The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Many Christians (indeed people in general) will deny their own observations in favour of some authority, be it written or otherwise. Generally for Christians this seems to just relate to more nebulous things like morality. Homosexual relationships are a sin, for example.

One of the major players in the process is confirmation bias

Its tough to be an authority on everything. The mesage of individual tolerence gets lost.

There is no real word to describe it but truthiness comes close which originated with Stephen Colbert

the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true

http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

In this case, evidence of sexually aggressive and promiscuous homosexuals is given great weight whilst evidence of passive and faithful homosexuals is given lesser weight, and is ignored or forgotten.

Jesus and the Twelve Apostles never went gaybashing in Galilee but interupted a stoning the odd time.

You also get "Render unto Caesar" about the seperation of moral issues issues and law. The bible is not a law book.

So is it really that huge a leap to deny contradictory scientific evidence? Science can be complicated sometimes, and it's very easy to differ to authority when a thing is difficult to understand. Ironically, it is this very style of thinking that science was created to circumvent.

The Bible is not a science textbook and it doesnt try to be.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

The Bible is not a science textbook and it doesnt try to be.

I agree, but unfortunately the delineation between what is intended as metaphorical versus what is literal is not clear in the Bible. Most Christians seem to take your tack; assume the bible is truthful in some sense and derive that sense based on what is known. But the Creationists have cottoned on to something that moderate Christians seem to have done their own suppressive mind trick on; that to react to the falsification of the literal truth of some part of the bible by transferring its meaning into a metaphorical sense or onto some spiritual plane renders the truth of the bible untestable and thus basically meaningless. It's also a slippery slope- if you can do it for the origin of species then why not for the standard model of cosmology and the inevitable theory of the origin of life? The Bible reflects countless long-held "common sense" assumptions about the universe, life and man whereas science tends to overturn assumptions frequently. Those truths feed into both factuality and morality, so a "render unto Caesar philosophy" is not going to cut it for accommodationists. What all this leads to is endless conflict and God-of-the-gaps arguments for anyone who wants to hold to both science and religion.

The Creationists portray themselves as scientists but what they are is actually the very definition of anti-science. The philosophy is scripture before all other reason. They're drawing a line in the sand and saying "no further". And actually they're kinda right. It's their way or the inevitable total erosion of the truth of the Bible. Any compromise, be it theistic evolution or similar, is purely temporary and contingent on no further upset. And given the progress we're now making on abiogenesis, further upset is clearly on the way soon.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I agree, but unfortunately the delineation between what is intended as metaphorical versus what is literal is not clear in the Bible.

It is what it is and its not a science textbook.

The Creationists portray themselves as scientists but what they are is actually the very definition of anti-science. The philosophy is scripture before all other reason. They're drawing a line in the sand and saying "no further". And actually they're kinda right. It's their way or the inevitable total erosion of the truth of the Bible......And given the progress we're now making on abiogenesis, further upset is clearly on the way soon.

You are right if you believe that science and religion are not compatable and if you are looking for an Absolute Theory of Everything in the Bible you wont get it. If you believe they are compatable then you should accept the science that goes with it.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

You are right if you believe that science and religion are not compatable and if you are looking for an Absolute Theory of Everything in the Bible you wont get it. If you believe they are compatable then you should accept the science that goes with it.

But how will you ever determine if they're compatible if your response to any falsification is to displace meaning into the metaphorical? The whole reason why this thread and the conflict at large exists is because it looks very much like they're not compatible at all.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But how will you ever determine if they're compatible if your response to any falsification is to displace meaning into the metaphorical? The whole reason why this thread and the conflict at large exists is because it looks very much like they're not compatible at all.

The argument is older than Christianity and goes back to Hellenic Judaism and Platoist readings of the Bible.The conflict wont change the science or the here and now. If a person believes in God he/she just accepts it and for me thats as deep as it gets.

The reason the thread exists is that you are questioning your beliefs and testing them.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

The argument is older than Christianity and goes back to Hellenic Judaism and Platoist readings of the Bible.The conflict wont change the science or the here and now. If a person believes in God he/she just accepts it and for me thats as deep as it gets.

