and find our answers, just as those early scientists came to understand the nature of the sun. You would rather we stopped looking. Like the Sun worshippers, you are afraid.No, we do not have to explain how God created it all out of nothing, or how He could be self-existent. Those are outside the realm of science - because God Himself created the laws of science. He governs them, not them Him.
If you would call creationism "science", you absolutely do have to explain these things. That's the cost of brining the fight onto this field. There are no satisfactory givens. There is no end to the questions. If creationism disagrees, it is not science, just cargo cult science.So one cannot approach God scientifically. Reality is more than science. Science is just a part of reality.
Science is the study of all that can be observed by people. By sight, by smell, taste, touch, sound. By devices that convert what we cannot observe into what we can. By what we feel emotionally, spiritually, by what we believe. All observation. Science is the sum of all observation.
What is reality?
What is real that can never be observed directly or indirectly?It would be a real mess to try to apply science to the spiritual realm.
And yet we have used it to show that all those spiritual realms that you yourself dismiss are false. Psychic powers, prescience, necromancy, tarot, horoscopes... I'm sure it suits you to accept that science has fully explained these things in naturalistic terms.But he wants to prevent kids from being theists, especially from becoming Christians.
Really? Or maybe his atheism just prevented him from putting a familiar spiritualism into his story. Perhaps he thought that would be rather hypocritical of him.It seems he knows materialistic atheism cannot account for the reality kids will encounter. He therefore opts for pantheism as an explanation of the spiritual dimension that is evident to all but the wilfully blind.
He also put talking bears in there.I agree. Test revelation by seeing if it works in practise - does it produce goodness in the person who believes it? Does the God who it reveals answer prayer, or is he always missing?
Delusion can produce good also. Confirmation bias will lead the deluded to see their prayers answered. Though they'll ignore the cases that don't quite fit or which never were answered and call it the mysterious and ineffable will of God. You cannot test the difference on that basis.0 -
...I will deal with any criticism of my answers to AH's 13 questions ... when you properly answer my 21 questions!!!!:pac::):D
-I posted some questions.
-After a very long time, you posted some replies.
-I immediately went through these one by one and explained fully why these were not satisfactory.
-We await your rebuttal.
-You posted some questions (I don't remember seeing them before so perhaps it has been a very long time- for all I know, I've already replied to them)
-After a very long time, someone posted some replies.
-You dismissed them all in a single sarcastic remark.
-We cannot offer a meaningful rebuttal to a sarcastic remark.
If this is the way that you will conduct yourself, then we are not obligated to answer your questions at all. The evidence suggests that you will dismiss our replies without explanation. That is not a debate, it is denial.0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »-You posted some questions (I don't remember seeing them before so perhaps it has been a very long time- for all I know, I've already replied to them)
-After a very long time, someone posted some replies.
-You dismissed them all in a single sarcastic remark.
-We cannot offer a meaningful rebuttal to a sarcastic remark.
Actually, I think gryphonboy was just answering typical creationist questions - would explain why J C thanked him for creating a list.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement