The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

I asked you a while back, but I don't recall seeing any reply:

You continually link to articles that certainly I never read, and I suspect that almost nobody else does either.

You also say that you don't understand anything about biology -- I'd have thought that the large amount of time that you spend on this thread would be a good opportunity to learn something about it.

So, instead of just linking to stuff that others have written, why not try reading them, summarizing them and posting your understanding?

I appreciate your honesty about blanking any articles I link to. Must be difficult to have your foundations challenged so well.

Yes, you did miss my explanation of why I don't take the time to be a scientist.

But I'll outline it briefly again for you: essentially, it is not my calling. I am called to evangelise and teach the doctrines of the faith. That involves me at times defending the veracity of the Bible in regard to creation. I answer objections of a scientific nature by refering to scientific arguments of Creationist scientists.

Of course, if no one raises the theory of evolution as a proof against the Bible, I'm happy to ignore it.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...so ARE you saying that you don't know what information is or how to recognise it definitively?


AtomicHorror
You're being asked a question. How do you define information. Responding with mockery is avoiding the question. That is a rather dishonest tactic as well as being rude.

.....of course Creation Science CAN define Genetic Information ...and I will do so ... after I have demonstrated Evolutionary Science as being INCAPABLE of this elementary definition!!!!:cool::eek:

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Of course, if no one raises the theory of evolution as a proof against the Bible, I'm happy to ignore it.

The only ones that argue that this is even an issue are creationists! :pac: I would be delighted if simply ignored science (as, from a certain point of view, you are already doing) since it is irrelevant to your faith and the fact that there are no documented examples of creation science, to my knowledge.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

You haven't provided any actual science yet, remember?


I don't believe that you are, since some facile, non-scientific reassurance from creation journalists is all that it takes to convince you otherwise.


Maybe. But man's scientific research all points in the same direction. Unless you've found some creation science in the last few days??

It comes down to this: I post links to scientific articles, you say they are not science. No matter what I post, you dismiss it as not science.

Now if it did not originate with scientists skilled in the particular fields, I could understand me getting it wrong all the time. But your credibility is totally undermined by the nature of these scientists who argue against you. I do not believe they are all liars or incapable of honest assessment of evidence.

So for me the debate remains between them and the evolutionist scientists. You wish to believe there is no debate. I'm sorry for your dogmatic blindness.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

The only ones that argue that this is even an issue are creationists! :pac: I would be delighted if simply ignored science (as, from a certain point of view, you are already doing) since it is irrelevant to your faith and the fact that there are no documented examples of creation science, to my knowledge.

Hmm. Seems to me evolution is often raised by atheists and others as a proof against the Bible. It seems to be an issue for them.

I have posted numerous examples of creation science. You seem to have an odd concept of its definition.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

[I am quite prepared to be put in the postion where I would have to concede that all the evidence appears to support evolution, while still holding my religious conviction that the facts will later turn up to refute that. From what I gather from the scientists in the Creation movement, I'm in no danger of having to do that anytime soon.

....you are quite correct Wolfsbane ... the evidence for Creation is overwhelming....
....ironically, it is the 'observationally challenged' Evolutionists who are actually in the the position where they can only believe that they are spontaneously evolved by FAITH ALONE!!!!!:pac::D

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

No matter what I post, you dismiss it as not science.

Hypothesis.
Method.
Results.
Conclusion.
Srsly.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

It comes down to this: I post links to scientific articles, you say they are not science. No matter what I post, you dismiss it as not science.

Because it's not! I can say I'm surprised you haven't noticed, since you just admitted a few posts back that you don't read them yourself. You've been told exactly what science is. That hasn't changed. Just haven't provided an example of it yet.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But your credibility is totally undermined by the nature of these scientists who argue against you. I do not believe they are all liars or incapable of honest assessment of evidence.

They are not scientists if they aren't performing science, first of all. Second, I imagine they feel, as you do, that the Bible is the ultimate authority and they can casually dismiss evidence to the contrary - as actually stated in the instructions for authors of one of your creation science journals - can't remember which one but it's been linked to in this thread about a year ago. Third, I strongly suspect that to many evangelicals, the end justifies the means - bypassing the intellect and doing what is necessary to get someone to accept the Lord as their personal saviour. Fourth, the money.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So for me the debate remains between them and the evolutionist scientists. You wish to believe there is no debate. I'm sorry for your dogmatic blindness.

There is no scientific debate if only one side has any evidence to provide. There is a debate in that you have an opinion contrary to mine. Yours just doesn't have any scientific weight behind it. You don't want to know science. you don't listen when it is explained what science entails. All of that's fine by me - I just wish you PUT UP OR SHUT UP when it comes to science.

kiffer

J C wrote: »

....those were obviously 'old' evolutionist accounts of Weasels and Warthogs....with observation and logic sorely lacking.... just like 'modern' evolution has an equally unobserved and preposterous account of muck spontaneously evolving into Man!!!:eek::D

... J C... what the hell are you babbling about? You're really far gone at this point.
Pliny was not a evolutionist, nor was Isidore of Seville or Bartholomaeus Anglicus.

My point was that the descriptions of animals from that time were crap, not that the animals actually looked like that.

People with crap descriptions of animals draw crap pictures of animals that look nothing like the animals.

.....I guess something with "the body of an ox, thick legs, the head of a hog and a neck like an empty intestine" could be something that multiple mutations might possibly cause ....though it sounds like it would never live to reproduce ....once again another good evolution story falls flat on its face ... or in this case its (thankfully) 'empty intestine'!!!!
:eek::pac::D

J C, the catobleps never existed... but people trusted random descriptions that that floated around the place... and then tried to draw things... Medieval artists were frankly crap. and had crap descriptions to work with... and for some reason decided it was a good idea to draw pictures of things which they'd never seen themselves, and as such made a right mess of it...