I'm just pointing out that the compromise position inevitably requires that you move the goalposts on your faith constantly. I think some find that unacceptable because they see the logical extension of that. Perhaps they're wrong, but I suspect their fears are justified. I'm not particularly concerned about how that compromise impacts on science itself as that system is robust enough to account for any negative influence that might arise from within. Public acceptance and understanding of science is another matter though.

CDfm wrote: »

The reason the thread exists is that you are questioning your beliefs and testing them.

A nice sentiment, but I can't honestly say that the arguments presented here have demanded more of me than my rather simple understanding of evolution and some basic logic. If someone posts here that the sky is green I don't think it would be a display of self-doubt for me to post that it is blue.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that the compromise position inevitably requires that you move the goalposts on your faith constantly. I think some find that unacceptable because they see the logical extension of that. Perhaps they're wrong, but I suspect their fears are justified.

They are used to it. My beliefs are the same/constant but the science changes as more is discovered and how should that change anything.The world is still the same place and I am not obsessed with the detail.

Public acceptance and understanding of science is another matter though.

Well the biggest interest in science/evolution is from creationists etc so you are shrinking your own audience.:D

A nice sentiment, but I can't honestly say that the arguments presented here have demanded more of me than my rather simple understanding of evolution and some basic logic. If someone posts here that the sky is green I don't think it would be a display of self-doubt for me to post that it is blue.

You explain the science and issues very well and I am sure lots of people get a lot out of your posts.

You still havent fessed up to the blue jumper and whether or not you own one.

covey09

Hi i frimly belive in Evolution. Any justed wanted to say a few things

1. There have been **** loads of gods before J.C all who had the 12 dudes following him so thats that rubished

2. Science will never ever finish that what we all like about it were only scratching the surface of what lies beneath. (No god's no beneath)

3. How we got here. **** knows, but evolution will do for the time being. (uless you need somthing to hold on to- Christ followers do your thing)

4. the only fact are that 1&1=2 and so on.


Peas out

CDfm

covey09 wrote: »

Hi i frimly belive in Evolution. Any justed wanted to say a few things

1. There have been **** loads of gods before J.C all who had the 12 dudes following him so thats that rubished

2. Science will never ever finish that what we all like about it were only scratching the surface of what lies beneath. (No god's no beneath)

3. How we got here. **** knows, but evolution will do for the time being. (uless you need somthing to hold on to- Christ followers do your thing)

4. the only fact are that 1&1=2 and so on.


Peas out

All you have said here is that you dont believe in God -thats all.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that is a really silly thing to say which to be honest your ignorance of scientific manners can only excuse you so far before one is forced to assume you are simply trolling nonsense Creationism.

If "evolutionists" (I assume you mean evolutionary biologists) can dispute any and all parts of evolution theory that is exactly the same as being able to dispute the theory as a whole.

The only thing is that science would expect the person to actually back up this dispute with details. They bit that seems to be confusing you is that a Creationist cannot simply come out and say "I dispute all of this", because the rest of science would go "Ok, what are the details you dispute" and the Creationist doesn't have these details and just cries persecution because he is not "allowed" dispute evolutionary theory in general without have the specifics.

Or to put it another way, how would an evolutionary biologist dispute the whole theory if he had not first disputed a large number of the details in order to build up a reason to dispute the entire theory. It would make no sense for someone to simply say the whole thing is wrong without having the details in the details of why it is wrong.

Which should be blindingly obvious to you if you have listen to anything any of us have said about science and how it works. I seriously have to wonder about your motivation some times here Wolfsbane.

OK, watch my lips:

Fact: evolutionists do dispute details of evolutionary theory, that is, to explain a certain piece of evidence one offers one solution and another offers another. But both solutions must be consistent with an evolutionary outcome.

Fact: however much each solution is ridiculed by its evolutionist opponents, and however much the scientist is mocked, they are still embraced by the evolutionary establishment as one of their own. They are not cast out like the creationists.

Any or all parts of the current evolutionary model could be disputed by an evolutionist and he be accepted - provided he produce an alternative evolutionary model. What he must not do is produce a creationist model.

As to producing the detailed rebuttals, of course both evolutionist and creationist dissidents must come up with the goods. It is not enough to simply say "We disagree."

But you already know Creationism has produced detailed rebuttals and counterarguments to many evolutionary details. You do not like them, nor agree with them, but they are in the articles I linked to. To pretend that creationists just say "We disagree" is delusional.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I agree, but unfortunately the delineation between what is intended as metaphorical versus what is literal is not clear in the Bible. Most Christians seem to take your tack; assume the bible is truthful in some sense and derive that sense based on what is known. But the Creationists have cottoned on to something that moderate Christians seem to have done their own suppressive mind trick on; that to react to the falsification of the literal truth of some part of the bible by transferring its meaning into a metaphorical sense or onto some spiritual plane renders the truth of the bible untestable and thus basically meaningless. It's also a slippery slope- if you can do it for the origin of species then why not for the standard model of cosmology and the inevitable theory of the origin of life? The Bible reflects countless long-held "common sense" assumptions about the universe, life and man whereas science tends to overturn assumptions frequently. Those truths feed into both factuality and morality, so a "render unto Caesar philosophy" is not going to cut it for accommodationists. What all this leads to is endless conflict and God-of-the-gaps arguments for anyone who wants to hold to both science and religion.

The Creationists portray themselves as scientists but what they are is actually the very definition of anti-science. The philosophy is scripture before all other reason. They're drawing a line in the sand and saying "no further". And actually they're kinda right. It's their way or the inevitable total erosion of the truth of the Bible. Any compromise, be it theistic evolution or similar, is purely temporary and contingent on no further upset. And given the progress we're now making on abiogenesis, further upset is clearly on the way soon.

You have correctly identified the key issue for those who profess the Bible to be God's word. It is meant to convey His mind to man, so it must be clear enough for us to make sense of so that we can live appropriately. If its seemingly plain statements - its history for example - can be moved into mere metaphor whenever an apparent contradiction arises, then no confidence is possible about any historical assertions.

The idea that one can believe in a God without being able to know the meaning of anything He says seems to me to be fatuous.

Regarding creationists not being scientific: you are correct in saying we take the Biblical testimony as our final authority. But from that starting point we can apply the scientific method as well as anyone else.

Just because we do not have to offer a materialistic explanation for everything back to and beyond the Big Bang does not make us non-scientific.

Our explanation for non-materialistic causes is not scientific, but so what? We offer science for scientifically caused events. It is the materialist who must offer science for everything.

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

The Bible is not a science textbook and it doesnt try to be.

The Bible is a truthful account of all it asserts; history, morals, science.

Did God create the heavens and the earth in 6 Days? Yes.

Did God say it is sinful to murder? Yes.

Did God say death entered by Adam's sin? Yes.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, watch my lips:
Fact: evolutionists do dispute details of evolutionary theory, that is, to explain a certain piece of evidence one offers one solution and another offers another. But both solutions must be consistent with an evolutionary outcome.

Not necessarily. It must be consistent with the rest of the known evidence. That happens to support evolution rather conclusively.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Fact: however much each solution is ridiculed by its evolutionist opponents, and however much the scientist is mocked, they are still embraced by the evolutionary establishment as one of their own. They are not cast out like the creationists.

The reason for that is that creationists do not play by the same rules. Setting aside their tendency to quote the bible as a source and to proceed from untested starting positions, they also produce minimal new research, avoid peer review and devote the bulk of their time and effort towards engaging with the public rather than with the scientific community. Scientific outreach is important, but even when the topic is not controversial, it should never dwarf actual scientific research.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Any or all parts of the current evolutionary model could be disputed by an evolutionist and he be accepted - provided he produce an alternative evolutionary model. What he must not do is produce a creationist model.

If the evidence supported it, he could propose any model he liked. Controversy can make the career of a scientist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to producing the detailed rebuttals, of course both evolutionist and creationist dissidents must come up with the goods. It is not enough to simply say "We disagree."

But you already know Creationism has produced detailed rebuttals and counterarguments to many evolutionary details. You do not like them, nor agree with them, but they are in the articles I linked to. To pretend that creationists just say "We disagree" is delusional.

But Wolfsbane we're not comparing like with like here. You link us to essays that are mostly rhetoric. They even quote bible passages which tells us that whenever the evidence and scripture conflict, we're just not going to be shown the evidence. Very occasionally you show us a research paper and invariably they have glaringly obvious errors that immediately explain why they cannot get accepted into peer reviewed journals. The work being produced by "evolutionists" is of another class entirely in terms of quality, rigour and sheer quantity. I would wager that the journal Nature has published more scientific papers on the topic of evolution in its last issue than the creationist movement has in the last 10 years. That's one journal out of dozens. If you'd like I can send you some good examples, mostly linking to them requires that you subscribe to a journal. By comparison to this sort of work, saying "we disagree" is essentially all the creationists are doing.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have correctly identified the key issue for those who profess the Bible to be God's word. It is meant to convey His mind to man, so it must be clear enough for us to make sense of so that we can live appropriately. If its seemingly plain statements - its history for example - can be moved into mere metaphor whenever an apparent contradiction arises, then no confidence is possible about any historical assertions.

The idea that one can believe in a God without being able to know the meaning of anything He says seems to me to be fatuous.

Yes, I think you and I have been debating so long that we understand each other's positions rather well in many respects.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Regarding creationists not being scientific: you are correct in saying we take the Biblical testimony as our final authority. But from that starting point we can apply the scientific method as well as anyone else.

But if you are unwilling to question step one are you really able to say with confidence that your later investigations are uncoloured by confirmation bias? If the assumption is that step one is true when it remains untested, will not all following investigations be viewed in that context? Will it not always be held that no result can contradict that first assumption?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just because we do not have to offer a materialistic explanation for everything back to and beyond the Big Bang does not make us non-scientific.

Our explanation for non-materialistic causes is not scientific, but so what? We offer science for scientifically caused events. It is the materialist who must offer science for everything.

Again though, that follows from the assumption that certain questions are already answered despite your inability to actually verify that. To answer a question with an assertion that has not been tested is the very opposite of scientific. It shows a distinct lack of curiosity or imagination, it shows complacency and ultimately it does not allow is to further our knowledge. Knowing how evolution works has revolutionised what we can do with biology. What has the assertion that life was created by God enabled us to do?

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Bible is a truthful account of all it asserts; history, morals, science.

Did God create the heavens and the earth in 6 Days? Yes.

Did God say it is sinful to murder? Yes.

Did God say death entered by Adam's sin? Yes.

I do believe its the truth but that what it teaches is abtract ideas in a very simple way and allegory is very important to in communicating its message.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, watch my lips:

Fact: evolutionists do dispute details of evolutionary theory, that is, to explain a certain piece of evidence one offers one solution and another offers another. But both solutions must be consistent with an evolutionary outcome.

What is an "evolutionary outcome"?

That doesn't mean anything because an "evolutionary outcome" would be the theory of evolution and if you are disputing bits of it you are obviously not agreeing with it as it currently is.

There is no theory of Darwinian evolution except for the theory of Darwinian evolution. There is no wider general idea that the theory must adhear to.

You are just showing more Creationist nonsense about this vague idea you seem to have about "evolutionists", which as far as I can work out simply means people who don't agree with Creationists.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Fact: however much each solution is ridiculed by its evolutionist opponents, and however much the scientist is mocked, they are still embraced by the evolutionary establishment as one of their own. They are not cast out like the creationists.

Well yes, that is the point. Do the proper science you won't get mocked or casted out. Try to get around doing the proper science and you will.

You really seem to not get that point. Science has always changed when theories were determined to be flawed or inaccurate. The reason they are not changing with the Creationists is because the Creationists cannot demonstrate they are correct.

Even if you believe the Creationists must be correct because of your theological beliefs why do you persist with this idea that Creationists are doing good science when by your own admission you could tell if they were or not?

