The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

philologos

I have read the article Sam, I've even quoted from it. Read up.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I have read the article Sam, I've even quoted from it. Read up.

Jakkass wrote: »

Having consulted the article, I think his views are still unjustified.

you gave your opinion on it and then read it

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you gave your opinion on it and then read it

Yes, based on the commentary that wolfsbane provided, I felt that it was unjustified.

His views are still unjustified, Collins is a great scientist who has been involved in medicine. He seems apt for the job irrespective of his faith. Both Wicknight and Harris obviously are clouded by their atheism in this case. Their views are ridiculous, end of.

The article basically says Collins shouldn't be considered because he is a Christian. If that isn't discrimination, I don't know what is.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The article basically says Collins shouldn't be considered because he is a Christian.

No it doesn't.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

CSI hasn't been discredited in the least !!!!

...if you look at what I have underlined, the criticisms of Dembeski are very tentative and NOT REFERENCED. Equally, because the Maths is distributive, branching or linear functions make no difference ... when every electron in the known universe would have to be deployed to 'search out' the sequence for just ONE specific functional protein, I think we can safely conclude that Spontaneous Processes DIDN'T produce life. The really exciting stuff is trying to figure out where the Intelligence might have come from!!!!
...I have given you (repeatedly to the point of boredom) the mathematics which PROVE that a specific simple protein cannot be produced with any degree of practicality... and literally billions of such biomolecules would have been required to be produced spontaneously at SPECIFIC points in time and space, if Materialistic Evolution and Abiogenesis are true!!!

...and BTW I disgree with Dembski (who is a Theistic Evolutionist) on many issues of science and theology ... but I recognise a genius, when I see one ... and Dembeski is a genius on a par with a Galileo or a Newton ... I only wish that he would join the ranks of Creation Scientists ... we certainly wouldn't spurn him, like his Materialist Evolutionist colleagues have done!!!!:D

Creationist Health Warning: May Contain Real Science

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806141706.htm

Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have examined how an enzyme responsible for adding one amino acid, alanine, to proteins has come to have its own spellchecker. In their paper published in the August 7, 2009, issue of Science, Scripps Research Professor Paul Schimmel and colleagues show that two separate functions—alanine adding and editing—were joined together in a single enzyme during early evolution, in a way that greatly enhances these activities. The findings provide a glimpse into how enzyme functions have evolved.

kiffer

J C wrote: »

..I thought you were going somewhere with your fire and flood scenario ... but I was wrong!!!:D:)

Where did you think I was going with it?

anyway... recovery/getting home from the party took longer than expected, I've not bothered reading the last few days of posts as it seems to be more of the usual...

Just to recap quickly:
We'd gotten through spontaneous landslide, fish deaths, and sorting of sediments and creation of a river with you still agreeing that the events were spontaneous (by your definition of spontaneous)

J C

Morbert wrote: »

This is what I would be worried about regarding Collins. He must be willing to adopt materialism as a methodology, and some of his writings suggest otherwise. He claims, for example, that altruism and morality cannot have natural explanations, and that the human mind cannot be a product of the human brain. As a scientist in charge of funding much of the biological sciences, he must be prepared to assume that such phenomena do have effective natural explanations.

..WHY SHOULD he have to be prepared to assume that all phenomena have effective natural explanations ... when some phenomena, like the origins of life OBJECTIVELY don't ????

....your comments are the equivalent of me saying that Atheists should NEVER be employed because they DON'T believe in the truth that God Created and Designed the Universe!!!!

....one thing has certainly come out of all of this ... and that is that some Atheists CAN BE THE BIGGEST BIGOTS on the Planet!!!:eek:

...and some have absolutely NO SENSE of impartiality, fair play or justice!!!!:(:eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

..WHY SHOULD HE have be prepared to assume that all phenomena have effective natural explanations ... when some phenomena, like life OBJECTIVELY don't ????

That doesn't make any sense.

If something doesn't have a natural explanation then you can't explain it, and therefore you can't say it doesn't have a natural explanation.

Science 101 JC.

Unless you are suggesting that Collins should take what he reads in the Bible as scientific fact. But being the trained scientist that you are I'm sure you wouldn't suggest something that dumb.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Is there any point in having a conversation with you guys when you are all so determined to misrepresent and distort what is happening and the objections to it.

.... this is an old debating trick of yours!!!!
....I've noticed that when the 'pants are beaten off you' ... you cry that you have been 'misrepresented' .... when, in fact, you views have been perfectly represented .... and perfectly demolished !!!!:(:eek:

Wicknight wrote: »

No Soul Winner, it is not "just" because he believe in the supernatural. Nor is anyone suggesting he shouldn't be given a job as a scientist, because he isn't being given a job as a scientist. He is being given a job in administration and policy. If he was being given a job as a scientist I wouldn't care, as you state below there are safe guards in science that prevent personal bias from effecting your work. There isn't in administration and policy.

...what was all the baloney about him having to "be willing to adopt materialism as a methodology" about then????

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that this is not a scientific research position but an administration and policy position, please point out how peer review helps in this case.

... it would help if he COMMISIONED research!!!!

....so WHAT ARE you REALLY worried about???

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh don't be ridiculous. Collins is making claims about reality based on supernatural belief and has now been put into a position of organising the research into these areas.

Prof Collins is THE LEADING SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY in the World on the Human Genome. He ALSO happens to be a Christian ... GET OVER IT!!!!:mad::(:eek:

Wicknight wrote: »

As Hatter asks would you be defending him if he believed ghosts organised DNA?

...He ISN'T saying THAT!!!
...we wouldn't defend him if he said that life came about through the interaction of muck and magic EITHER !!!! ... and 'muck and magic' just about sums up the Materialistic Evolutionist position PERFECTLY!!!!:(:eek:

philologos

Wicknight: It's interesting that you make out that science excludes the possibility of the supernatural when it actually doesn't. This is why his belief in God is irrelevant. If you interpret science as something that is only atheist compatible, of course Collins won't fit. That's exactly what you and Harris do. Believing in God doesn't impact your scientific ability or your ability to carry out that post effectively.

It's nothing to do with misrepresentation, that's the reality of the situation. Many great scientists believe in God, and no doubt many great scientists will continue to believe in God. Deal with it!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is no evidence whatsoever for creation. Every single piece of evidence unequivocally supports evolution. You can see the evidence for evolution as long as you open your eyes an look at it. The only thing you will find supporting creation is a creationists misunderstanding of the evidence. I read the first piece of "evidence":
.

...blah .. de ... blah!!!!

....your riduculous criticism of Creation Science carries about as much weight as your illogical criticism of Prof Collins ... and that is PRECISELY NO LOGICAL WEIGHT!!!:eek:

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

Many great scientists believe in God, and no doubt many great scientists will continue to believe in God. Deal with it!

...they have been unable to 'deal with it' in my case for over 16,000 postings!!!!!:D:eek::P

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't.

...Oh YES it DOES!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: It's interesting that you make out that science excludes the possibility of the supernatural when it actually doesn't.

That would be interesting if I was doing that :rolleyes:

The supernatural is, by definition, unknownable. Science recognises that. It can only study what is knowable. It doesn't exclude supernatural things from existing, but it cannot determine if they do or not. Assumptions that it does have no place in science. You can only include things in science that you can back up with science itself. Otherwise the whole process breaks down.

Reading the Bible doesn't count, no matter how much JC claims otherwise.

I can't figure out if you genuinely don't understand what is being objected to here, or that you just don't have a defence for it so you prefer to argue these ridiculous straw man arguments. If all Collins was doing was scientific research there would be no need to be concerned. Despite the best effort of Creationists science has a large set of standards that protect against the sort of supernatural bias Collins is demonstrating.

Jakkass wrote: »

Believing in God doesn't impact your scientific ability or your ability to carry out that post effectively.

