The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I don't need to stick up for PDN but that post specifically states that PDN would : "...discourage them (Christians he Pastors) from forming business partnerships with them (non Christians)..."

Pastoral advise to fellow congregants or those under a Pastor's watch in matters where the he/she (the Pastor) envisages problems down the line with regards to forming business partnerships with non-Christians is a far cry from discriminating against non Christians within business at a policy level.

If he discouraged them from forming business relationships with women or black people would it be discrimination?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If he discouraged them from forming business relationships with women or black people would it be discrimination?

If it was just because they were women or black people then yes of course but as you can discern from his post he did see problems from striking up business partnerships with non Christians in the past and that would be why he would encourage (not demand or command) that they veer away from such partnerships in the future. That's good advice from a Pastor which speaks from experience not prejudice.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I must confess that I can't quite follow your logic here.

A few days back you mentioned that you actually recommend christians to discriminate against non-christians in professional life.

Are you saying today that it's now wrong for it to happen the other way around, where non-christians might discriminate against christians based upon their religious beliefs?

Yes, I've noticed that. For an obviously intelligent person you do demonstrate a disturbing tendency not to be able to follow rather straightforward logic when it suits you.

I do indeed recommend Christians not to enter into business partnerships with those who have different value systems based on different worldviews. Which, despite the mock outrage of the fundamentalist atheists who visit this forum, is a perfectly reasonable position.

As Soul Winner has pointed out, this is entirely different from discriminating against someone on religious grounds when employing them, or in appointing them to a publicly funded position.

So, for example, if a Christian employer were to discriminate against an atheist or a Muslim when it came to recruiting an employee I would hope that that the full force of the law would be brought against such bigotry. If a publicly funded research body (in science or the arts) denied someone from being appointed because they were an atheist or a Mormon then that again would IMHO be rank sectarianism and an abuse of power.

Equal opportunities for those of all faiths or none should be the order of the day for employment or public appointments (with obvious exceptions - you can hardly expect the Humanist Association of Ireland to appoint a Christian to executive office, or for the CofE to appoint an atheist as Archbishop of Canterbury). However, when choosing whom to marry or with whom to enter into a business partnership, discrimination is fine. It is perfectly acceptable to make such choices on the basis of religious faith, supporting the same football team, or even because you think the other person's nose is too big.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, so science can't answer philosophical questions but neither can religion, nothing can answer these questions. All we can do is philosophise about them and pick whichever philosophy we agree with.

Should have been a bit clearer above -- I was referring to the fact that world of ideas and information, as described and understood by epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, and general logic together suggest beyond any reasonable doubt, that religious belief is unsustainable as a rational position and that the answers that religion provides cannot be trusted to have any significant degree of inherent accuracy. It doesn't really have all that much to do with science which is concerned with observations of the physical world.

Ethics, the broad study of how people should interact with each other, certainly can be usefully informed by observations from the physical world, aka science. Together with a dose of guiding philosophy as to how these should be interpreted and acted upon

Sam Vimes wrote: »

science can completely explain the origins and ongoing evolution of morality but they may never find the answer because the man who's responsible for allocating the budget for the project doesn't think they'll ever find it

The set of slides that Myers references up above certainly does suggest that Collins believes things that have no reasonable basis, but I still I haven't seen any convincing evidence that these beliefs influence his scientific work in any way. If there is something out there, then I'd love to see it.

Turtwig

Just an observation :

Quote mining is incredible we (both sides here) can twist anyones opinion to suit our own

As rob said can anyone show evidence where Collins broke principle during his SCIENTIFIC work, or suggests that it is highly likely that he may do so?

Personal opinion does not count : I hate people who bend their thumbs, so should I refuse them a job if they sign the contract holding the biro wrong? Now don't get me started on glasses ....:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it was just because they were women or black people then yes of course but as you can discern from his post he did see problems from striking up business partnerships with non Christians in the past and that would be why he would encourage (not demand or command) that they veer away from such partnerships in the future. That's good advice from a Pastor which speaks from experience not prejudice.