For all we know the Creationists could be 100% correct. They still don't have the science. They still aren't doing the science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Any or all parts of the current evolutionary model could be disputed by an evolutionist and he be accepted - provided he produce an alternative evolutionary model.

No, provided he produce an alternative model that can be shown to work. By definition if he was disputing evolution he wouldn't be producing an evolutionary model, or at least not a Darwinian one.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you already know Creationism has produced detailed rebuttals and counterarguments to many evolutionary details. You do not like them, nor agree with them, but they are in the articles I linked to.

And I can link to pages and pages of "science" showing the Earth is flat. Are you convinced it is?

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that these articles do not stand up to examination, they do not "produce the goods" The biological community are not stupid, if it worked it would work. We would all be using it right now, we wouldn't be wasting billions on evolutionary biology that is nothing but a bit mistake. You think all these billion dollar pharmaceutical companies give a toss about being Christian or atheist? They care about making money. If Darwinian evolution doesn't work then it doesn't work and you can't make money out of it. You can't base futher research on it. You can't use it to do anything.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You seriously think that such a huge scientific and commersial industry would stil be using this theory if it was wrong? You seriously think anyone on the board of directors of any of the major compaines doing research into evolutionary biology cares about a theological debate? They care about what works.

The only people who care about ideology are the Creationists because they have nothing else to care about. No one is using Creationism for any practical application. Creationist "science" has never been used to do a single thing. It can't, because it is wrong. It doesn't work. If you try and use it for anything you will end up making a mistake. Evolutionary biology on the other hand is used to actually do stuff all the time.

Funny if Creationism is correct and evolution is wrong, isn't it :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Wolfsbane wrote:

Regarding creationists not being scientific: you are correct in saying we take the Biblical testimony as our final authority. But from that starting point we can apply the scientific method as well as anyone else.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But if you are unwilling to question step one are you really able to say with confidence that your later investigations are uncoloured by confirmation bias? If the assumption is that step one is true when it remains untested, will not all following investigations be viewed in that context? Will it not always be held that no result can contradict that first assumption?

Whilst one can question the interpretation someone attaches to the Bible there isn't any conflict between a starting position of Gods existance and the Bible being his word ... and scientific inquiry. The scientific inquiry of a believer who supposes Goddidit would merely involve his investigating HowGoddidit.

Certainly you can't test whether or not the Bible is Gods word. Nor can you test whether the reality perceived as objective, external and stable actually is objective, external and stable. What you do is assume these things and have Science operate within the bubble of that assumption.

Science is subject to assumptions in other words - not master of them.

AtomicHorror

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whilst one can question the interpretation someone attaches to the Bible there isn't any conflict between a starting position of Gods existance and the Bible being his word ... and scientific inquiry.

There is if your assumption is that Genesis is literally true and your field of enquirey is basically any part of the natural sciences.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The scientific inquiry of a believer who supposes Goddidit would merely involve his investigating HowGoddidit.

That creates a bias immediately. In science, the assumption of a starting position without evidence will always dictate the nature of our investigations. But with an hypothesis, that starting position may be falsified and thus our investigations do not become biased. The potential for falsification is a vital part of a scientific investigation. If you assume God did it and your field of investigation relies on that assumption, you are not conducting science. I get your point, that the lack of a specific mechanism by which God acted is less restrictive. But that's not what we're talking about here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Certainly you can't test whether or not the Bible is Gods word. Nor can you test whether the reality perceived as objective, external and stable actually is objective, external and stable. What you do is assume these things and have Science operate within the bubble of that assumption.

These two things are not comparable. Firstly, there is no reason to doubt the objective universe. Second supposing we do doubt it, whether it is "really" objective, external and stable is irrelevant. It appears entirely to be so, thus the assumption is rational and necessary. The assumption that the bible is anything more than a book is irrational. There is no evidence to support the assumption, aside from anecdotal assertions. We can apply a negative starting assumption to both cases and the result will be acceptance of reality as probable and necessary and rejection of the bible as the word of some higher power as unjustified and untenable. It should be treated in the same manner as all ancient written sources and indeed it has no features which differentiate it from sources which contradict it.

