The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

From Age of planet Earth thread:
Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
speciation being no more than the relatively small changes of the wolf/dog/hyena type.
How long do Answers in Genesis speculate it takes a female dog to evolve a second vagina? 100 years? 50 years?

Also how long would it take a dog to lose its complex placenta and evolve the biological machinery to gestate young externally to the the womb? 20 years? 10 years?

Do we see this a happening a lot these days?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I did not mean 'roos came from the dog family, only that the present 'roo family speciated just as the original wolf/dog one did. That is, within relatively small bounds.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, for you are not entitled to be treated as God. For example, it is moral for a judge to commit a criminal to jail, and for the prison officer to forcibly put him behind the bars - but it would not be moral for you to do so.

Exactly, the morality of that judgment is subject to who is the judge, and likewise the morality in telling people to worship to me, kill a whole of people, or set bears on youths would depend on me being god => all morality is subjective.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Adam & Eve knew it was forbidden to eat of the fruit. They did not need to know Gordon Brown would be my Prime Minister as I write this, for them to exercise free-will in choosing to eat the fruit.

But without the knowledge of good and evil that they would only obtain from eating from the tree, they could not understand why or how it was forbidden. Informing them on the current prime minister of the uk would not effect their freewill in choosing to eat the fruit, being able to understand good and evil (not to mention being told the punishment for eating from the tree before hand) would effect it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why is that a better explanation than Him wanting to create a free-will creation? Because it suits you to portray God as creating evil?

No, because as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all, he must have created evil. Remeber that if the reasoning you are presenting was accurate then it would have to apply to good as well, ie god didn't create good, just the potential and he created the potential equal to evil, making god completely amoral. Its either this or god purposely creating evil as well as good, thus making him completely amoral too. Either way the endpoint is the same, i just went with the way that makes most sense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, free-will is not subjective. I was just pointing out that your definition of it might not be shared by most. But you could be right; maybe most people think Adam, Eve and all since have no free-will. In my discussions, I have found the opposite.

Well, either everyone has equal wills and how free it is dependant on their circumstances, or everyone has unique, unequal wills and that wills level of freedom is dependent on their imagination, either way freewill is subjective.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is the nature of free-will to be able to do what one is not compelled to do. He chose to follow his wife's example. Eve was deceived, and chose to believe Satan over God.

But why was that a sin? If it was done with a sinless nature, by individuals without knowledge of the good and evil tricked by an almost infinitely more powerful entity, satan. The wrong in the situation seems to be god not preparing adam and eve for the event of meeting satan (something he would have known was going to happen) and punishing them for losing a confrontation they had no way of winning.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because they knew what God had said, and all the lies of Satan should not have persuaded them.

Why shouldn't the lies have persuaded? God created them knowing that they would encounter satan who would try to trick them. He must have wanted them to fail (as he knew they would). How can anything happen other than what god knows will happen?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, those who choose God have already had their sinful nature replaced by God with a regenerated nature - a nature that loves God and is therefore willing to repent and believe.

So these people haven't actually chosen god, god made them choose him by altering their nature against their freewill (if their, original, sinful nature would never choose god, then, by your understanding of how freewill works, they would not have chosen god of their own freewill). Not only that, but god changed their nature to one that loves him. How does this not defeat the whole point of freewill? If god will just force people to love him anyway?

wolfsbane wrote: »

We must disagree on that.

Any reason for disagreeing with me, besides not liking the implications?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

Therefore the being desires the outcome, otherwise it would not allow it to be.

The absolute ultimate outcome, without necessarily desiring all the steps between.

But the being is ominpotent and omniscient, so it could change any undesired step to a desired and still get the desired result. If for some reason it couldn't (yet still be omniscient and omnipotent somehow), then by virtue of wanting the ultimate outcome, the being must want the steps as they are required for the outcome.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, not necessarily. All that is required is the ultimate outcome. God is able to overule all sinful choices He permits to occur, even though they are against His desires for our conduct.

As above, either god can get the ultimate outcome without using a set of circumstances that result in sin, or he wants sin, as it is a requirement for his desired ultimate outcome.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The fact that I have answered so many posts both on this and other threads is the reason I haven't dealt with the more scientific issues yet.

My apologies Wolfsbane, you have indeed been busy. I hope you can forgive my impatience, but these days I feel rather as if my questions are ignored because they cannot be answered.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is not my field, as you know, so I am reading up a bit on the creationist explanations. Hope to be back to you over the weekend.

When faced with a difficult question, what good does it do to go to sources you know beforehand will seek to re-confirm your beliefs? If you can find an explanation that makes sense in that literature (or even better- one that you cannot understand but sounds the part), you'll consider the matter closed, even if it is a weak explanation. If you cannot find one, you'll simply assume that an alternative explanation exists or will at some point, brush the matter aside and and move on.

I can save you the bother- the creationists will probably point to horizontal gene transfer as a falsification of the tree of life. If you're genuinely interested in the matter, you can read about how prokaryotes (bacteria and co.) and eukaryotes (multicellular life) differ with regard to HGT, how the tree of life holds for the eukaryotes but less so for prokaryotes, and how the tree is still demonstrably extant for all species in both groups despite HGT.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes.
It is disrespectful to say he isn't when he is.

I mean, does it matter to our assessment of what he says? If a builder or an IT consultant could direct me to evidence that contradicts evolution, their profession would have no bearing on the veracity of their claims. J C's qualifications, assuming he has any, are similarly irrelevant.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As long as you accept he is one in the real sense.

What is the real sense of a scientist? I've met PhD-carrying, evolution-accepting lab workers who I would not call scientists. To me, the "real sense" is the understanding of the scientific method, empiricism, hypothesis testing. J C shows no comprehension of these things at all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have dismissed all the Phd scientists who are creationists on the same naturalist presuppositions, so I don't expect anything different for JC.

It is not we who consider those qualifications relevant. There's no serious list of "scientists accepting evolution", unless you count the satirical Project Steve. The Discovery Institute are the ones trying to turn this into a authoritarian thing by saying "look at all the PhDs who accept ID". We dismiss that tactic as it is irrelevant and anti-scientific in its very nature.

J C is dismissed for other reasons- his arguments are illogical and not supported by the evidence.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your argument depends on your group of scientists being correct and it conveniently dismisses the other group, equally qualified to speak, who dispute your lot's understanding. Hardly a proof of who is right.

No, my argument relies on nothing of the sort and nor does it relate to who is correct. It relies on my group of scientists displaying a capacity to change their views when old views are conclusively falsified by evidence. They've demonstrated that countless times over hundreds of years. They've also demonstrated resistance to change when they considered the evidence to be weak or false. So, whether they be correct or not does not come into it. They've shown that they are as good as their word when it comes to assessing evidence based arguments. They are neither entirely closed nor uselessly credulous. They will move when convinced, but they are not convinced. My argument is that J C is dismissed on that basis, whether he be correct or not. He is not convincing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I am unable to fully assess the scientific argument and I therefore rely on the character of those scientists who tell me this is their considered scientific opinion. I know enough of them to be certain they are not lying and are competent scientists.

But what makes you think the opposition, equally human but equally competent, are not also in earnest? Your character judgements do not help you here. If you cannot look at the science, then you must look elsewhere than simple character assessments.

wolfsbane wrote: »

To that I add my little bit of common sense - I can detect logical errors and unwarranted presuppositions at work, and I have seen enough of those in the evolutionists' work to make me not take all they say as objective science. Same applies to the creationists' work, of course.

Of course, they are human after all. But have you looked at the differences in how they conduct and publish research? The importance of primary work and the attitudes taken to review of current knowledge? The philosophies of knowledge and the systems of review, attack and defence at work? How they defend their primary work? The relative importance of self contained adversarialism in each case? Have you looked at the means by which each side seeks to fight their battles? The arenas they choose? The tactics they use?

Hamiltonion

Is there any evidence to back-up the theory that the World is only about ten thousand years old which is claimed in the Book of Genisis? Could the story about Noah's Arch be true?

4.5 billion years estimated. Cannot be only a few thousand as carbon dating has found specimens hundreds of thousands of years old. Dinosaurs died out due to a shift in economic conditions caused by a meteor strike, some evolved gradually to be better suited to their environment

AtomicHorror

Hamiltonion wrote: »

Is there any evidence to back-up the theory that the World is only about ten thousand years old which is claimed in the Book of Genisis? Could the story about Noah's Arch be true?

4.5 billion years estimated. Cannot be only a few thousand as carbon dating has found specimens hundreds of thousands of years old. Dinosaurs died out due to a shift in economic conditions caused by a meteor strike, some evolved gradually to be better suited to their environment

Well, that's the debate isn't it? We've discussed it at length on the other thread, but the scientific consensus is that there is no evidence to support a literal reading of Genesis with regard to the creation of Earth, the origin of life, the origin of species or the flood. It is also the consensus that a literal reading of these events is in fact falsified by large bodies of evidence.

To discuss that further though, I think you want to go to the other thread.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes.
It is disrespectful to say he isn't when he is.
I mean, does it matter to our assessment of what he says?

No, but that was not my point. Such disrespect is a tactic to discredit his argument, without it being examined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As long as you accept he is one in the real sense.
What is the real sense of a scientist? I've met PhD-carrying, evolution-accepting lab workers who I would not call scientists. To me, the "real sense" is the understanding of the scientific method, empiricism, hypothesis testing. J C shows no comprehension of these things at all.

He works with them daily, and has practiced them in his arguments here. It is your failure to distinguish between a Christian's theological argument and his scientific argument that is at fault. We don't expect you to accept the theological foundations for our view on the origin of life, but we do expect you to see our scientific explanations of how life developed as something different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You have dismissed all the Phd scientists who are creationists on the same naturalist presuppositions, so I don't expect anything different for JC.
It is not we who consider those qualifications relevant. There's no serious list of "scientists accepting evolution", unless you count the satirical Project Steve. The Discovery Institute are the ones trying to turn this into a authoritarian thing by saying "look at all the PhDs who accept ID". We dismiss that tactic as it is irrelevant and anti-scientific in its very nature.

That in itself is an error. Experts qualified in the field should be heard with respect, even if you think their arguments are flawed, or even if their theology has been the starting point of their scientific model.

J C is dismissed for other reasons- his arguments are illogical and not supported by the evidence.

That would be fair - if they were illogical and unsupported by the evidence. That is how secular scientists treat their secular scientist opponents, so I could not object to creationist scientists being treated differently. But you need to remember that making the claim about your opponent's work does not prove it to be so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Your argument depends on your group of scientists being correct and it conveniently dismisses the other group, equally qualified to speak, who dispute your lot's understanding. Hardly a proof of who is right.
No, my argument relies on nothing of the sort and nor does it relate to who is correct. It relies on my group of scientists displaying a capacity to change their views when old views are conclusively falsified by evidence. They've demonstrated that countless times over hundreds of years. They've also demonstrated resistance to change when they considered the evidence to be weak or false. So, whether they be correct or not does not come into it. They've shown that they are as good as their word when it comes to assessing evidence based arguments. They are neither entirely closed nor uselessly credulous. They will move when convinced, but they are not convinced. My argument is that J C is dismissed on that basis, whether he be correct or not. He is not convincing.

JC and all creation scientists do alter their scientific arguments in light of better evidence. A simple check of the creationist sites proves that. What you want them to do is alter their theology in light of changing scientific evidence. That is not required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I am unable to fully assess the scientific argument and I therefore rely on the character of those scientists who tell me this is their considered scientific opinion. I know enough of them to be certain they are not lying and are competent scientists.
But what makes you think the opposition, equally human but equally competent, are not also in earnest?

I do think they are in earnest. Both sides are sincere in their argument. It is your position that the creationists knowingly present false arguments to defend their theology. I say both sides take some presuppositions as granted and interpret the evidence in line with that. Sometimes the evidence does not fit too well, and they wait for further light. Neither side abandon their presuppositions lightly - but honesty should make them open about how well the present evidence supports their case.

Your character judgements do not help you here. If you cannot look at the science, then you must look elsewhere than simple character assessments.

All my character assessments tell me is that the scientist is being honest about the science, or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
To that I add my little bit of common sense - I can detect logical errors and unwarranted presuppositions at work, and I have seen enough of those in the evolutionists' work to make me not take all they say as objective science. Same applies to the creationists' work, of course.
Of course, they are human after all. But have you looked at the differences in how they conduct and publish research? The importance of primary work and the attitudes taken to review of current knowledge? The philosophies of knowledge and the systems of review, attack and defence at work? How they defend their primary work? The relative importance of self contained adversarialism in each case? Have you looked at the means by which each side seeks to fight their battles? The arenas they choose? The tactics they use?

Yes, and it tells me that one side is seriously discriminated against. Their work is dismissed out of hand, not treated as alternative scientific argument. The lack of arenas open to them are not of their choosing. Their tactics are appropriate in the face of misrepresentation and cover-up: bringing light on the matter is always good.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

My apologies Wolfsbane, you have indeed been busy. I hope you can forgive my impatience, but these days I feel rather as if my questions are ignored because they cannot be answered.

Certainly, my friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That is not my field, as you know, so I am reading up a bit on the creationist explanations. Hope to be back to you over the weekend.
When faced with a difficult question, what good does it do to go to sources you know beforehand will seek to re-confirm your beliefs? If you can find an explanation that makes sense in that literature (or even better- one that you cannot understand but sounds the part), you'll consider the matter closed, even if it is a weak explanation. If you cannot find one, you'll simply assume that an alternative explanation exists or will at some point, brush the matter aside and and move on.

In seeking an answer to the objection to creationism you put with the tree-of-life claim, surely I would need to go to the creationists for their view? Why would I read up on another evolutionist's view?

I can save you the bother- the creationists will probably point to horizontal gene transfer as a falsification of the tree of life. If you're genuinely interested in the matter, you can read about how prokaryotes (bacteria and co.) and eukaryotes (multicellular life) differ with regard to HGT, how the tree of life holds for the eukaryotes but less so for prokaryotes, and how the tree is still demonstrably extant for all species in both groups despite HGT.

I haven't got into the details of their objections yet, but they argue that shared similarities are a necessary part of the creationist model because:
1. They are necessary for a functioning creation: all life has to share an enviroment and interact with each other correctly, eg. similiar proteins do similiar jobs in humans and yeast.

2. They result from an economy of design: an optimum design is modified for various uses, not replaced by a new one.

3. They have theological purpose - to point to a common Creator, as opposed to various creators.

I did see a revision of the tree-of-life by an evolutionist:
REVISED “TREE” OF LIFE retains a treelike structure at the top of the eukaryotic domain
and acknowledges that eukaryotes obtained mitochondria and chloroplasts from
bacteria. But it also includes an extensive network of untreelike links between branches.
Those links have been inserted somewhat randomly to symbolize the rampant lateral
gene transfer of single or multiple genes that has always occurred between unicellular
organisms. This “tree” also lacks a single cell at the root; the three major domains
of life probably arose from a population of primitive cells that differed in their genes.
Uprooting the Tree of Life by W.Ford Doolittle
http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2004_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

2Scoops said:


I can accept that as a fair definition, given your beliefs about creationism. You accept he is a scientist - my objection was to marco_polo denying that. I don't expect him to agree with JC's arguments, but I do expect enough respect for an opponent's professional qualifications/status. JC has chosen to be anonymous on this list, but that is no reason not to take his word on the matter of his employment. His ability to argue the details should be enough for all to give his claim credibility. Some of us know him off-list and know is his who he says.


Maybe he's got tired of the roundabout - but I suspect he may jump back on soon enough and make your heads dizzy again.

Well I guess the difference between you and me is that you are prepared to take it on faith that he is a scientist. I need a bit more evidence than that. in much the same way that I don't believe emails from the President of Nigeria asking me to help him out with his current cashflow problems, on the promise of a tenfold return on my investment later.

He has to the best of my knowledge never even stated which of the three major branches of science he is purportedly working in Physics, Chemistry of Biology. I don't think it would blow his 'cover' too much to reveal that much.

From reading his arguments on the BCP Thread, it is more than reasonable to doubt he is working in any of the science diciplines that have ever been discussed on the thread.

JC's ability to argue the details are exactly the reason I doubt he has any scientific credentials. As a counterexample, with nothing else to go on but the evidence of his posts, and his understanding of his topics at hand I accept that AtomicHorror is a biologist.

Post content is the only difference.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, for you are not entitled to be treated as God. For example, it is moral for a judge to commit a criminal to jail, and for the prison officer to forcibly put him behind the bars - but it would not be moral for you to do so.
Exactly, the morality of that judgment is subject to who is the judge, and likewise the morality in telling people to worship to me, kill a whole of people, or set bears on youths would depend on me being god => all morality is subjective.

Depends what we understand by subjective. Punishing a criminal is objectively moral, even if I am not carrying that out. To make it subjective, in my view, would be to say it is only a matter of opinion if it is right to do so, that such punishment is not right in itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Adam & Eve knew it was forbidden to eat of the fruit. They did not need to know Gordon Brown would be my Prime Minister as I write this, for them to exercise free-will in choosing to eat the fruit.
But without the knowledge of good and evil that they would only obtain from eating from the tree, they could not understand why or how it was forbidden. Informing them on the current prime minister of the uk would not effect their freewill in choosing to eat the fruit, being able to understand good and evil (not to mention being told the punishment for eating from the tree before hand) would effect it.

They did not need to understand good and evil - only that they were God's creatures and were obliged to obey Him. Why He forbad them was none of their business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Why is that a better explanation than Him wanting to create a free-will creation? Because it suits you to portray God as creating evil? No, because as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all, he must have created evil. Remeber that if the reasoning you are presenting was accurate then it would have to apply to good as well, ie god didn't create good, just the potential and he created the potential equal to evil, making god completely amoral. Its either this or god purposely creating evil as well as good, thus making him completely amoral too. Either way the endpoint is the same, i just went with the way that makes most sense.

But God specifically tells us He did create good, and that He Himself is good. So no equivalence between good and evil:
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, free-will is not subjective. I was just pointing out that your definition of it might not be shared by most. But you could be right; maybe most people think Adam, Eve and all since have no free-will. In my discussions, I have found the opposite.
Well, either everyone has equal wills and how free it is dependant on their circumstances, or everyone has unique, unequal wills and that wills level of freedom is dependent on their imagination, either way freewill is subjective.

Let's not get lost here. I was pointing out that Adam's will before the fall is not the same as ours is now. Different does not mean subjective as opposed to objective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is the nature of free-will to be able to do what one is not compelled to do. He chose to follow his wife's example. Eve was deceived, and chose to believe Satan over God.
But why was that a sin? If it was done with a sinless nature, by individuals without knowledge of the good and evil tricked by an almost infinitely more powerful entity, satan. The wrong in the situation seems to be god not preparing adam and eve for the event of meeting satan (something he would have known was going to happen) and punishing them for losing a confrontation they had no way of winning.

But they had every ability to win - they had the express command of God and they had no sinful nature pressing them to give in. Such is the nature of a fully free-will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Because they knew what God had said, and all the lies of Satan should not have persuaded them.
Why shouldn't the lies have persuaded?

See above.

God created them knowing that they would encounter satan who would try to trick them. He must have wanted them to fail (as he knew they would). How can anything happen other than what god knows will happen?

God knew what would happen - but that does not mean He made it happen. He permitted it to happen. He allowed them to exercise their free-will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, those who choose God have already had their sinful nature replaced by God with a regenerated nature - a nature that loves God and is therefore willing to repent and believe.
So these people haven't actually chosen god, god made them choose him by altering their nature against their freewill (if their, original, sinful nature would never choose god, then, by your understanding of how freewill works, they would not have chosen god of their own freewill).

Correct.

Not only that, but god changed their nature to one that loves him. How does this not defeat the whole point of freewill? If god will just force people to love him anyway?

Yes, free-will in that sense is abolished. Why did He give it to Adam & Eve? He doesn't say. But we may speculate that it demonstated how infinitely far below God we are in holiness when even a fully free will rebels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We must disagree on that.
Any reason for disagreeing with me, besides not liking the implications?

Yes, I don't see how circumstances could make sinless beings sin. They chose to sin, freely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The absolute ultimate outcome, without necessarily desiring all the steps between.
But the being is ominpotent and omniscient, so it could change any undesired step to a desired and still get the desired result. If for some reason it couldn't (yet still be omniscient and omnipotent somehow), then by virtue of wanting the ultimate outcome, the being must want the steps as they are required for the outcome.

You are saying God couldn't have wanted His sinless creation to remain sinless and yet have free-will? That means you think free-will must always end in sin. I don't see why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Again, not necessarily. All that is required is the ultimate outcome. God is able to overule all sinful choices He permits to occur, even though they are against His desires for our conduct.
As above, either god can get the ultimate outcome without using a set of circumstances that result in sin, or he wants sin, as it is a requirement for his desired ultimate outcome.

The circumstances do not cause a free-will being to sin. They choose to do so.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, but that was not my point. Such disrespect is a tactic to discredit his argument, without it being examined.

Not really, because J C is the one making the claim that he is a scientist as if that is relevant. Now perhaps we have been guilty of being drawn into refuting or questioning that point, but I think we would all agree that it does not have much bearing on J C's main argument (although it might speak to how trustworthy he is in a very general sense). Is robin a scientist in the professional sense? Is Wicknight? I have no idea, though I suspect they are not. It's not relevant, but it's a point that J C sees as relevant, at least with regard to himself. He is seeking to add credibility and perhaps authority to his arguments by claiming that he is a scientist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He works with them daily, and has practiced them in his arguments here. It is your failure to distinguish between a Christian's theological argument and his scientific argument that is at fault. We don't expect you to accept the theological foundations for our view on the origin of life, but we do expect you to see our scientific explanations of how life developed as something different.

It is in his scientific arguments that J C displays a disregard for or misunderstanding of science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That in itself is an error. Experts qualified in the field should be heard with respect, even if you think their arguments are flawed, or even if their theology has been the starting point of their scientific model.

Experts in a field should indeed be given a fair hearing, but that is not at all what we're talking about here. What scientific or logical argument is presented by the list? It is merely a statement, not an argument, upon which the signatories agree. And so it is not their arguments, but their identities and qualifications which are intended to convince in this case.

That is not how science work. There are experts, but there are no authorities.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That would be fair - if they were illogical and unsupported by the evidence.

But you admit that for all you know about the content of the arguments, they could be.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is how secular scientists treat their secular scientist opponents, so I could not object to creationist scientists being treated differently. But you need to remember that making the claim about your opponent's work does not prove it to be so.

Of course not, but on the basis of character you are powerless to make a judgement.

wolfsbane wrote: »

JC and all creation scientists do alter their scientific arguments in light of better evidence.

Please name a specific creationist model and give an example of how it was falsified and abandoned.

wolfsbane wrote: »

A simple check of the creationist sites proves that. What you want them to do is alter their theology in light of changing scientific evidence. That is not required.

For it to be science, there must be no line beyond which change is not permitted pending evidence. In science, all positions are hypothetically temporary.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I do think they are in earnest. Both sides are sincere in their argument. It is your position that the creationists knowingly present false arguments to defend their theology. I say both sides take some presuppositions as granted and interpret the evidence in line with that. Sometimes the evidence does not fit too well, and they wait for further light. Neither side abandon their presuppositions lightly - but honesty should make them open about how well the present evidence supports their case.

But putting honesty aside the problem is that you think that you can make a judgement about competency without understanding the subject matter. You cannot distinguish a good scientific paper from a weak one, so how can you establish competence? Just as you could distinguish a competent carpenter from an incompetent one, you just need to know what to look for in their work.

wolfsbane wrote: »

All my character assessments tell me is that the scientist is being honest about the science, or not.

But that does not give you any information on whether they're correct. A dishonest person may tell the truth, and without some means to judge its content, we might assume it a lie.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, and it tells me that one side is seriously discriminated against. Their work is dismissed out of hand, not treated as alternative scientific argument.

You are mistaking trivial assessment for dismissal without assessment. Most of the arguments presented in favour of 6 day creation are trivially easy to assess by someone trained in the relevant field. That these arguments are these days dismissed out of hand by some is a reflection of the fact that they were falsified decades ago. How many times would you give a fair hearing to a group claiming the sky is green before you started to ignore them? I realise you'll find the comparison offensive, but it really is quite that simple.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The lack of arenas open to them are not of their choosing. Their tactics are appropriate in the face of misrepresentation and cover-up: bringing light on the matter is always good.

But historically such a move has never been needed to usher in even the most significant scientific revolutions. And indeed such a move has never succeeded in doing so. Was there misrepresentation and cover-up when when geocentrism or phrenology were falsified? Was there a conspiracy to prevent the falsification of Darwin's ideas on heredity? Or more significantly even than the work of Darwin, was there a cover up and a flat rejection of the evidence when Newton was falsified in favour of Einstein? Was a public debate required or relevant to establish consensus in these cases?

My point is that creationists are not attempting to convince scientists nor induce a scientific revolution. They're trying to skip expert acceptance and go straight to broad cultural acceptance, so that the public and policy-makers can be convinced. They may well be in earnest, but that is certainly not a scientific endeavour.

wolfsbane

MatthewVII wrote: »

Wouldn't it make sense though that evil was created as a byproduct of creation, which God foresaw and could have changed but chose not to? For example, not creating Lucifer since he knew how things would turn out would have been decent of him.

Yes, God could have prevented evil. But not if He created free-will beings. Satan and Adam & Eve were created perfect and with free-will.

So the question is, Was God right in creating free-will beings? God is a lot smarter than I, so I trust His judgment. If He did it, it must have been the best thing to do.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Please name a specific creationist model and give an example of how it was falsified and abandoned.

Just a quickie for tonight. See the latter part of this on the Water Vapour Canopy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

Well I guess the difference between you and me is that you are prepared to take it on faith that he is a scientist. I need a bit more evidence than that. in much the same way that I don't believe emails from the President of Nigeria asking me to help him out with his current cashflow problems, on the promise of a tenfold return on my investment later.

He has to the best of my knowledge never even stated which of the three major branches of science he is purportedly working in Physics, Chemistry of Biology. I don't think it would blow his 'cover' too much to reveal that much.

From reading his arguments on the BCP Thread, it is more than reasonable to doubt he is working in any of the science diciplines that have ever been discussed on the thread.

JC's ability to argue the details are exactly the reason I doubt he has any scientific credentials. As a counterexample, with nothing else to go on but the evidence of his posts, and his understanding of his topics at hand I accept that AtomicHorror is a biologist.

Post content is the only difference.

I know of JC's credentials from other sources.

As to the content of the posts, your assessment of them is in line with your dismissal of not only JC but all the scientists who argue the scientific case for creation. One side of an argument, not proof of your case.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I haven't got into the details of their objections yet, but they argue that shared similarities are a necessary part of the creationist model because:
1. They are necessary for a functioning creation: all life has to share an enviroment and interact with each other correctly, eg. similiar proteins do similiar jobs in humans and yeast.