It does if you reach scientific conclusions based on your religion, which is what Collins has done. Like I said you have to reach your scientific conclusions through science, in a testable repeatable fashion. Introducing conclusions based on supernatural theology compromises the standards of science, which is exactly what Harris is worried about.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing to do with misrepresentation, that's the reality of the situation. Many great scientists believe in God, and no doubt many great scientists will continue to believe in God. Deal with it!

My issue is not with the many great scientists who believed in God. Science has plenty of inbuilt standards that protect against any bias on the part of the scientist. That is why Creationists get so angry with science, they fail to meet scientific standards and get annoyed by this.

But, as has already been pointed out, the role Collins now operates in is not as a scientist, it is as and administrator and policy maker. There are no safe guards to prevent his conclusions about the supernatural shaping policy at the centre.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Creationist Health Warning: May Contain Real Science

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806141706.htm

...this is the equivalent of somebody being amazed when they 'add' electricity to a computer and find that it has it's own SPELLCHECKER!!!!:D:eek:

ATHEIST HEALTH WARNING : Life Contains Works of God!!!!:D

ATHEIST HEALTH WARNING : Creation Science is bad for your Faith!!!!:D

ATHEIST HEALTH WARNING : Evolution is on the verge of Scientific EXTINCTION!!!!

lugha

J C wrote: »

... and 'muck and magic' just about sums up the Materialistic Evolutionist position PERFECTLY!!!!:(:eek:

Hi JC,
I’m sure you have addressed this somewhere in the 16,800+ posts above (alas I cannot summons the will to read them all!) but can I ask what your view is on the origin of God? It is your view that he was he always there? And if so, why does this not present the same logical problem as postulating that matter/life, or some precursor to them, always existed?

J C

kiffer wrote: »

Where did you think I was going with it?

... I hadn't a clue... but I assumed you weren't timewasting!!!!!

kiffer wrote: »

Just to recap quickly:
We'd gotten through spontaneous landslide, fish deaths, and sorting of sediments and creation of a river with you still agreeing that the events were spontaneous (by your definition of spontaneous)

... so you WERE timewasting!!!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense.

If something doesn't have a natural explanation then you can't explain it, and therefore you can't say it doesn't have a natural explanation..

...the Human Soul and Intelligence DON'T have a natural explanation!!!!!

...YET they EXIST!!!:D

...Indeed the origins of life ITSELF doesn't have any BELIEVABLE natural explanation ... yet it exists!!!!:)

....IF you guys want to establish an Institute of Atheism ... go do so WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!!!!:D

...if you want to study publicly-funded science, I'm sorry, but you will have to work alongside Christians and other Theists ... tough ... but that's just the way it is baby!!!!:):D:p

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

That would be interesting if I was doing that :rolleyes:

You are doing that. To be a Christian one has to believe in the supernatural. You know that as well as I do, so let's keep it real here. You are effectively saying because Collins believes in a creator God that he cannot serve his position out as effectively as any atheist. That isn't strawmanning your position. That's exactly what Harris is putting across in that article.

Wicknight wrote: »

The supernatural is, by definition, unknownable. Science recognises that. It can only study what is knowable. It doesn't exclude supernatural things from existing, but it cannot determine if they do or not. Assumptions that it does have no place in science. You can only include things in science that you can back up with science itself. Otherwise the whole process breaks down.

I think Collins can distinguish between what is he holds to be most probable faith and what is certifiably factual. He certainly has the intelligence to do so.

Again, Wicknight, there is no way Collins can do what you are expecting while being a Christian. This is why I suggest that this is discriminatory. You are framing science as if it is only atheist friendly. Which is of course nonsense.

Collins is only studying and seeking to study what is knowable. Collins is quite capable of understanding that faith and science are two separate areas of inquiry. If you had actually read the Language of God you would have realised this. Yes, Collins does believe that the Human Genome Project is a testament to God's ultimate design of human beings, but Collins is also capable of investigating scientific claims on scientific merit, and assessing faith claims as just that faith claims.

Collins has never included theological claims as a part of any of his scientific work, and it is highly dishonest and disingenuous of both you and Sam Harris to claim so.

Wicknight wrote: »

Reading the Bible doesn't count, no matter how much JC claims otherwise.

Now where has Collins said that the Bible is a science book?

Wicknight wrote: »

I can't figure out if you genuinely don't understand what is being objected to here, or that you just don't have a defence for it so you prefer to argue these ridiculous straw man arguments. If all Collins was doing was scientific research there would be no need to be concerned. Despite the best effort of Creationists science has a large set of standards that protect against the sort of supernatural bias Collins is demonstrating.

It isn't a strawman. Harris is effectively saying that Collins is not capable of doing this job because he believes that science and religion are compatible. Oh noes! :eek:

Did you ever think that Isaac Newton regarded science and religion as being compatible?

Infact many scientists in the UK and Ireland regard this as being true too. Guess what? They remain brilliant scientists!

Harris' view if it were executed by Obama would have been a violation of secularism. Atheist views should not inform who is capable or not of taking a position in any secular society. This also makes me feel that Harris and by extension you want to step beyond a secular state and move towards a state which favours atheists and agnostics. That's what I find wrong with this.

Wicknight wrote: »

It does if you reach scientific conclusions based on your religion, which is what Collins has done. Like I said you have to reach your scientific conclusions through science, in a testable repeatable fashion. Introducing conclusions based on supernatural theology compromises the standards of science, which is exactly what Harris is worried about.

Wicknight, have you ever read the book the Language of God? I can't help but feel that you are actually strawmanning Collins' position. Nowhere has he said that we should impose conclusions based on our faith on science. It is purely fiction to suggest this to be the case.

Wicknight wrote: »

My issue is not with the many great scientists who believed in God. Science has plenty of inbuilt standards that protect against any bias on the part of the scientist. That is why Creationists get so angry with science, they fail to meet scientific standards and get annoyed by this.

I'm not discussing Creationism here.

Wicknight wrote: »

But, as has already been pointed out, the role Collins now operates in is not as a scientist, it is as and administrator and policy maker. There are no safe guards to prevent his conclusions about the supernatural shaping policy at the centre.

Collins has proved himself trustworthy over the years through his record in science. It is only by strawmanning what Collins actually has advocated in his book that one reaches the conclusion that you and Harris have done. It's nothing but nonsense, and I think we as Christians need to be more wary of this.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...the Human Soul and Intelligence DON'T have a natural explanation!!!!!

The human soul doesn't, which is why no one can say the human soul actually exists.

Intelligence certainly does have a natural explanation, the human brain.

J C wrote: »

...Indeed the origins of life ITSELF doesn't have any BELIEVABLE explanation

Which is why scientists don't pretend to know how life started on Earth. They certainly don't make claims based on reading a book written 4,000 years ago :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

...if you want to study publicly-funded science, I'm sorry but you will have to work alongside Christians and other Theists ... tough ... but that's how it is baby!!!!:):D:p

Not if the Christians and other theists compromise scientific standards. You are a shining example of exactly what science wants to avoid, untestable unverifiable claims being passed off as science.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I assume that is a different Prof. Philip Skell from the intelligent design chemist who likes to lie about his qualifications in bio-chemistry through the Discovery Institute?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/the-unexpected.html

Because quoting a chemist about how biologists are wrong, that would be a bit dumb. Quoting one who pretends to be something he isn't to add weight to his unsupported assertions in a field he doesn't work in. That would be really stupid.

Skell pretended nothing. If you had bothered reading down the article you linked, you would have read:
Denyse contacted Phil Skell who responded

Dear Denyse, Thanks for bringing me to date on this matter. I asked DI to make that correction, immediately on becoming aware of it. […] My reference to my antibiotic work should be coupled with my recognition, many years after I had left that work, that Evolution considerations had never entered the picture.