The assumption that the universe exists independent of ourselves is of the same class of assumptions as Descartes' cogito ergo sum. Not even vaguely comparable to accepting some piece of writing as the word of some being the existence of which cannot be observed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Science is subject to assumptions in other words - not master of them.

Wow, what an assumption. The universe exists or appears to.

There's a second assumption, which is that the behaviour of the universe may be usefully reduced to laws. That assumption is actually testable though. We've derived laws that have been practically useful, have explained behaviour and have predicted new knowledge.

What does assuming that the bible is the word of God allow us to do? What practical applications has it yielded?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, watch my lips:

Fact: evolutionists do dispute details of evolutionary theory, that is, to explain a certain piece of evidence one offers one solution and another offers another. But both solutions must be consistent with an evolutionary outcome.
What is an "evolutionary outcome"?

One that asserts that our biosphere evolved, rather than was created fully functioning.

That doesn't mean anything because an "evolutionary outcome" would be the theory of evolution and if you are disputing bits of it you are obviously not agreeing with it as it currently is.

So evolutionists who hold/do not hold to punctuated equilibrium are not true evolutionists? My, my, I never thought you were such a fundementalist.

There is no theory of Darwinian evolution except for the theory of Darwinian evolution. There is no wider general idea that the theory must adhear to.

I never said otherwise. Just that within it there are differences about the details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Fact: however much each solution is ridiculed by its evolutionist opponents, and however much the scientist is mocked, they are still embraced by the evolutionary establishment as one of their own. They are not cast out like the creationists.
Well yes, that is the point. Do the proper science you won't get mocked or casted out. Try to get around doing the proper science and you will.

Which starts with the assumption evolution is the truth, therefore any science not embracing it is improper.

You really seem to not get that point. Science has always changed when theories were determined to be flawed or inaccurate. The reason they are not changing with the Creationists is because the Creationists cannot demonstrate they are correct.

Creationists have demonstrated evolution is not correct - but evolutionists cannot accept that, for it leads to a supernatural explanation, which is ruled out as a possible explanation. Science is made to conform to the dogma of naturalism, when it should be free to accept supernatural explanations as givens and apply itself to the material outworking of the supernatural creation.

Even if you believe the Creationists must be correct because of your theological beliefs why do you persist with this idea that Creationists are doing good science when by your own admission you could tell if they were or not?

Because scientists, equally well-qualified as any evolutionist, and whom I personally know and trust, offer the science as good science.

For all we know the Creationists could be 100% correct.

Well, like all science, they get some things wrong and have to correct it. But the general theory of Creation, yes, it is 100% correct.

They still don't have the science.

Yes, they do.

They still aren't doing the science.

Yes, they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Any or all parts of the current evolutionary model could be disputed by an evolutionist and he be accepted - provided he produce an alternative evolutionary model.
No, provided he produce an alternative model that can be shown to work.

Well, since we have not observed anything evolving into something other - an ape to a man, for instance, or a bacteria to a butterfly - the current theory of evolution has not been shown to work. If you reply we have seen speciation, then I reply that is also part of the creationist model, so I could just as well say creationism has be shown to work.

By definition if he was disputing evolution he wouldn't be producing an evolutionary model, or at least not a Darwinian one.

If he was disputing Darwinian evolution, he would still be an evolutionist if he produced an alternative model that involved evolution from the first cell to what we see today. Say it was based on the idea of intrinsic progression in complexity - that matter naturally flows from the simple to the complex and is not dependent on chance mutations, etc. Something after the Pullman mythology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But you already know Creationism has produced detailed rebuttals and counterarguments to many evolutionary details. You do not like them, nor agree with them, but they are in the articles I linked to.
And I can link to pages and pages of "science" showing the Earth is flat. Are you convinced it is?

But you cannot - despite repeated requests - link me to the well-qualified scientists who produce it. Anyone can link to fairy stories, but not to scientists willing to stand over their claims.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that these articles do not stand up to examination, they do not "produce the goods"

Because I do not trust you or any evolutionist to be impartial about the debate. I have read of one or two, but they end up being ridiculed by their evolutionary colleagues.

The biological community are not stupid, if it worked it would work. We would all be using it right now, we wouldn't be wasting billions on evolutionary biology that is nothing but a bit mistake. You think all these billion dollar pharmaceutical companies give a toss about being Christian or atheist? They care about making money. If Darwinian evolution doesn't work then it doesn't work and you can't make money out of it. You can't base futher research on it. You can't use it to do anything.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You seriously think that such a huge scientific and commersial industry would stil be using this theory if it was wrong? You seriously think anyone on the board of directors of any of the major compaines doing research into evolutionary biology cares about a theological debate? They care about what works.

The only people who care about ideology are the Creationists because they have nothing else to care about. No one is using Creationism for any practical application. Creationist "science" has never been used to do a single thing. It can't, because it is wrong. It doesn't work. If you try and use it for anything you will end up making a mistake. Evolutionary biology on the other hand is used to actually do stuff all the time.

It is not evolutionary biology that produces the results - it is the parts of it that it shares with creationism. As I said above, I could claim creationist biology works and has produced the industry mentioned.

Funny if Creationism is correct and evolution is wrong, isn't it

Only if you blithely ignore the fact that they have bits common to both models.

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

I do believe its the truth but that what it teaches is abtract ideas in a very simple way and allegory is very important to in communicating its message.

You would have to defend your practise of making what appears to be historical narrative into allegory. You need to show that you have a hermeneutic that is consistent, not arbitrary choice. You also need to account for why Christ and His apostles appear to regard the passages as historical narrative.

I can understand why atheists would treat a failure to do so as admission the Bible is just the words of fallible men.

toiletduck

Maybe you could outline that creation model so.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists have demonstrated evolution is not correct - but evolutionists cannot accept that, for it leads to a supernatural explanation

No it doesn't. Even if evolution was shown to be wrong today that wouldn't confirm a supernatural explanation/creation model or give one iota of creedence to the 'science' of these in any way. All it would mean is that evolution is wrong.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, I think you and I have been debating so long that we understand each other's positions rather well in many respects.



But if you are unwilling to question step one are you really able to say with confidence that your later investigations are uncoloured by confirmation bias? If the assumption is that step one is true when it remains untested, will not all following investigations be viewed in that context? Will it not always be held that no result can contradict that first assumption?



Again though, that follows from the assumption that certain questions are already answered despite your inability to actually verify that. To answer a question with an assertion that has not been tested is the very opposite of scientific. It shows a distinct lack of curiosity or imagination, it shows complacency and ultimately it does not allow is to further our knowledge. Knowing how evolution works has revolutionised what we can do with biology. What has the assertion that life was created by God enabled us to do?

It is not the theory of evolution that has revolutionised what we can do with biology. It is the part of the theory it shares with creationism - natural selection and adaption, or the knowledge of how genetics works.

So I could make the claim that creationism has revolutionised what we can do with biology.

As to confirmation bias, yes, one has to take care not to force the interpretation into presuppositions. If the findings appear to contradict our presuppostions, we should say so. If our presuppositions are sacrosanct, we can await further light on the findings.

As to curiosity, it is improper when we know the matter is beyond discovery. How God created the universe by His mere command, that is not open to examination. But what happened afterwards is available for us to examine.

wolfsbane

toiletduck wrote: »

Maybe you could outline that creation model so.



No it doesn't. Even if evolution was shown to be wrong today that wouldn't confirm a supernatural explanation/creation model or give one iota of creedence to the 'science' of these in any way. All it would mean is that evolution is wrong.

I'm going off-line for a couple of weeks, but you can find all you need about the creation model in the relevant sites.

If evolution is not true, I cannot think of any other than a theistic explanation. I think everything you guys have stands or falls with evolution. That's why you so passionately defend it.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not the theory of evolution that has revolutionised what we can do with biology. It is the part of the theory it shares with creationism - natural selection and adaption, or the knowledge of how genetics works.

So I could make the claim that creationism has revolutionised what we can do with biology.

Ha

I go on the Humour forum every now and again to get a good laugh but that has to be the funniest thing I've ever read on this whole webiste :pac:

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm going off-line for a couple of weeks, but you can find all you need about the creation model in the relevant sites.

If evolution is not true, I cannot think of any other than a theistic explanation. I think everything you guys have stands or falls with evolution. That's why you so passionately defend it.

You can't think of it, therefore it doesn't exist?

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You can't think of it, therefore it doesn't exist?

No, but I'll give you a couple of weeks to suggest one. See you then, DV.

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

If evolution is not true, I cannot think of any other than a theistic explanation. I think everything you guys have stands or falls with evolution. That's why you so passionately defend it.

That wouldn't explain my position

Hope you have a great time away -going anywhere nice or is that being nosey?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, but I'll give you a couple of weeks to suggest one. See you then, DV.

The default position is 'we don't know'.

darjeeling

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not the theory of evolution that has revolutionised what we can do with biology. It is the part of the theory it shares with creationism - natural selection and adaption, or the knowledge of how genetics works.

So I could make the claim that creationism has revolutionised what we can do with biology.

Simply not true. Evolution, and what it has revealed about common ancestry, underpins medical and genetic research.

We study gene function in mice, nematodes, frogs, fruit flies and even yeasts to find out what the genes do in humans. This works because common ancestry means we have inherited many of the same genes as these other organisms, and that these genes are carrying out similar functions.

We test new therapies on other mammal species because their relatively recent common ancestry with us means we share comparable biochemistry and physiology, and will respond similarly to treatment.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not the theory of evolution that has revolutionised what we can do with biology. It is the part of the theory it shares with creationism - natural selection and adaption, or the knowledge of how genetics works.

This is not true. Creationism denies that mutation can produce functional genes frequently enough to allow variation. It denies that variations under selection can accumulate to result in larger changes. Both of these concepts are central to the practical applications of evolution. Site-directed mutagenesis, phage-display selection, bioinformatics... none of these make sense without those concepts in place.

How does assuming that genetic similarity equals a common designer help us in genetics? What can we predict with that assumption? We'd have to know the motives and aesthetic sense of the designer to make any predictions at all. And yet some how, by making no such assumptions, we can predict the genetics of undiscovered species. We can rule out impossible combinations. Creationism adds nothing to this, indeed the elements of the theory unique to evolution are vital to that process. And it works.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So I could make the claim that creationism has revolutionised what we can do with biology.

Rubbish. You could no more make that claim than anyone else who accepts this or that piece of science. Creationists have not added anything to our understanding of biology. They've accepted the parts of evolution most difficult to deny, and rejected anything with a hint of abstraction or doubt, as they see it.

Point out to me one example of something we can practically do because of creationism that we cannot do by accepting evolution. Something unique to the creation model. I've just pointed out several things we cannot do by accepting creationism alone. So go on, show me what creationism alone brings to the table.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to confirmation bias, yes, one has to take care not to force the interpretation into presuppositions. If the findings appear to contradict our presuppostions, we should say so. If our presuppositions are sacrosanct, we can await further light on the findings.

How long will you wait before you cast out your starting assumption? 150 years not quite enough for you? 250 if you count from the time of Linnaeus and the discovery of the Tree of Life.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to curiosity, it is improper when we know the matter is beyond discovery.

And by what means do we know a thing to be beyond discovery if we have not attempted to discover it? What is the means by which you test the limits of knowledge? Why, I believe they call it science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

How God created the universe by His mere command, that is not open to examination. But what happened afterwards is available for us to examine.

That attitude would have convinced Galileo that he must be dreaming, Linnaeus that the tree of life was an illusion or coincidence, Leonardo that anatomy was a secret not to be told and Newton that the motion of the planets was God's work, just so, and no more. These men, many of the God-fearing, never saw any boundary beyond which their investigations must not cross. Their attitude made countless things possible. Your attitude,the very opposite of science, has given us nothing at all.