This doesn't really address my question though. Single commonalities are not the issue, unique sets of commonalities are. So, say we share a given protein A with yeasts and insects, that alone could indicate common descent or common designer (or many other possibilities). What demonstrates the tree is that A is shared by all three but that combination ABC is unqiue to yeasts , ACD vertebrates and AEF to insects.

These combinations may be unique both in cases where function is unique but also where it is not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. They result from an economy of design: an optimum design is modified for various uses, not replaced by a new one.

But that principle is not evident. There are millions of examples of convergence of function which falsify it. Why not give vertebrate camera eyes to the larger spiders and insects, for example? Same function, but entirely different design. Or cephalopod camera eyes to vertebrates for that matter? Or fish fins to a dolphin? Or bird wings to a bat? Even on the molecular level, convergence is extremely common and economy of design is falsified.

wolfsbane wrote: »

3. They have theological purpose - to point to a common Creator, as opposed to various creators.

That speculates on the intent of a creator without providing a means to test the assumption. It also leaves us wondering why the creator made it appear that all life originates from a common ancestor.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I did see a revision of the tree-of-life by an evolutionist:
REVISED “TREE” OF LIFE retains a treelike structure at the top of the eukaryotic domain
and acknowledges that eukaryotes obtained mitochondria and chloroplasts from
bacteria. But it also includes an extensive network of untreelike links between branches.
Those links have been inserted somewhat randomly to symbolize the rampant lateral
gene transfer of single or multiple genes that has always occurred between unicellular
organisms. This “tree” also lacks a single cell at the root; the three major domains
of life probably arose from a population of primitive cells that differed in their genes.
Uprooting the Tree of Life by W.Ford Doolittle
http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2004_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf

Yes, but even in this tree, the existence of kinds is falsified within the eurkaryotes. We can also trace HGT as we trace inheritence, so it's possible to determine a phylogeny even within prokaryotes.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This doesn't really address my question though. Single commonalities are not the issue, unique sets of commonalities are. So, say we share a given protein A with yeasts and insects, that alone could indicate common descent or common designer (or many other possibilities). What demonstrates the tree is that A is shared by all three but that combination ABC is unqiue to yeasts , ACD vertebrates and AEF to insects.

These combinations may be unique both in cases where function is unique but also where it is not.



But that principle is not evident. There are millions of examples of convergence of function which falsify it. Why not give vertebrate camera eyes to the larger spiders and insects, for example? Same function, but entirely different design. Or cephalopod camera eyes to vertebrates for that matter? Or fish fins to a dolphin? Or bird wings to a bat? Even on the molecular level, convergence is extremely common and economy of design is falsified.



That speculates on the intent of a creator without providing a means to test the assumption. It also leaves us wondering why the creator made it appear that all life originates from a common ancestor.



Yes, but even in this tree, the existence of kinds is falsified within the eurkaryotes. We can also trace HGT as we trace inheritence, so it's possible to determine a phylogeny even within prokaryotes.

Here's more detail:

Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?
by Pierre Jerlström
http://creation.com/is-the-evolutionary-tree-changing-into-a-creationist-orchard

Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström
Creationist Molecular Biologist
http://creation.com/dr-pierre-gunnar-jerlstrom

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's more detail:

Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?
by Pierre Jerlström
http://creation.com/is-the-evolutionary-tree-changing-into-a-creationist-orchard

Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström
Creationist Molecular Biologist
http://creation.com/dr-pierre-gunnar-jerlstrom

Standard God of the Gaps fare.

As has been explained to you numerous times this is not sciencific research, it is an article on a creationist website by a guy who holds a PhD in Molecular Biology (Who incidently hasn't done anything of note since 1994 by the looks of it).

If we tease apart the evolutionary brier and remove the hypothesised evolutionary HT ‘links’ between the branches, we obtain separate trees with individual trunks and roots. This is highly reminiscent of the creationist ‘orchard’, a biblical model for the origin and diversity of all life (see tree C in diagram) which was predicted by the scientific creation movement at its inception.

That is his main his point is it? That if there was no such thing as HGT (or we ignore its effects), then the 'orchard of life' is true. Brilliant :rolleyes:

Isn't it a bit of a problem for him that it is a observed fact of Biology that HGT does occur?

And just to point out that I do not have a PhD in Molecular Biology.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's more detail:

Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?
by Pierre Jerlström
http://creation.com/is-the-evolutionary-tree-changing-into-a-creationist-orchard

Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström
Creationist Molecular Biologist
http://creation.com/dr-pierre-gunnar-jerlstrom

Yeah, that doesn't wash. As I indicated before, HGT is not a significant feature of eukaryote evolution and occurs in exceptional circumstances that are quite easy to spot- typically the only route being via viral genome integration. The quantifiable rarity of such HGT events in eukaryotes actually further supports the relatedness of some eukaryote species- if we can find identical transfer sites in two species at homologous chromosomal loci, the probability that this is coincidence becomes vanishingly small, supporting similarity due to inheritance. Even if we account for all HGT what we get is single-origin tree for all eukaryotes deriving from single-celled eukaryotes and connecting all multicellular species.

The answer to Jerlström's question is a conclusive "no". So, it's still left to creationists to explain what that tree structure means, if it doesn't indicate relatedness by evolution.

gaynorvader

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think Wicknight has the argument.

If the Flood was merely a natural event, then no truth about God can be argued from it. One could use it as an illustration of an ultimate Judgment to come - all-encompassing, separating saint from sinner, etc. - but one's information about the coming Judgment would have to be based on some other revelation. If the Biblical account of the Flood is only a metaphor, were is the revelation which it is supposed to support?

In the Old Testament there is an historical narrative presentation from the creation of the heavens and earth in Genesis 1 through to the return from the Exile in Babylon. Nowhere in this does it give the suggestion that history has been dropped and metaphor begun. When one starts interpreting what is presented as history as metaphor, one has no way of telling which is which.

Was there an Eden? Were Adam & Eve real people? Noah? Abraham? Moses? Was there an Exodus? King David? Solomon? Daniel?

Into the New Testament: was there a virgin birth? Is Jesus really the Son of God? Was there a Jesus? Did He do miracles? Was He crucified? Did He rise again? Was it all a metaphor used by 1st C. messianics to give hope to an oppressed people?

Unless one can show the doctrinal revelation on which the metaphor is based, one has no right to suggest it is a metaphor. If our understanding of history or science makes us reject the historicity of the account, then let us have the courage to say the Biblical authors were mistaken.

The Biblical authors were mistaken, beyond a shadow of a doubt, about something at least. No human is perfect, so even if I were to take the overall story of the Bible to be true, I would have to accept that inconsistencies would arise due to translation problems/misinterpretations of visions/changing or exaggerating of the facts before they're written down etc. I'm sure all but the most naive of people would accept this.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I know of JC's credentials from other sources.

Perhaps you can clear up the mystery about them? Last time they came up, the feeling was that he had a certificate in some kind of agriculture-related topic.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's more detail:

Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?
by Pierre Jerlström
http://creation.com/is-the-evolutionary-tree-changing-into-a-creationist-orchard

Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström
Creationist Molecular Biologist
http://creation.com/dr-pierre-gunnar-jerlstrom

As a contrast this shows how proper science is done.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-us-human

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Depends what we understand by subjective. Punishing a criminal is objectively moral, even if I am not carrying that out. To make it subjective, in my view, would be to say it is only a matter of opinion if it is right to do so, that such punishment is not right in itself.

Punishing a criminal is not objectively moral, as if i were to imprison a person for a crime, i would deemed immoral, even if the person was guilty, as i'm not a judge, i don't have the authority. Even if i were a judge, punishing the criminal would depend on who the criminal was and why he did it. If I punished a mass murderer who killed a group of people because they where living in a place where he wanted his kids to live, it would be deemed moral. If I tried to punish god for doing the same thing to the caanites, then i would be deemed immoral (at least by theists)

wolfsbane wrote: »

They did not need to understand good and evil - only that they were God's creatures and were obliged to obey Him.

But understanding that they where gods creatures and were obliged to obey him is understanding good and evil, as good and evil is simply "following gods will" and "not following his will". By not understanding good and evil, they would not have understood the importance of following gods will.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why He forbad them was none of their business.

Knowing why he forbade them may have prevented them from doing any wrong, and god should have known this, as he created human psychology and would know that there is almost no better way to get someone to do something than to tell them "under no circumstances do that", but not say why.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But God specifically tells us He did create good, and that He Himself is good. So no equivalence between good and evil:
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

But where did evil come from then? If god everything god creates is good, and god created freewill, then surely freewill must be good. Where does evil come from, if not from good?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let's not get lost here. I was pointing out that Adam's will before the fall is not the same as ours is now. Different does not mean subjective as opposed to objective.

Actually yes it does. If something is one way for one person, and another way for another person, then it is subjective to whichever person is using it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But they had every ability to win - they had the express command of God and they had no sinful nature pressing them to give in. Such is the nature of a fully free-will.

How could they have to ability to win, when the circumstances for their failure where created by an omnipotent omniscient deity who could foresee their failure. When god decided to create them, satan, the world, everything the way he did, they, and everyone since them, has failed. Omnipotent, omniscient gods dont just create a set of circumstances without knowing the outcome, as a result of their omnisience and omnipotence, they decide the outcome, they cant not decide it, as they can see the implications of every circumstance and they have the power to change each one too.

wolfsbane wrote: »

See above.

You too.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God knew what would happen - but that does not mean He made it happen. He permitted it to happen. He allowed them to exercise their free-will.

God is god, omnipotent and omniscient. When he foresaw the outcome of the circumstances he was completely in control of, he decided the outcome.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, free-will in that sense is abolished. Why did He give it to Adam & Eve? He doesn't say.

Its yet to be shown that he actually gave freewill to adam and eve at all. You've to show how any being can have freewill if that being is under the thumb of an omnipotent, omniscient god.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But we may speculate that it demonstated how infinitely far below God we are in holiness when even a fully free will rebels.

But what is holiness? What definition are you using?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I don't see how circumstances could make sinless beings sin. They chose to sin, freely.

If you cant see how circumstances, put in place by god, can make sinless being sin, then how can you think that sinless beings would choose to sin?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are saying God couldn't have wanted His sinless creation to remain sinless and yet have free-will? That means you think free-will must always end in sin. I don't see why.

I think you have completely misread me. I am saying that god must want sin to exist, because sin exists. You might say its a necessary step to some further outcome, but as a necessary step, god must want it to happen.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

As above, either god can get the ultimate outcome without using a set of circumstances that result in sin, or he wants sin, as it is a requirement for his desired ultimate outcome.

The circumstances do not cause a free-will being to sin. They choose to do so.