What if he had seen people who had had problems striking up business partnerships with women and blacks which I'm sure has happened in the past? Would it then be discrimination?

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Ethics, the broad study of how people should interact with each other, certainly can be usefully informed by observations from the physical world, aka science. Together with a dose of guiding philosophy as to how these should be interpreted and acted upon :)The set of slides that Myers references up above certainly does suggest that Collins believes things that have no reasonable basis, but I still I haven't seen any convincing evidence that these beliefs influence his scientific work in any way. If there is something out there, then I'd love to see it.

The thing here is that the work he'll be doing isn't scientific, it's administrative. I don't even mind so much if a christian employs his beliefs in the lab because his experiments will simply fail but Collins will be deciding which projects get funding and which don't. He might be capable of the job but he has shown that his position can change when the evidence goes against him, not in the slides but his position on whether science can address the question of God or not, so having him in that position makes me uneasy. In a similar way, Gary Glitter might be capable of looking after my kids but I'd rather he didn't :P

Sam Vimes

Bear in mind that I'm not going to storm the white house to get the guy removed from his position, I'm just trying to explain that what's going on here is not discrimination against christians. It's a worry about one person's published unscientific positions and inconsistencies.

Whether the concerns are valid or not is another question but it's not discrimination against christians

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I have not read the book just like I know that you at least didn't read the god delusion properly because I mentioned a story from it and you demanded to know where I got my information from.

I read up to chapter 4 of the God Delusion, and I found it disappointing. I gave it a considerable amount of patience.

I read the entirety of Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great, a book which I found to be well written infact, of course with a bit of humour. His points are understandable from his point of view, but his book is just that a polemical piece of opinion. Pretty much as Dawkin's God Delusion is.

You regard the God Delusion rather highly, as if it is a point of reference for atheists to use. I've already said on another thread, there are other works by atheists which far surpass the God Delusion.

I believe the piece you quoted about the Jewish children was in the chapter concerning moral Zeitgeist. I was looking for backup of the truth of the claim rather than telling me to go read chapter 10 of the God Delusion. I.E showing where the citation came from rather than showing me another author who used the same citation as you did.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

However, Sam Harris gives in his article two contradictory quotes from Collins where his position changed when the evidence didn't go his way. Unless you're suggesting that Sam Harris is lying about those quotes just because of who he is then reading the book is not going to change my position on it. Maybe you should read the article properly instead of using your dripping bias against Harris to assume that he's making the quotes up

Reading the book might open you up to how Collins actually regards science, instead of how Sam Harris thinks Collins regards science. The first, is a primary and direct source of Collins' opinion, the second is well a secondary source passed through Harris' lens. I would have thought that was rather obvious.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the piece you quoted about the Jewish children was in the chapter concerning moral Zeitgeist. I was looking for backup of the truth of the claim rather than telling me to go read chapter 10 of the God Delusion. I.E showing where the citation came from rather than showing me another author who used the same citation as you did.

Put simply Jakkass I don't believe you. The book itself cites where he got it from and if you had read it in the book you would have known that.

Jakkass wrote: »

Reading the book might open you up to how Collins actually regards science, instead of how Sam Harris thinks Collins regards science. The first, is a primary and direct source of Collins' opinion, the second is well a secondary source passed through Harris' lens. I would have thought that was rather obvious.

My only point on this thread is that what Harris was doing was not discrimination because it was based on the unscientific and inconsistent statements of one particular person and not "because he's a christian". I don't really care how Collins regards science

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Put simply Jakkass I don't believe you. The book itself cites where he got it from and if you had read it in the book you would have known that.

And, put simply, you are yellow-carded.

Let's try to be civil to one another please. I think you could give Jakkass the benefit of the doubt given that much of The God Delusion is eminently forgettable.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But things like morality and ethics have a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation. With enough work, science can completely explain the origins and ongoing evolution of morality but they may never find the answer because the man who's responsible for allocating the budget for the project doesn't think they'll ever find it

Maybe discriminating against theists is an aspect of the most evolved morality, so there is no need for you to deny it?

Why not flaunt it?

Or even revisit eugenics and make a new start on the noble project of human evolution?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Maybe discriminating against theists is an aspect of the most evolved morality, so there is no need for you to deny it?

Why not flaunt it?

Or even revisit eugenics and make a new start on the noble project of human evolution?

I'm lost........


Is this a "there's no right and wrong without God" argument?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

For an obviously intelligent person you do demonstrate a disturbing tendency not to be able to follow rather straightforward logic when it suits you.

It's enormously affirming to hear a religious person say that an atheist just can't see reason -- thanks!

PDN wrote: »

I do indeed recommend Christians not to enter into business partnerships with those who have different value systems based on different worldviews.

It's a reasonable position if, say, your business is selling bibles or something else in which religion plays an important part. I certainly wouldn't advise a vegetarian to set up a slaughterhouse, nor somebody in possession of a brain and a sense of ethics to join Ken Ham's troupe.

In your opinion, what parts exactly of these "different worldviews" are sufficiently alien that it makes it impossible to have a worthwhile business relationship?

PDN wrote: »

if a Christian employer were to discriminate against an atheist or a Muslim when it came to recruiting an employee I would hope that that the full force of the law would be brought against such bigotry.

If your problem is that christians and non-christians have "different value systems" then this applies just as much to employees as it does to partners -- if you think otherwise, then I'll put it down to your unfamiliarity with the world of business. Your distinction makes no sense.

PDN wrote: »

It is perfectly acceptable to make such choices on the basis of religious faith, supporting the same football team, or even because you think the other person's nose is too big.

It's bad enough that some people discriminate against others on account of their religious beliefs. What's worse is for somebody in a position of trust and authority actively to encourage such discrimination.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

In your opinion, what parts exactly of these "different worldviews" are sufficiently alien that it makes it impossible to have a worthwhile business relationship?If your problem is that christians and non-christians have "different value systems" then this applies just as much to employees as it does to partners -- if you think otherwise, then I'll put it down to your unfamiliarity with the world of business. Your distinction makes no sense.It's bad enough that some people discriminate against others on account of their religious beliefs. What's worse is for somebody in a position of trust and authority actively to encourage such discrimination.

If you really want to discuss it then feel free to start a thread on it. I am perfectly happy to discuss it further. However, let's not use it any more as a smokescreen to mask the blatant bigotry against Dr Collins that is under discussion in this thread.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It might not right now but that doesn't mean it never can. Science is chipping away at everything that people used to turn to religion for.

This is an atheists opinion, you cannot expect the majority of theists to hold it.

Collins is entirely reasonable that questions come into different categories. This is why we address philosophical questions in a philosophical manner, scientific questions in a scientific manner, linguistic questions in the manner of a linguist. There are different approaches to different questions. Not all are or should be dealt with science. If you ever get a chance to read some of Ludwig Wittgensteins philosophy concerning "language games" you should. I found it rather convincing concerning how different questions should be dealt with in a different manner and how these different manners have different terminologies. Wittgenstein was a mathematician and a logician under the teaching of Bertrand Russell, who also like Russell engaged in philosophy.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, so science can't answer philosophical questions but neither can religion, nothing can answer these questions. All we can do is philosophise about them and pick whichever philosophy we agree with.

Philosophy deals with many different questions outside of what religion deals with. There are different fields of philosophy from the Philosophy of Religion, to the Philosophy of Selfhood, the Philosophy of the Mind and the Body. Religion does deal with many topics of philosophy and indeed in our assessment of things like soul, most major philosophy books would consider Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, and other religious figures from the Judeo Christian tradition, and from Buddhist tradition and Hindu tradition. Religion isn't the same thing as philosophy but they certainly do overlap. Even secular thinkers such as Hannah Arendt use the Talmud and the New Testament in their reference to her action theory which is a part of Moral Philosophy (if you are interested the book is titled The Human Condition).

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But things like morality and ethics have a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation. With enough work, science can completely explain the origins and ongoing evolution of morality but they may never find the answer because the man who's responsible for allocating the budget for the project doesn't think they'll ever find it

Not entirely. I don't think invoking science is often the best method to deal with morality. We can come up with conclusions concerning morality on a far more relevant level with an understanding of culture, sociology, philosophy and whether we like it or not, religion does assist in cohesive moral philosophy. Science doesn't take into account cultural factors in any respect, nor should it. Science deals with scientific claims, and philosophy deals with philosophical claims. We shouldn't insist that any field take an inappropriate incursion into another.

I don't share the view that science is a superior way to deal with all ways of life. Science has it's place and indeed it is wonderful, but we also have other paths of inquiry.

Edit:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Put simply Jakkass I don't believe you. The book itself cites where he got it from and if you had read it in the book you would have known that.

I really don't care if you believe me or not, I'm telling the truth irrespective. I find this a bit disingenuous. Without raising too much attention for former PM correspondence I have had with you. I've even sent you reasons why I disagree with Dawkins in his "Arguments from Scripture" section where he clamours together the notion because people ask where Jesus is from he must automatically not be from Nazareth. Did this or did this not happen?

Sam Vimes

I've remembered why I try to avoid debates with your good self Jakkass so I'm afraid your post will go unanswered

philologos

It's fine if you don't reply, however it is a perfect assessment of why it is inappropriate to invoke science in relation to questions of morality. Different fields deal with different things. I would have thought that was a rather solid point. Alas, I'll leave you to your own devices. I'm open to disagrement and discussion. Although I do like Wittgenstein and Arendt to a lesser extent. I disagree with Arendt but her POV is interesting :pac:

Jurgen Habermas albeit an atheist has also pointed out that Judeo-Christianity has made a positive impact in Europe in relation to justice, and mercy in the judicial system. However, he thinks that we need a secular form of justification for our morals rather than a religious one. I think both are useful again, I disagree with Habermas slightly but also useful to the debate

What has science offered in relation to morality that cannot be dealt with more effectively in philosophy?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

What has science offered in relation to morality that cannot be dealt with more effectively in philosophy?

The view that co-operative social and uncooperative anti-social behaviours exist because they are normal features of the mammalian brain and the way it operates, and not the result of actions by otherwise undetectable demon(s) and deity/ies?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Not entirely. I don't think invoking science is often the best method to deal with morality. We can come up with conclusions concerning morality on a far more relevant level with an understanding of culture, sociology, philosophy and whether we like it or not, religion does assist in cohesive moral philosophy. Science doesn't take into account cultural factors in any respect, nor should it.

Jakkass I have to disagree here,

What is morality?
It is a part of conscience.

What is conscience?
It's due to the workings of the human brain.

What is the study of the workings of the human brain?
Is it not neuroscience?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass I have to disagree here,

What is morality?
It is a part of conscience.

What is conscience?
It's due to the workings of the human brain.

What is the study of the workings of the human brain?
Is it not neuroscience?

Morality isn't conscience. The conscience can be moulded in several ways, indeed the conscience can be even fully ignored. Morality is based on valuation to a certain extent. (A bit of Edith Stein here). You are more likely to do what one values most at a certain time, and your actions are more likely based on these things. For example, if I am hungry at the time, I am more likely to value food than if I am full. Makes sense no? I think our morals are formed in a similar way.

What one values can probably be dealt with in science to some degree. The question is whether or not philosophy is more effective than scientific terms for provoking a moral behaviour in a grouping of people? I'd definitely say yes, it is more effective. It can be explained by both in some way no doubt, but the philosophical explanation is more valuable and ultimately more useful. I'd think that's a lot more reasonable than not?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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:

See what I mean about careless reading? I posted that, not JC.

And your assertion that the DI bio was based on information Skell provided is not supported by the article. Skell says, I asked DI to make that correction, immediately on becoming aware of it. […]. The DI were at fault, not Skell. In fact, they had previously described him correctly, On A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism we find a Discovery Institute press release which includes Philip S. Skell who is described as an Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry.

Here's his actual letter:

May 12, 2005
Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933
Dear Dr. Abrams:
I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing—as a member of the National Academy of Sciences—to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.

All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it.

Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.

Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.

Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support.

As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was
generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html).

For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.

In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.

Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.

I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University

BTW, his link to Prof. Shapiro's article is faulty. Here is the correct version:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html

A very interesting read. An evolutionist who disputes neo-Darwinism.:eek:

I also found his review of Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution very informative. Shapiro is critical of Behe's presentation of irreducible complexity.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v48/ai_18667140/?tag=content;col1

Here's a bit that struck me:

The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new. Behe quotes Darwin himself considering this possibility: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Surely, then, contemporary Darwinists have answers to rebut critics like Professor Behe. In fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution --with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.

Professor Behe's third goal is to herald the importance of the intelligent-design concept. Here he seems to lose his footing. Curiously, he treats intelligent design as a novel discovery. "Unlike Darwinian evolution, the theory of intelligent design is new to modern science." However, until the last century (well into the era of "modern science"), most serious thinkers considered it self-evident that the remarkable capacities of living organisms, so superior to mechanical devices, must have an intelligent basis. Historically, then, the real issue is not the recent "discovery" of intelligent design in biology but rather why orthodox science currently denies what has seemed obvious for so long.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Maybe discriminating against theists is an aspect of the most evolved morality, so there is no need for you to deny it?

Why not flaunt it?

Or even revisit eugenics and make a new start on the noble project of human evolution?
I'm lost........

In more ways than one. But knowing it is the best place to start.:)

Is this a "there's no right and wrong without God" argument?

Correct. The consistent atheist will be an amoralist also, but so few of you are. From time to time I just like to remind the majority that they are living a lie.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct. The consistent atheist will be an amoralist also, but so few of you are. From time to time I just like to remind the majority that they are living a lie.

Nope, sorry, evolution satisfactorily explains morality as well as the diversity of life.

Anyways, any response to this, which I posted a few days ago (but which got sort of loss in the morass that followed...)?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

In more ways than one. But knowing it is the best place to start.:)


Correct. The consistent atheist will be an amoralist also, but so few of you are. From time to time I just like to remind the majority that they are living a lie.

The atheist position is that the entirety of religion originated in the minds of men, that this wonderful perfect morality that's supposed to have originated from God actually came from the societies of the time

Dozens of religions and all secular ideologies have a version of the golden rule of ethics, the ethic of reciprocity, Jesus does not have a monopoly on it. It is just common sense and it makes just as much sense whether it comes from an all powerful deity or not

The concept of God was invented as the ultimate argument from authority. People already knew right from wrong because instinctively knowing that allowed our species to survive but, like you, they were worried that people would not act morally without the fear of consequences. Their solution to this problem was to write the already existing morality down in a book and say that it came from God so that there could be no argument over what was right or wrong

Basically wolfsbane, acting morally presents no problem for an atheist because we still agree with the majority of the moral rules that were written down in the desert, not for the first time, 4000 or so years ago. The only difference between us and christians is that we can apply common sense to those parts of those books that no longer apply in modern society, just like Jesus, a normal human being, did 2000 years ago when he said that people didn't have to follow all the old Jewish rules anymore.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What if he had seen people who had had problems striking up business partnerships with women and blacks which I'm sure has happened in the past? Would it then be discrimination?

Only if every time they did so the business failed for the simple reason that it was because it was struck up with women and/or black people. Like putting your money on the wrong horse all the time. It just might be that in that particular business women and black might not be any good. But like I said already if it was for the simple reason that they were black people or women despite the fact that the might be great in the business then that would constitute discrimination.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's a worry about one person's published unscientific positions and inconsistencies.

But if he was an out right atheist you wouldn't even care about that. The only reason you care about it in Collin's case is because he is a Christian.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

TMH wrote:

Is this a "there's no right and wrong without God" argument?

The consistent atheist will be an amoralist also, but so few of you are.

Strange that. You can perhaps understand why so many atheists might conclude that there's something wrong with the idea that one would need to believe in your own interpretation of your own specific deity to be nice.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

The only reason you only care about it in Collin's case is because he is a Christian.

You'd be ok with a scientologist or a member of the christian Branch Davidians taking up the post, would you?

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Quote:
I can observe gravity in action.
That's....that's....not even possible (you're not a super human being ?), we have very big experiments lined up and underway in the hope of seeing it in action. Perhaps what you meant is that you can see the effects caused by gravity, just like biologists claim to see the effects caused by evolution. Seeing gravity first hand ahh now we can only dream of what a day that would be

Yes, I use the term in the sense I see electricity in action - the appearance of text on the screen as I type this in, for example. Not observing elections moving along the copper connections.

Quote:
The evidence is there - it just does not support evolution or creation unequivocally.
Yes,but at the moment the evidence does seem to be in more of an abundance towards evolutionary theory. Invoking Ockhams Razor is a fact of science. Hence, until noteworthy evidence supporting creationism comes to light, there is no point in following it. Evidence, by the way, is NOT pointing out the gaps in another theory.

We have pointed many times to the evidences that seem to support creationism. It is not merely pointing to gaps in evolutioniary theory.

Quote:
Yes, they do. A prejudice against creation by God; or the fear of speaking out against the establishment.
Get off your high horse, science has often being held back because scientists are afraid of the truth not being accepted by hardline estabhlishments.

Indeed.

They are not anti-God, if God exists (and some of them believe he does) we will find out in due course.

Some of them ARE anti-God. Others are fearful of consequences to their career if they questioned evolution. That was my point.

Quote:
Have you overlooked these pieces of evidence that support a young earth?
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
If you accept the universe is 13 billion years old, then you must also accept the earth is 4.5 billion.

Correct.

Evidence suggesting the age of the solar system and this planet is overwhelming!

No, it's not. Or, only if certain assumptions are made.

Indeed, our very understanding of the formation of the solar system is continuously being improved, so far though no indications to the earth being less than 3 billion years old.

The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system
http://creation.com/the-young-faint-sun-paradox-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system

See Astronomical evidence in:
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Quote:
Of course, one has to be careful about deciding what one knows to be true. We know that sunlight contains ultraviolet rays; we are unsure about the possibility of cold fusion. Likewise, Christians know God Created everything, so they do not have to keep asking that question.
We did not always know what the suns ray contained.
The french philosopher Comte claimed we could never know the composition of the stars ...now we do. (Actually we knew a bit about them when he said that). Just like the Greeks knew the world was round, many people in the dark ages forgot that fact. Christians may know that God created everything, but it the goal of scientists Christian and non Christian alike to discover how everything works, not to blindly explain stuff in accordance with belief. We've gotta understand it.

I've no problem with any of this. My point was that Christians do not have to keep asking if God created everything. They know He did. What we are to do now is discover how everything works.

Finally, even if what you're saying about Darwin's slippy-side into disbelief is true it still doesn't mean we can just dismiss the abundance of evidence his theory has to support it. Especially, when the alternatives, thus far, have much less evidence.

We must never dismiss any evidence. What we must do is test our many alternative interpretations of it.

As to who has the best explanations of the evidence - that is disputed.

Seems to me like a gigantic crossword puzzle: there may be many words that fit with each other, but fail to make a complete whole. Some of them may be right, some wrong. We keep revising until we get it all right.

Creationism has some basic dogma, but its models are always open to revision in the details. Evolution is now its own dogma, not open to question. Only the details may change. Yet it pretends to be open in a way creationism is not.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationism has some basic dogma

Creationism is dogma. See again our old friend (diploma-mill-doctor) Ham's silly beliefs.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We must never dismiss any evidence.

How do you square that with Ham's statement that anything that disagrees with him is flat-out wrong?