My recent understanding comes, not from my assessment of the utility of evo theory, but the assessment of the numerous leaders in modern experimental biology, who were accessible for conversation with me, who when asked in private whether they would have altered their research programs if they had been convinced Darwin’s History of the biocosm was wrong, all answered: “It would have made no difference!”, 100%. That should carry the weight.

Second, examination of the great biobreakthrough discoveries of the past century, given to me by those same leader-participants, failed to reveal a single one that had been guided heuristically by Darwin’s BioHistory. As with my antibiotics research, immersion in biohistory played no role—one can, perhaps, make the case that such immersion would have been an encumbrance, sidetracking those developments. This, too, is worthy of inclusion in the calculus.

kiffer

J C wrote: »

... I don't know ... but I assumed you weren't timewasting!!!!!

... yees !!!!!

Ok ... so we have our graded delta system and it gets bigger and the river pattern changes, pushing out to sea and so on... building up a nice big thick succession of muds and sands... and deep in this mass some crystals grow... lets say for arguments sake that they are little iron pyrite cubes...
Little pyrite cubes, sitting in the shale from the delta...
Did these crystals form spontaneously, by your definition of spontaneously?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes Wolfsbane, listen to your qualified scientists :rolleyes:

I'm always happy to be corrected by honest qualified scientists. Thank you, JC.

J C

lugha wrote: »

Hi JC,
I’m sure you have addressed this somewhere in the 16,800+ posts above (alas I cannot summons the will to read them all!) but can I ask what your view is on the origin of God? It is your view that he was he always there? And if so, why does this not present the same logical problem as postulating that matter/life, or some precursor to them, always existed?

...Yes I believe that God always existed.

Your other question is answered by the facts of 'an Ultimate Cause' and a 'running down Universe'.

One of the basic rules of physics is that each action has an equal and opposite reaction --- and every effect has a cause. Therefore, when we theoretically trace back every cause and effect we should theoretically come up against the ULTIMATE CAUSE(s) of ALL of the effects!!!
...this 'Ultimate Cause' has to be effectively omnipotent and of God-like powers. Science cannot identify Him/It now ... but He/Its characteristics looks remarkably like the God of the Bible ... We can be pretty CERTAIN that the Ultimate Cause exists/existed ... but what you believe about the Ultimate Cause is up to you!!!!:D

The second phenomenon is the observed reality, in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics, that the universe and everything in it is 'running down' ... for example, we get our energy from a Sun that is burning out and increasing in entrophy. Because the Universe is 'running down' the energy gradient ... it is logical to conclude that Somebody or Something MUST have 'wound it up' the energy gradient ... and that Somebody or Something is on an effectively infinite scale of God-like proportions. Again, we can be pretty CERTAIN that an 'Ultimate Energy Winder' exists/existed ... but what you believe about the 'Ultimate Energy Winder' is up to you!!!!:D

Life presents another aspect of this power ... life is observed to contain such vast amounts of compressed Specified Information on an almost infinite scale of quality and quantity as to require an Omniscient and Omnipotent Entity as it's ultimate source. Again, we can be pretty CERTAIN that an Ultimate Omniscient and Omnipoten 'Life Originator' exists/existed (notwithstanding the denial of Atheists on this matter) ... but what you believe about the Ultimate Omniscient and Omnipotent 'Life Originator' is up to you!!!!:D

The Universe, all energy and all life are logically incapable of raising themselves up by their own bootstraps ... so the existence of a transcendent, omnipotent and omniscient eternal entity/entities is required to explain it!!!!

J C

kiffer wrote: »

Ok ... so we have our graded delta system and it gets bigger and the river pattern changes, pushing out to sea and so on... building up a nice big thick succession of muds and sands... and deep in this mass some crystals grow... lets say for arguments sake that they are little iron pyrite cubes...
Little pyrite cubes, sitting in the shale from the delta...
Did these crystals form spontaneously, by your definition of spontaneously?

....yes

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You are doing that. To be a Christian one has to believe in the supernatural. You know that as well as I do, so let's keep it real here.