But having to make a choice is a product of being in som set of circumstances. So circumstances cause "freewill" beings to make the choice. but how "freewill" beings will make their decisions is based on their experiences they got in other circumstances, so therefore circumstances will influence a "freewill" beings choices to good or evil. Now to us, these sets of circumstances can seem distinct, but to god, all existence is just a set of circumstances, with one ultimate outcome, with every step of that circumstance purposefully tailored to get the response needed to move onto the next step and the next and so on. One of those responses was sin.

PDN

gaynorvader wrote: »

The Biblical authors were mistaken, beyond a shadow of a doubt, about something at least. No human is perfect, so even if I were to take the overall story of the Bible to be true, I would have to accept that inconsistencies would arise due to translation problems/misinterpretations of visions/changing or exaggerating of the facts before they're written down etc. I'm sure all but the most naive of people would accept this.

Not at all - unless you use naive as a general insult against theists in general. I don't think it all unreasonable that an omnipotent God should be capable of making sure that the biblical text remained free from error.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the content of the posts, your assessment of them is in line with your dismissal of not only JC but all the scientists who argue the scientific case for creation.

There aren't any scientists arguing the creationist case. Scientists mark no boundaries beyond which questions may not be asked. Creationists draw the line at questioning scripture. Whilst there are some people qualified to be professional scientists amongst their ranks, these people seem to have taken up rhetoric and book writing rather than scientific research. You rather make it sound like there are a lot of them too, when the estimated number is somewhere below 1000 worldwide. The research output, none of which is peer-reviewed, is remarkably small even proportional to the number of "scientists" involved. It is dwarfed in funding, scale and quality by literature pitched at the general public and policy makers. The research that does exist, when examined, is easily refuted even by scientists at undergraduate level. So it appears to exist merely to reassure those who will not look too closely that the glossier, more colourful works directed at the public are in fact backed up by "the science bit".

So they're philosophically not scientists and practically not scientists. Is there another sense of the word I'm missing?

gaynorvader

PDN wrote: »

Not at all - unless you use naive as a general insult against theists in general. I don't think it all unreasonable that an omnipotent God should be capable of making sure that the biblical text remained free from error.

No theist I have ever met believes the Bible is correct, word for word. If you do, you'd be the first. If the Bible were true word for word, how would you explain the differences that arise between different versions of the Bible? It was not supposed to be a dig at theists, believing in a god does not make you naive, it depends on why you believe.

PDN

gaynorvader wrote: »

No theist I have ever met believes the Bible is correct, word for word. If you do, you'd be the first. If the Bible were true word for word, how would you explain the differences that arise between different versions of the Bible? It was not supposed to be a dig at theists, believing in a god does not make you naive, it depends on why you believe.

I, and hundreds of millions of other Christians, do indeed believe that the Bible is correct, word for word.

Different versions of the Bible are simply translations. That has no relevance whatsoever to the truthfulness of Scripture. Think of it this way. If a witness in court gives his testimony in French then that testimony may be totallly truthful. The fact that different interpreters might vary in the words they use to translate it into English does not impact on the testimony's truthfulness.

gaynorvader

PDN wrote: »

I, and hundreds of millions of other Christians, do indeed believe that the Bible is correct, word for word.

Different versions of the Bible are simply translations. That has no relevance whatsoever to the truthfulness of Scripture. Think of it this way. If a witness in court gives his testimony in French then that testimony may be totallly truthful. The fact that different interpreters might vary in the words they use to translate it into English does not impact on the testimony's truthfulness.

How do you explain the contradictions that arise in the Bible? i always explained them as mistranslations. Or the fact that the ancient Hebrew word for man could be translated as boy or human? I'm not trying to contend that if you believe the overall content of the Bible to be true that you are naive, only that if you take it, literally, word for word, you cannot expect it to be 100% accurate.

PDN

gaynorvader wrote: »

How do you explain the contradictions that arise in the Bible? i always explained them as mistranslations. Or the fact that the ancient Hebrew word for man could be translated as boy or human? I'm not trying to contend that if you believe the overall content of the Bible to be true that you are naive, only that if you take it, literally, word for word, you cannot expect it to be 100% accurate.

You can certainly have contradictions in a translation - because translations are not, in themselves, what we refer to as 'the Bible'. No translation, of anything, can be 100% accurate because words carry different shades of meaning in different languages.

When Christians say they believe "the Bible" to be true they are speaking about the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

gaynorvader

PDN wrote: »

You can certainly have contradictions in a translation - because translations are not, in themselves, what we refer to as 'the Bible'.

Of course, but that's what I was referring to, the English Bible, as that's what the majority of Christians read (and French, German, etc.).

PDN wrote: »

No translation, of anything, can be 100% accurate because words carry different shades of meaning in different languages.

That's what I was saying! :P

PDN wrote: »

When Christians say they believe "the Bible" to be true they are speaking about the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Yes, but how many have read and/or understand these manuscripts? So some of the Bible (the modern translations) is going to be lost in translation, or misrepresented. That is what I meant by in being naive to take it word for word.

On a side note, it just so happens that I don't believe the original manuscripts to be entirely true, but to only have basis in fact, but that's just me and I can fully respect someone's belief that such manuscripts could be completely accurate. I find it as reasonable as someone believing in God, after all it's as you say; if you can believe in God, it's not that big a leap of faith to believe He'd make sure His Word was written down correctly.:)

Caoimhín

Nobody really knows what age the universe is.

One theory is that time may have acted in a different way at different stages of the universe's development. The great thing about science is that it is open to revision and new discoveries.