Crap medieval art is not evidence that there were dinosaurs wandering around at the same time as humans.

2Scoops

kiffer wrote: »

Crap medieval art is not evidence that there were dinosaurs wandering around at the same time as humans.

It's all immaterial anyway, since J C believes crocodiles and komodo dragons are, in fact, dinosaurs; and they certainly co-existed with medieval man.

The Mad Hatter

2Scoops wrote: »

It's all immaterial anyway, since J C believes crocodiles and komodo dragons are, in fact, dinosaurs; and they certainly co-existed with medieval man.

And rhinos. They're the same thing as triceratopses, don'tcha know?

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

It's all immaterial anyway, since J C believes crocodiles and komodo dragons are, in fact, dinosaurs; and they certainly co-existed with medieval man.

....the Evolutionists ALSO say that Crocodiles and Komodo Dragons lived at the same time as the Dinosaurs ... and haven't changed a bit since then ... the only thing we actually differ on is the timescale involved!!!!:pac::):D

....and there are many recorded incidents of fossilised Human and Dinosaur footprints being found TOGETHER!!!

In Turkmenistan
http://www.dinosaursandman.com/research/WALKING_WITH_DINOSAURS.pdf

Here is a human footprint on top of a Dinosaur print!!!
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm

and here are some reports of LIVING Dinosaurs in Africa!!!
http://www.livingdinos.com/mokele_mbembe.html
http://www.mokelembembe.com/
http://www.unknownexplorers.com/mokelembembe.php
http://www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/mokele.php

..and here is a thousand year old carving of a Stegosaurus in in the Ta Prohm temple monastery complex in Cambodia.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia-stegasarus.jpg
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

Mickeroo

kiffer wrote: »

Sedimentary layers are generally laid down 'parallel', but there are a number of things which can effect this... flow features, cross bedding, angular unconformities caused by (uplift + tilting -> erosion -> subsidence -> more deposition) and so on.
folding and tilting are post depositional and I give the author enough credit to assume he means sedimentary layers are parallel when originally deposited but can be folded later ... I might be assuming too much.



There is a lovely spot on the northside of Dublin, where you can see ancient karst surfaces which have had more limestone deposited above them...

EDIT: I'm thinking of an area near Lane, there is a little valley in the limestone with Karst floor, which has been in filled with conglomerate. My memory is sketchy though...



Much like infilled channels this shows an area that was once below sea level allowing deposition, then above sea level allowing the karst formation, and then below sea level again allowing more rock to be deposited on top. Exactly the sort of thing you need to have happen for the channels (that the text author erroneously claims do not exists) to form, although in this case we have karst landscape forming rather than streams forming channels, I would expect this to be more common in the case of limestones.

He didn't specifiy any paarticular rock types,i assumed he thought rock was rock and it was all in layers :rolleyes:


i might be reading you wrong there,but you seem to think karst and limestone are two different things,a karst region is one made up of mostly if not entirely limestone or any other soluble rock such as dolomite eg the burren(limestone). Limestone basically dissolves in water,this results in the channels on the surface,and caves underneath its very rare to find water on the surface in a karst landscape......apologies if i got my wires crossed there.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now if it did not originate with scientists skilled in the particular fields, I could understand me getting it wrong all the time. But your credibility is totally undermined by the nature of these scientists who argue against you. I do not believe they are all liars or incapable of honest assessment of evidence

But you think that a much greater number (we're talking about 3 million versus about 1000) of equally skilled and equally qualified scientists are not capable of honest assessment of the evidence? They are all liars? The rest of what they do seems to work just fine- computers, medicine and giant particle accelerators... So they're just lying about the bits which contradict scripture. Without motive, without need, just lying?

3,000,000 scientists versus 1000. I'm not suggesting that the majority should rule, but unless you can look at the science itself and understand at least some of it, then how do you differentiate between the word of two men in white coats telling you opposite things? And if your means to judge is not the Word itself, but your specific interpretation of it, then don't you really need some other means?

I get that you consider creation scientists to be an honest and rigorous bunch, but when you have the likes of Kent Hovind (worst-case example, I know) writing that the appendix is "a germ-free organ", surely you have to admit that some of these guys are at least as fallible as any mainstream scientist. They can be plain wrong, they can be deliberately dishonest. So can mainstream guys.

Of all sciences, biology is by far the easiest for the untrained to understand. Much of it is intuitive. The way science works is not difficult to understand either. How science is generated and published. How it is attacked and refuted or supported.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. Seems to me evolution is often raised by atheists and others as a proof against the Bible. It seems to be an issue for them.

It's useful evidence against a literal interpretation of Genesis and a direct "Designer God". But it's useless as an argument against the existence of God or as a general attack on the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have posted numerous examples of creation science. You seem to have an odd concept of its definition.

You've mostly posted essays and reviews. Papers with new data, in which a hypothesis was proposed and an experiment or experiments performed to test it is what we are looking for when we ask for "creation science".

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....of course Creation Science CAN define Genetic Information ...and I will do so ... after I have demonstrated Evolutionary Science as being INCAPABLE of this elementary definition!!!!:cool::eek:

You're just evading the question. None of us is using "genetic information" as a point of argument. You are. Define it please.

kiffer

Mickeroo wrote: »

He didn't specifiy any paarticular rock types,i assumed he thought rock was rock and it was all in layers :rolleyes:

I'm giving the Text author much more credit than that... maybe I shouldn't!

i might be reading you wrong there,but you seem to think karst and limestone are two different things,a karst region is one made up of mostly if not entirely limestone or any other soluble rock such as dolomite eg the burren(limestone). Limestone basically dissolves in water,this results in the channels on the surface,and caves underneath its very rare to find water on the surface in a karst landscape......apologies if i got my wires crossed there.

LOL. Don't worry neither of us is really wrong here unless I made a crazy massive typo, which I should check out...

Karst features are found in exposed limestone areas...
Limestone is a rock.
Karst is a topography and set of features, surface and subterranean... found in limestone areas.

It's pretty common to just refer to an area with "karst features" as just karst, it's sloppy but common usage.
Clints, Grikes and limestone pavements aren't the only karst features you know...
Yes it's rare to find surface water on a Karst landscape... generally it ends up going down sink holes.
but if you get mass subsidence or sealevel change then the whole area can get flooded and reburied with fresh sediments...
As can be seen in a fair few places, including the coast north of Dublin....

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. Seems to me evolution is often raised by atheists and others as a proof against the Bible. It seems to be an issue for them.

Evolution, Deeptime and related issues are pretty much totally contrary to the literal interpretation of Genesis ... the rest of the bible has it's own problems, which may or may not be sorted out internally *shrug*, but the age of the planet, solar system, nay the very universe has little or no baring on details such as whether or not Jesus said the things he said / did the things he did.

I'm perfectly willing to admit to not being an expert on scripture, although I am happy to pull out snippets to poke at every so often but then I'm also happy to see you pull out some bit of scripture as counter (believe it or not)... unless I feel that your counter doesn't really cut it in which case I'll say so.


Evolution is not an attack on your beliefs, it is simply the way creatures appear to have become the way they are now.
Deep time is not an attack on your beliefs, it is simply that the amount of time that appears to have passed is vast.
I say appear, because that is where the physical evidence leads us.
Deeptime and evolution did not appear overnight... it was a long drawn out process, with people arguing in favor of both ancient and young earths.

Evolution is not an attack against Creationism... Creationism is an attack against the work of many many scientists, by people over invested in a Genesis.

I have posted numerous examples of creation science. You seem to have an odd concept of its definition.

I've not read all the articles that you've linked to, but I have picked a few at random... they are not what you seem to think.
I understand that you want to think that they support your beliefs in some credible way but they all basically just say... "The bible is the word of God, therefore the world is 6000 years old, therefore sediment rates / rates of radioactive decay *must* do XYZ... (even when XYZ is easily disproved, or when we have zero evidence for XYZ)"

They don't actually do anything to demonstrate these things... they just assert them over and over again... without ever ever providing anything other than "this is the way it must be because Genesis must be true".

What we're saying is ... if Genesis is true, they you should be able to provide some testable evidence of this using the world around us.

This, they have not done.

Now as I said I've not read everything you've linked to... I've picked some at random. So if you feel there is one thing you've linked to that is particularly solid in this regard then please, by all means, point it out to me and I'll make an effort to read through it.

Now... pasting from the other thread.

----

wolfsbane wrote:

kiffer wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

He didn’t make it look older than He says it is. The asserted age is an interpretation of the evidence, not the fact behind the evidence.

The series of begats is not evidence... and making up things about changes in rates of radioactive decay aren't either...
The physical evidence points to an old earth, regardless of who or what created it.

This should be on the Creation thread - but let me agree that the begats are not part of the scientific evidence. The research into rates of radioactive decay are and the creationist research into it is not 'made up'.

The begats are how the age of ~6000 years was initially arrived at... and what ties YE creationism to that age.
Do you have even the slightest evidence for the "Exponentially changing Rates of Radioactive decay" model... no? because it was just made up in an attempt to explain away facts. Do they realise that the heat generated from this ridiculous idea would create massive problems for them when dealing with closure temperatures of various minerals as well as being very obvious in the fission tracks found in both zircon and apatite...?
~~Maybe~~ the rate of decay not only changed, falling off exponentially from an insanely high level on the first few days of creation, but was also different in different places ... just to make the whole thing work out... but that brings us back to the idea that God deliberately makes the world look older than it is... which you've already dismissed IIRC.

wolfsbane wrote:

kiffer wrote:

I'm very careful about the sorts of sources that I trust.

Same here.

I feel you may have demonstrated otherwise when it comes to maters of science...

wolfsbane wrote:

kiffer wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

No, the received part I'm speaking about is the interpretation of that information about the isotopes, not the information itself. The information is fine.

You seem to have miss read my post. I suggest you go back and read it again.
I've looked at the information, and the maths behind the dating methods...
The information is fine, the interpretation is sound.

Other scientists disagree about the interpretation.

But not in any way that can actually be shown to be correct... Seriously...
A few years ago creationist were shouting "Radioisotope dating doesn't work the maths is wrong, the isotope data is wrong, it's all lies..."
They couldn't back that up... so now they're crying "The rate of decay must have changed!, if it changed like this... then the maths which works and the isotope date which is correct... fit with our 6000 year figure"... but they have no mechanism, they have no reason, they have no solutions to the heating problems that such a high decay rate would have on high Uranium minerals... It's really grasping for straws...

wolfsbane wrote:

kiffer wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

It’s the assumptions behind the process that bring the problem. Assuming how much parent material was there at the start, or how constant the rate of decay has always been.

The problem here is that you assume that these things have not been thought of...
I suggest you pick up a chemistry book, a book on crystal growth and igneous petrology... read up on the differentiation of magma and the formation of... ah bah... forget about it... I'll simplify it all to one line...
Crystal composition/formation is dependent on melt composition and rate of cooling, the chemistry and structure of crystals of specific minerals allow different incompatible elements to remain only once the temperature of the mineral drops below the closure temperature for that element for that mineral.
This is of course a gross over simplification... needless to say crystal composition is well understood.

As for changing the rate of radioactive decay... I have to say, in all honesty, if the rate of radioactive decay has changed then radioactive dating would have a lot of problems.
But... the creationists that suggest this say that in order for radio-isotope dating to fit into the creationist timeframe the rate of decay for the first 4 days of creation would have to be amazingly high (they don't present any evidence that it happened just that it needs to have happened for them to be right)... HOWEVER this would produce a massive amount of heat... raising the temperature of many crystals above their closure temperatures and certainly destroying any of the fission tracks generated in zircons and apatites...
In fact it could possibly melt high uranium minerals which would be fairly obvious...

Yes, they discuss all this in their papers. Not that they have all the solutions, but they make a case.

With no mechanism, no reason, no model, and no solution to any of the problems this idea creates, then I don't think they can be said to have made a case at all really.

wolfsbane wrote:

kiffer wrote:

wolfbane wrote:

Agreed. The problem comes with determining what is demonstrably not historical.

The creation myth and associated short timeline demonstrably not historical.

That is where the creation scientists disagree with you. They make a contrary case.

The make claims, and flower it up with fancy science words...

wolfsbane wrote:

kiffer wrote:

I think my point may have been something along the lines of... "the age of the Earth is independent of the Truthfulness or Falseness of Abraham's revelation".

Yes, just as any truth is true. It cannot be otherwise.

Twisty...

wolfsbane wrote:

kiffer wrote:

The Flood story is basically taken directly from Babylonian myth and is not part of Abraham's revelation... I read a very interesting article about Abraham once... but I can't remember much about it.

What you read was just a story made up by someone seeking an alternative explanation - they could not possibly know which account came from what source. Were both corruptions of an original? Is one an accurate account from an earlier source? Was the original just a fairy story, or was it factual?

What I read was just a made up story eh? The things that are being reviled to you are growing with out bounds now Wolfsbane!
I said very little about the article as I hardly remember anything about it... and you can tell me that it was wrong! Correct my here if I'm wrong but a generally excepted time scale for Abraham is about 2000 BC? and the generally accepted date for authorship of Genesis is somewhere between 5th and 10th Centuries?
and the Epic of Gilgamesh is recorded on stone tablets dated to about 7th century BC... and the Sumerian flood myth is found on earlier writings dated what? 17th or 18th century BC... I've lost track of where this is going... ah yes... is it a fairy story or a factual story... I'm going to put my money on fairy story but possibly based on a local flood.

wolfsbane wrote:

Amazing how people can be sure about such things without claiming Divine revelation.

I'm amazed at how sure you are that you have divine revelation...
So I guess it all balances out.

wolfsbane wrote:

kiffer wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

Indeed - so why not tell them the muck-to-man fable commonly accepted today? Especially as they did not know the amazing complexity of life, as we do now. Muck-to-man would have been as credible as the 6 Day Creation. Today evolution has to be believed in the face of the difficulties posed by complexity.

They didn't tell it because they didn't know it... The just made up stories to 1. pass the time, 2. maintain their authority...

They made up things to fill in the gaps in their knowledge... or if you prefer... they made up bits because the revelation they received may have been along the lines of "I am God, all those gods you're worshiping in Ur are false... I'm your creator", without any details of how he actually did it... leaving them to make up the rest.

A prophet that says "I don't know" when asked a question will not be taken seriously at all, so if it's not part of his revelation then he will have to dissemble to some degree.
People want answers, simple answers that they can understand... if you don't supply them they'll just swing back to burning offal for their god instead of your god...

What is so complex about saying we all came from one original lifeform? You think the ancients were incapable of imagining that? No, the option was there. Indeed, many different 'creation' accounts were developed, some in respectable Greek philosophy.

There's nothing so complex about it after all we can explain the basics to modern children
Sure they could of imagined a simple evolution story... they could have imagined lots of different stories.
But the point you are not addressing is that I am saying they didn't tell such a story because they made up their own story to maintain their authority... or rather just changed a story that they had heard and crammed in their own God in place of the characters from the Epic of Gilgamesh or the even earlier the Sumerian gods.

I'm really regretting not remembering more from that article on Abraham... it's creating a niggling feeling that it would be help full to this line of discussion...

wolfsbane wrote:

kiffer wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, there are always alternative motives possible for the recording of any history. It could all be to suit an agenda - or it could all be just the truth.

I'm glad to see you're open to the idea that the stories told by any ancient holy man could be designed to suit an agenda.

I certainly am. That accounts for most religions. But as I said - it doesn't rule out a true religion, one actually delivered by the Creator.

That's the one I'm bringing to you.

of course it is wolfsbane... of course it is...
Except for the bits that are possibly due to the alternative motives on the part of ancient wise men... or the bits which are just wrong, when taken literally... 7 days, 6000 years and so on...

AtomicHorror

Happy Darwin Day! Today we celebrate the 200th birthday of a scientific revolutionary. Like Pasteur, Mendel, Newton and Einstein, Darwin ushered in a shift in our perception of the evidence. In Darwin's lifetime the nature of life and its place in the world was explained by a mixture of assumption and religion. The science that existed was disparate. Biologists were just starting to understand heredity and variation. That variation displayed such great diversity at times, and yet such curious similarities. The distribution seemed to make little sense. Geologists were pointing to the massively stratified nature of their favourite medium (rock) as evidence that the world was far older than they had expected and wondered at the curious sequence of petrified organic structures they found within. Layer upon layer, that same progression across every strata and every geological discontinuity, across the world. The evidence was all there, merely waiting for someone to bring it together into one clear picture.

In November, we'll celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of that clear picture. Darwin's most prominent work, On the Origin of Species. Just as Newton's world was superceded, but not destroyed, by Einstein's; so too has Darwin's work found itself but a small part of a grander theory. His Laws of Natural Selection remain intact, his notions on heredity and genetics superceded by his contemporary Mendel. Both now standing along side the molecular genetics of Watson, Crick and Franklin.

There are those who say that scientists hold Darwin sacred. That his theory has become dogma. But it is likely that if Darwin read a modern biology textbook today, he would certainly disagree. He might even be a little annoyed at the absence of some of his hypotheses. But he would be delighted that natural selection has endured so well. And delighted that humanity has cast aside the notions of racial species divides which he loathed so much.

He gave us a part of the picture. We have accepted those ideas of his which have been borne out in experimentation, and discarded those which did not. Concepts that brought the evidence together in a revolutionary way. He was the first to understand our true nature and our place in the world. For that, we celebrate a great man and a scientist who stands as an example of dedication and remarkable insight.

Happy Birthday Charlie.

The Mad Hatter

Do I smell a new blog post, AH? It's been a while since you updated.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Do I smell a new blog post, AH? It's been a while since you updated.

Actually, I've updated a few times in the last couple of weeks but I haven't been running a new signature bar thing. Mostly reserving that for my big ol' essay-style rants.

A response to Donna Garner's ridiculous "Evolution=cannibalism" letter to try and pressure the Texas State Board of Education to pander to raising the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories in high school classes:

http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2009/02/accept-evolution-eat-people.html

And several pieces on the continuing MMR=autism hoax in the UK (and to a lesser extent here). This recently blew up again when a London radio presenter spent 40 minutes recycling arguments that were refuted 10 years ago. Ben Goldacre posted the radio slot and criticised. The radio station called in the lawyers and the Streisand Effect won the day in it's usual hilarious manner.

http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2009/01/things-happen-after-event-shock.html

http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2009/02/mmr-is-safe-tell-your-friends.html

http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2009/02/streisand-effect.html

See? I've been busy! :pac:

The Mad Hatter

Cool! Enjoying the first one now (although I think you're attributing to her powers of suggestion far beyond her capability).

Couldn't you make your sig a giffy thing, like my last.fm image? (Or is that possible? ...er...don't know much about computers in that way...)

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Cool! Enjoying the first one now (although I think you're attributing to her powers of suggestion far beyond her capability).

As in, you reckon she won't sway them? There was one vote in the decision and several swing votes for her to win. And those are all Republicans I think. She's actually seen as something of an authority on the syllabus and education in general in Texas.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Couldn't you make your sig a giffy thing, like my last.fm image? (Or is that possible? ...er...don't know much about computers in that way...)

Don't know how. All of my tech savvy internet knowledge is from back when I was an internet whizz kid. In 1996. Suggestions welcome on that front!

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As in, you reckon she won't sway them? There was one vote in the decision and several swing votes for her to win. And those are all Republicans I think. She's actually seen as something of an authority on the syllabus and education in general in Texas.

No, I mean that suggestion has an implication of subtlety. She's generally just out-and-out saying what she means. Unfortunately, I don't think that means she won't sway them.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No, I mean that suggestion has an implication of subtlety. She's generally just out-and-out saying what she means. Unfortunately, I don't think that means she won't sway them.

Oh yeah, it's nice and blunt. She's included pretty much every cliché you could care to mention too.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Now if it did not originate with scientists skilled in the particular fields, I could understand me getting it wrong all the time. But your credibility is totally undermined by the nature of these scientists who argue against you. I do not believe they are all liars or incapable of honest assessment of evidence
But you think that a much greater number (we're talking about 3 million versus about 1000) of equally skilled and equally qualified scientists are not capable of honest assessment of the evidence? They are all liars?

No, just that they make assumptions and fit the evidence into a model based on those assumptions. They and us both see the same evidence. They and we see organisms varying by natural selection. They however go on to extrapolate that such observed change - variation in a moth, for example - is how all species arose from an original common ancestor. That has not been observed. In fact, no organism has been observed changing into an entirely different organism, no matter how many generations are involved. Dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, flies remain flies.

But the evolution story is held by the great majority of scientists because it has remained the most acceptable explanation to those who do not wish to consider a Divine origin. It is nothing to do with the strength of the scientific case.

The rest of what they do seems to work just fine- computers, medicine and giant particle accelerators...

Indeed. Same applies to the scientists who hold to creationism. They all practice operational science the same way. It is the forensic stuff, the interpretation of the evidence, they differ on.

So they're just lying about the bits which contradict scripture. Without motive, without need, just lying?

They have motive to hold to their story, but as I said above, it need not involve lying.

3,000,000 scientists versus 1000. I'm not suggesting that the majority should rule, but unless you can look at the science itself and understand at least some of it, then how do you differentiate between the word of two men in white coats telling you opposite things? And if your means to judge is not the Word itself, but your specific interpretation of it, then don't you really need some other means?

My means to judge is the Word itself. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible as an explanation for the present biosphere, without making a nonsense of the Bible.

Creationist scientists, on the other hand, have both the Word and their scientific skills to inform their belief about origins. They are convinced that both concur.

I get that you consider creation scientists to be an honest and rigorous bunch, but when you have the likes of Kent Hovind (worst-case example, I know) writing that the appendix is "a germ-free organ", surely you have to admit that some of these guys are at least as fallible as any mainstream scientist.

Kent Hovind is not a creation scientist. I know of no scientific qualifications ever listed for him. The only claim he could make was that he is a creationist - he believes in a recent creation. I do too, but I am not a scientist.

No, Hovind seems to be either an honest but foolish evangelist, or a peddlar of whatever gave him a living. I suspect the latter, but I don't know enough of the facts about his case to be sure, and I'm not motivated enough to do the research.

They can be plain wrong, they can be deliberately dishonest. So can mainstream guys.

That's true.

Of all sciences, biology is by far the easiest for the untrained to understand. Much of it is intuitive. The way science works is not difficult to understand either. How science is generated and published. How it is attacked and refuted or supported.

Yes, I've seen some of the exchanges between competing evolutionists as well as between creationists and evolutionists. Not entirely the dispassionate, let's-pursue-truth-at-all-costs thing I imagined in my naive days.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, just that they make assumptions and fit the evidence into a model based on those assumptions.

Example?

wolfsbane wrote: »

They and us both see the same evidence.

Rather selectively, wouldn't you say? The creationists see a fossil record that is best explained by the gradual change in species over 3 billion years and instead explain it as an incredible number of very slightly different species being created and going extinct and all crammed into a 6000 year period. Their main source on this (the bible) does not mention the vast majority of these species, nor does it mention the incredible rate of speciation across the entire animal and plant kingdom that would have had to have occurred for this explanation to work. We're talking hundreds if not thousands of new species a year to go from Ark to modern day. So it's a very awkward fit to what is known in terms of living and extinct organisms. And crucially it requires that part of the evidence is "re-interpreted" using a model of radioisotope decay defies simple observation. And which nobody has been able to demonstrate.

The genetic similarities between species is re-interpreted as evidence of a common designer, yet the distribution of these similarities and differences forms a nested tree configuration that cannot be explained in those terms. Also, similar structures and functions are frequently observed not to flow from genetic similarities at all, but from convergence. If the Designer likes to re-use some features even in cases where the function has become vestigial, why does He change tack with such obviously re-usable functions such as the formation of fins in whales versus the same function in fish species? Creationism does not attempt to explain this, and merely cites the ineffable will of the Designer.

In both cases, the alternate explanation of the evidence does two things:

1. Omits evidence where it is inconvenient.
2. Generates a much more complex explanatory framework to tie the remainder together.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They and we see organisms varying by natural selection. They however go on to extrapolate that such observed change - variation in a moth, for example - is how all species arose from an original common ancestor.

If that is what you think we're doing then it's little wonder you don't accept the theory. It is not the observation of natural selection alone that demonstrates the long term influence of evolution. No scientist would base the assumption on that alone.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That has not been observed. In fact, no organism has been observed changing into an entirely different organism, no matter how many generations are involved. Dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, flies remain flies.

Dogs and cats remain mammals too. Mammals and fish remain vertebrates. You don't understand how this works and you can't explain the distribution of similarities we see between organisms. Why do we always see that four-limbed organisms have backbones but no exoskeleton? Why do six-limbed animals always lack a backbone but instead have an exoskeleton? Why does that "nested hierarchy" exist? There's no mechanical nor biological reason why the two sets of traits cannot be interchangeable if a designer is involved. He could mix any and all traits that exist. Arguably some insects would be better with backbones- they could grow much larger. Some smaller mammals such as rodents might do better with exoskeletons. But we don't see that. We see hierarchies of traits. Traits that are exclusive. Unique combinations of traits. We can explain this through relatedness. It makes sense in that context. The creation explanation is a rather unsatisfying "just because".

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the evolution story is held by the great majority of scientists because it has remained the most acceptable explanation to those who do not wish to consider a Divine origin. It is nothing to do with the strength of the scientific case.

Rubbish! It is the explanation that best fits all the available evidence. It has no power to attack "divine origin", only to attack a literal reading of Genesis as divine origin.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed. Same applies to the scientists who hold to creationism. They all practice operational science the same way. It is the forensic stuff, the interpretation of the evidence, they differ on.

If by "differ" you mean "disregard", then sure.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They have motive to hold to their story, but as I said above, it need not involve lying.

What motive? Why seek to deny divine origin using such an ill-suited theory? Surely we'd concoct a combined Theory of Life and Theory of Universe if we were interested in squashing divine origin? We are willing to say that we do not know how life began. We have ideas, but the evidence is weak. Similarly the nature of the Big Bang. We cannot say how or why it happened.

If this is an attack, motivated by delusion or rebellion, it's a pretty patchy one. It requires so many unlikely elements to be correct. The oddest being the total delusion of the majority of some 3 million scientists- a community who specifically value scepticism of everything. It requires that they be somehow convincing enough to mislead some 1 billion Christians who take no issue with evolution. Like any good conspiracy theory, it's certainly the more convoluted of the two main possibilities you are presented with.

wolfsbane wrote: »

My means to judge is the Word itself. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible as an explanation for the present biosphere, without making a nonsense of the Bible.

But if your interpretation of the Word as literal is incorrect, how can you know? Revelation is of little use, since if your interpretation of the bible is incorrect then your idea of what constitutes revelation is similarly open to question. You need another means to judge. That means is your observation of the world itself. Your reason.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationist scientists, on the other hand, have both the Word and their scientific skills to inform their belief about origins. They are convinced that both concur.

Scientists question everything. Without testing the word based on observation we are not talking about scientists.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Kent Hovind is not a creation scientist. I know of no scientific qualifications ever listed for him. The only claim he could make was that he is a creationist - he believes in a recent creation. I do too, but I am not a scientist.

Granted, a poor example. But you'll have to forgive me on this point, because it is incredibly hard to find any current active creation scientists. The budget seems to mostly be going to public figures with limited qualifications and glossy literature with no new investigations.

Can you point to a creationist experiment done in the last 3 years?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, Hovind seems to be either an honest but foolish evangelist, or a peddlar of whatever gave him a living. I suspect the latter, but I don't know enough of the facts about his case to be sure, and I'm not motivated enough to do the research.

But how much of what he has said would you have accepted as science before he was made to look rather foolish? The issue at hand is the authority with which these figures speak. A scientist would be most foolish to accept the word of Richard Dawkins at face value, but his claims can be substantiated in many cases (at least when it comes to biology). Where they cannot, we are sceptical.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's true.

I'm glad we agree. I can test mainstream scientists. Either directly or by examination of the rebuttals of their peers. By what means do you test the creation scientists?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I've seen some of the exchanges between competing evolutionists as well as between creationists and evolutionists. Not entirely the dispassionate, let's-pursue-truth-at-all-costs thing I imagined in my naive days.

Indeed, but that is true on both sides. But that leaves us back at square one. I can look at the evidence and understand it. You claim that you can't. So just how sure are you that you're on the right side of this debate?

I think I've found Question 14 here. The unique trait combinations falling into a hierarchy... I'll have to find a neat way to word it.

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

... In fact, no organism has been observed changing into an entirely different organism, no matter how many generations are involved. Dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, flies remain flies.

Dogs remain dogs over the human timescales, evolution needs longer time scales... and is evident in the fossil record over those long timescales and you knew that's what we would say.
All it takes is micro-evolution which you accept, and a mechanism for speciation, as we've seen in at least one case with those wallabies that turned up earlier in the thread... and a whole lot of time.

But the evolution story is held by the great majority of scientists because it has remained the most acceptable explanation to those who do not wish to consider a Divine origin. It is nothing to do with the strength of the scientific case.

I'm not sure you're qualified to make that judgment wolfsbane and you've yet to find us any credible Creation Scientists...

Indeed. Same applies to the scientists who hold to creationism. They all practice operational science the same way. It is the forensic stuff, the interpretation of the evidence, they differ on.


They have motive to hold to their story, but as I said above, it need not involve lying.


My means to judge is the Word itself. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible as an explanation for the present biosphere, without making a nonsense of the Bible.

well... if you consider non-literal parables and analogues to be nonsense then yes... you cannot reconcile Genesis with reality.

Creationist scientists, on the other hand, have both the Word and their scientific skills to inform their belief about origins. They are convinced that both concur.


Kent Hovind is not a creation scientist. I know of no scientific qualifications ever listed for him. The only claim he could make was that he is a creationist - he believes in a recent creation. I do too, but I am not a scientist.

No, Hovind seems to be either an honest but foolish evangelist, or a peddlar of whatever gave him a living. I suspect the latter, but I don't know enough of the facts about his case to be sure, and I'm not motivated enough to do the research.

Kevin Hovind, based my brief meeting and conversation with him in Dublin, 12 or 13 years ago, is all of those things, Not too sharp, Out to make a buck and does honestly believe what he preaches about creation/evolution is the Truth however he does make, what I feel are, several misleading dishonest claims...
He is not a scientist, when I met him I recall he claimed to have a PhD in Education, but according to the Internet (waves hand at google) he has an unaccredited Masters and unaccredited docterate in Christian Education ...
He still claims the title of Doctor... which is dishonest as far as I'm concerned as he does not have a real doctorate
I also understand that he's not well liked by many creationists, even other YE creationists...

That's true.


Yes, I've seen some of the exchanges between competing evolutionists as well as between creationists and evolutionists. Not entirely the dispassionate, let's-pursue-truth-at-all-costs thing I imagined in my naive days.

Yeah...
Scientist can fight like cats and dogs...
Weaknesses in hypotheses and theories are often ruthlessly attacked especially if there is a personality clash too.
People can get very passionate about their work.

*away for a day or two... have fun guys...
Was abit distracted writing this post so E&OE!

wolfsbane

kiffer said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Hmm. Seems to me evolution is often raised by atheists and others as a proof against the Bible. It seems to be an issue for them.
Evolution, Deeptime and related issues are pretty much totally contrary to the literal interpretation of Genesis ...

Agreed.

the rest of the bible has it's own problems, which may or may not be sorted out internally *shrug*, but the age of the planet, solar system, nay the very universe has little or no baring on details such as whether or not Jesus said the things he said / did the things he did.

It has on whether He was mistaken about those things - and if mistaken, then He is not who He claimed to be.

Evolution is not an attack on your beliefs, it is simply the way creatures appear to have become the way they are now.
Deep time is not an attack on your beliefs, it is simply that the amount of time that appears to have passed is vast.

I agree, as a stand-alone theory, they may be considered without reference to Christian doctrine. But they are used against Christianity by those opposed to God. And they provide a stumbling block to some who are concerned about their relationship to God.

I say appear, because that is where the physical evidence leads us.

That is what is disputed by the creationist scientists.

Deeptime and evolution did not appear overnight... it was a long drawn out process, with people arguing in favor of both ancient and young earths.

True.

Evolution is not an attack against Creationism...

You must not be familiar with the history of evolutionists attacking Genesis then. Nor with the modern world. I often have unbelievers raise evolution as an objection to the Bible being God's word.

Creationism is an attack against the work of many many scientists,

True. And positively, it is a defence of true science by creation scientists against what they both scientifically and religiously believe to be a false theory.

by people over invested in a Genesis.

No one can be over invested in the word of God.

Quote:
I have posted numerous examples of creation science. You seem to have an odd concept of its definition.
I've not read all the articles that you've linked to, but I have picked a few at random... they are not what you seem to think.
I understand that you want to think that they support your beliefs in some credible way but they all basically just say... "The bible is the word of God, therefore the world is 6000 years old, therefore sediment rates / rates of radioactive decay *must* do XYZ... (even when XYZ is easily disproved, or when we have zero evidence for XYZ)"

They don't actually do anything to demonstrate these things... they just assert them over and over again... without ever ever providing anything other than "this is the way it must be because Genesis must be true".

My quote related to the other poster's strange concept of what creation science deals with. He seems to think, for example, that research that undermines deep time is nothing to do with creation science. I would think it is obvious that deep time is one big objection to creationism and that its removal goes to support the recent creation theory.

But the point you raise is a good one. It is not enough for creation scientists to make assertions. But from my (albeit non-scientific) reading of their material, I gather they do give specific support for their theories:
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/ICCMt_Ngauruhoe-AAS.pdf

What we're saying is ... if Genesis is true, they you should be able to provide some testable evidence of this using the world around us.

This, they have not done.

See:
Evidence for Message Theory
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_29-35.pdf

Soviet scientists and academics debate Creation evolution issue
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_1/j17_1_67-69.pdf

Now as I said I've not read everything you've linked to... I've picked some at random. So if you feel there is one thing you've linked to that is particularly solid in this regard then please, by all means, point it out to me and I'll make an effort to read through it.

I'll think on that.

quote:
This should be on the Creation thread - but let me agree that the begats are not part of the scientific evidence. The research into rates of radioactive decay are and the creationist research into it is not 'made up'.
The begats are how the age of ~6000 years was initially arrived at... and what ties YE creationism to that age.

True. But that has nothing to do with the scientific case made for a YEC.

Do you have even the slightest evidence for the "Exponentially changing Rates of Radioactive decay" model... no? because it was just made up in an attempt to explain away facts. Do they realise that the heat generated from this ridiculous idea would create massive problems for them when dealing with closure temperatures of various minerals as well as being very obvious in the fission tracks found in both zircon and apatite...?
~~Maybe~~ the rate of decay not only changed, falling off exponentially from an insanely high level on the first few days of creation, but was also different in different places ... just to make the whole thing work out...

Correct. It is one idea that might explain the evidence. Like the problem evolution has with what appears to be irreducibly complex - only ideas are offerred, no evidence of how it could be overcome.

but that brings us back to the idea that God deliberately makes the world look older than it is... which you've already dismissed IIRC.

No, my problem with radioactive decay rates and yours with irreducible complexity are about interpreting the evidence. The evidence itself says nothing about time - it is our inferences from the evidence that create the dates.

Other scientists disagree about the interpretation. But not in any way that can actually be shown to be correct... Seriously...
A few years ago creationist were shouting "Radioisotope dating doesn't work the maths is wrong, the isotope data is wrong, it's all lies..."
They couldn't back that up... so now they're crying "The rate of decay must have changed!, if it changed like this... then the maths which works and the isotope date which is correct... fit with our 6000 year figure"... but they have no mechanism, they have no reason, they have no solutions to the heating problems that such a high decay rate would have on high Uranium minerals... It's really grasping for straws...

As above. And the high rate of change model is not their only one.

Yes, they discuss all this in their papers. Not that they have all the solutions, but they make a case.
With no mechanism, no reason, no model, and no solution to any of the problems this idea creates, then I don't think they can be said to have made a case at all really.

The evolutionary case for abiogenesis and against irreducible complexity? No mechanism, no reason, no model, and no solution to any of the problems this idea creates.

What you read was just a story made up by someone seeking an alternative explanation - they could not possibly know which account came from what source. Were both corruptions of an original? Is one an accurate account from an earlier source? Was the original just a fairy story, or was it factual?
What I read was just a made up story eh? The things that are being reviled to you are growing with out bounds now Wolfsbane!
I said very little about the article as I hardly remember anything about it... and you can tell me that it was wrong! Correct my here if I'm wrong but a generally excepted time scale for Abraham is about 2000 BC? and the generally accepted date for authorship of Genesis is somewhere between 5th and 10th Centuries?
and the Epic of Gilgamesh is recorded on stone tablets dated to about 7th century BC... and the Sumerian flood myth is found on earlier writings dated what? 17th or 18th century BC... I've lost track of where this is going... ah yes... is it a fairy story or a factual story... I'm going to put my money on fairy story but possibly based on a local flood.

You assumption that the Genesis account was created in the 10th - 5thC BC is the flaw in your reasoning. There is no evidence to suggest that. It purports to be the handed down record from the begining, put into writing possibly first by Moses, c 1450 BC. Not created by Moses, but recorded by him. Just as a history of the first inhabitants of Ireland written in 1930 does not mean Newgrange was built c. 20thC or that it was adapted from someone else's history written a few years before.

What is so complex about saying we all came from one original lifeform? You think the ancients were incapable of imagining that? No, the option was there. Indeed, many different 'creation' accounts were developed, some in respectable Greek philosophy.
There's nothing so complex about it after all we can explain the basics to modern children
Sure they could of imagined a simple evolution story... they could have imagined lots of different stories.
But the point you are not addressing is that I am saying they didn't tell such a story because they made up their own story to maintain their authority... or rather just changed a story that they had heard and crammed in their own God in place of the characters from the Epic of Gilgamesh or the even earlier the Sumerian gods.

They could not have told a theistic evolutionist account? That would have kept it simple for the kids and maintained their place as the representatives of God.

I certainly am. That accounts for most religions. But as I said - it doesn't rule out a true religion, one actually delivered by the Creator.

That's the one I'm bringing to you.
of course it is wolfsbane... of course it is...
Except for the bits that are possibly due to the alternative motives on the part of ancient wise men... or the bits which are just wrong, when taken literally... 7 days, 6000 years and so on...

Yes, you either believe the Bible is God's word or you do not. If it is, act on it before it's too late. If it's not, there are no eternal consequences for your behaviour.

AtomicHorror

Wolfsbane wrote:

Like the problem evolution has with what appears to be irreducibly complex - only ideas are offerred, no evidence of how it could be overcome.

Irreducible complexity is a concept which itself has been falsified. It's not a problem with evolution because it doesn't exist. It's a trait only applicable to systems which do not replicate or vary. To constructed objects. Constructed objects are not an analogy for life forms because they do not self replicate or vary.