I don't care. Science is not a democracy. No one's personal beliefs, including yourself or Collins, overrides scientific standards. It is not sciences fault that you have to believe in the supernatural.

Jakkass wrote: »

You are effectively saying because Collins believes in a creator God that he cannot serve his position out as effectively as any atheist.

Is there any point in have this discussion with you Jakkass? You just keep repeating that nonsense straw man over and over :mad:

Jakkass wrote: »

I think Collins can distinguish between what is he holds to be most probable faith and what is certifiably factual.

Why do you think that Jakkass? Do you know the man? Do you know something the rest of us don't?

Or is it simply because he is a Christian you feel compelled to defend him?

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, Wicknight, there is no way Collins can do what you are expecting while being a Christian. This is why I suggest that this is discriminatory. You are framing science as if it is only atheist friendly. Which is of course nonsense.

Collins can do his job if he recognises that the personal conclusions he has reached are not support by science or the scientific method and are not a basis for scientific theory. He has claimed exactly the opposite.

Which puts him at odds with the position he is now in, where he is responsible for the administration of one of the most important scientific research centres in the world. .

Despite your nonsense straw man that it is because he is a Christian there are plenty of examples of Christians, scientists or otherwise, who do not do what Collins is doing, Christians who recognise that while they may hold personal beliefs about the supernatural current scientific knowledge does not support these positions, and as such they don't pretend that they do. They don't sledgehammer their supernatural beliefs into current scientific theory.

If lots of other Christians can do this it is nonsensical to argue that Collins has to hold these positions because he is a Christian.

Jakkass wrote: »

Collins is only studying and seeking to study what is knowable.

No he is not. Have you read Harris' article??

Seriously, this is ridiculous. You are argue the exact opposite of Collins' stated position and then giving out to me about picking on Collins. If this wasn't a Christian you would probably be agreeing with me.

Jakkass wrote: »

Collins is quite capable of understanding that faith and science are two separate areas of inquiry.

What are you basing that on

Do you know the man? Do you know something the rest of us don't? I've seen plenty of quotes from Collins that demonstrate the exact opposite of that conclusion.

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't a strawman. Harris is effectively saying that Collins is not capable of doing this job because he believes that science and religion are compatible. Oh noes! :eek:

No he isn't. Read it again.

Jakkass wrote: »

Did you ever think that Isaac Newton regarded science and religion as being compatible?

What part of straw man do you not understand?

Jakkass wrote: »

Harris' view if it were executed by Obama would have been a violation of secularism.

Nonsense. No more than refusing to hire a Young Earth Creationist as the head of an evolutionary biology project would.

Your argument that we should ignore his views if they are religious falls at the first hurdle. Like I said already, can I sue Boards.ie for discrimination if they don't make me Mod of Christianity forum?

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, have you ever read the book the Language of God? I can't help but feel that you are actually strawmanning Collins' position.

Considering for half of this dicussion you didn't know Collins position I'm not particularly concerned by that Jakkass.

I can't help feeling that you jumped to defend the man without reading the comments first (and dismissing Harris' position just because he was an atheist, some what ironically as Sam pointed out already) and now you are stuck defending the undefendable.

So you continue to roll out these straw man arguments that it is Collins Christianity that we are objecting to. It is not. It is his views on science.

Jakkass wrote: »

Nowhere has he said that we should impose conclusions based on our faith on science.

He already has imposed conclusions based on his faith on science. He concluded that science confirms the existence of God for crying out loud.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not discussing Creationism here.

You might as well be. The whole issue here is the standards of science, something Creationists have great object to.

Jakkass wrote: »

Collins has proved himself trustworthy over the years through his record in science.

How could you possibly know that? You talk about Collins as if he is some close personal friend.

Scientific standards force all scientific research to comply with scientific standards. Collins could have been writing "And God did that" in all his papers it wouldn't have mattered, his research would have ended up the same.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is only by strawmanning what Collins actually has advocated in his book that one reaches the conclusion that you and Harris have done.

I'm not talking about his book and neither is Harris. I haven't read his book, nor do I have any strong desire to. From the reviews of it it seems to be a pile of nonsense.

I'm talking about the views he has expressed publicly on more than a few occasions about the nature of science and the supernatural.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

My issue is not with the many great scientists who believed in God. Science has plenty of inbuilt standards that protect against any bias on the part of the scientist.

....so why is all the active discrimination and vitrol being used against ID, Creationist AND Theistis Evolutionist SCIENTISTS then???!!!!


..... the Atheists have ACTUALLY erected Materialist 'safeguards' to maintain a Materialistic BIAS in 'Origins Science' ... and they are prepared to do almost anything to preserve these 'safeguards'!!!!!

....and they got away with this outrage, because their Theistic colleagues were either 'asleep' ... and/or too smug in their 'old earth' beliefs to care!!!!! :eek:

...and now the Theistic Evolutionists are locked outside the 'club' looking in ... and shocked that they are being treated exactly like Creation Scientists!!!!:D

...the price of freedom is eternal vigilence!!!

...and he who tolerates injustice against another, should remember that such injustice may ultimately be visited upon themselves!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...Yes I believe that God always existed.

Your other question is answered by the concept of 'the Ultimate Cause' and the 'running down Universe'.

One of the basic rules of physics is that each action has an equal and opposite reaction --- and every phenomenon has a cause. Therefore, when we theoretically trace back every cause and effect we should theoretically come up against the ULTIMATE CAUSE(s) of ALL of the effects!!!
...this 'Ultimate Cause' has to be effectively omnipotent and of God-like powers. Science cannot identify Him/It now ... but He/Its characteristics looks remarkably like the God of the Bible ... We can be pretty CERTAIN that the Ultimate Cause exists/existed ... but what you believe about the Ultimate Cause is up to you!!!!:D

The second phenomenon is the observed reality, in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics, that the universe and everything in it is 'running down' ... we get our energy from a Sun that is burning out and increasing in entrophy, for example. Logic concludes that if the Universe is 'running down' the energy gradient ... Somebody or Something MUST have 'wound it up' the energy gradient ... and that Somebody or Something is on a scale of infinite God-like proportions. Again, we can be pretty CERTAIN that an Ultimate Energy Winder exists/existed ... but what you believe about the Ultimate Energy Winder is up to you!!!!:D

Life presents another aspect of this power ... life is observed to contain such vast amounts of compressed Specified Information on an almost infinite scale of quality and quantity as to require an Omniscient Entity as it's ultimate source. Again, we can be pretty CERTAIN that an Ultimate Omniscient Life Originator exists/existed ... but what you believe about the Ultimate Omniscient Life Originator is up to you!!!!:D

The Universe, all energy and all life are logically incapable of raising themselves up by their own bootstraps ... so the existence of a transcendent, omnipotent and omniscient eternal entity/entities is required to explain it!!!!

The are millions of examples in the natural world which could argue for the existence of a deity and I want to find out if creationism/evolution is one of them. Unfortunately this thread seems to go off in wild tangents, so I'm beginning to wonder if I should start looking elsewhere

MatthewVII

J C wrote: »

....so why the active discrimination against ID, Creationist AND Theistis Evolutionist SCIENTISTS then???!!!!

There is a difference between someone who is a scientist who adheres by scientific principles by day and says a prayer when he comes home and a scientist whos religious beliefs drive him to try and validate something which has no scientific merit

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Skell pretended nothing. If you had bothered reading down the article you linked, you would have read:

Read it again JC. The DI bio was based on information Skell provided.

Interest though to see him climb down from his original position of authority when confronted with the nonsense he is peddling. Forced to admit that he knows nothing about biology they deferred to unnamed "leaders" in biology how have expressed this opinion to him.

Which is one step up from "My mate Dave in the pub says ..."

Try again JC, try again :rolleyes: