The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

As I said, the fast growing stalactites often quoted by Creationists are not limestone stalactites. They are most commonly gypsum stalactites.../....Well it wasn't made of limestone. Most likely it was gypsum, which is very common in areas of coal formation.

To be fair limestone can be more common in coal deposits. Stalactite formation and speed of same has been debated by scientists(not creationists either). There do exist examples of limestone stalactites that have grown faster than expected. While this in NO way suggests a young earth it is an interesting area of debate. While most follow the rules, some do seem to buck the trend.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

To be fair limestone can be more common in coal deposits. Stalactite formation and speed of same has been debated by scientists(not creationists either). There do exist examples of limestone stalactites that have grown faster than expected.

Sshhh ... not in front of the creationist

There do exist examples of "fast" growing limestone stalactites, but fast is not with in 4,400 years

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/stalactites.html

J C

bmoferrall
Who would have thought that Genesis 1-3 would have been analysed with such forensic and mathematical rigour as far back as 100AD, and even in OT times? It seems this has been a hot topic for millenia!

Indeed, the Bible has been intensively studied for millennia – and nobody has proven it wrong yet!!!


bmoferrall
Assuming the analysis in this book is accurate (and I've no reason to believe it isn't), it shows clearly that a 'simple' literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, and in particular days as 24-hour periods, was not the prevailing one in historical Christianity.

Can I give you a few quotes that PROVE beyond doubt that a ‘plain reading’ of Genesis was the position adopted by Christianity FROM THE VERY START :-


God said (about the fact that the working week is DIRECTLY BASED on the Creation Week):-
In Ex 20:9-10a “SIX DAYS you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh DAY is a Sabbath to the Lord” (NIV).
In Ex 20:11 “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (NIV).

Jesus Christ said (about the fact that Man was created at the BEGINNING of Creation):-
In Mt 19:4 “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” and again in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).

Jesus Christ said (about the literal truth of a worldwide Genesis Flood that destroyed all Human life except Noah and his family):-
In Mt 24:37-39a “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them away” (NIV).

St. Peter said (about the literal truth of a worldwide Genesis Flood) :-
In 1 Pet 3:20b “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water” (NIV).

Martin Luther said :-
“When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are.”

Similarly, John Calvin stated:-
“…albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years ……. God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.”

The “Penny Catechism” of The Roman Catholic Church said:-
“God made the world from nothing and by His Word only – that is by a single act of His all-powerful will”

Prof Marcus Dodds (19th century liberal theologian, at New College, Edinburgh), has said :-
“if, for example, the word ‘day’ in these chapters (of Genesis) does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, then the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless”.

Prof James Barr, Regis Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford University, (even though he himself doesn’t believe Genesis to be true history) has said :-
“so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer of Gen 1-11 intended to convey to his readers the ideas that:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.
(b) The figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story.
(c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”

Malcolm Muggeridge, Roman Catholic Philosopher and Broadcaster, said during the Pascal Lectures in the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada :-
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”


bmoferrall
Some of those who were bold/brave enough to interpret Genesis in the light of their contemporary science have been made to look quite foolish with the passage of time

With Evolution having ‘died’ scientifically on this thread, your words of advice are very wise indeed!!


bmoferrall
6000 years of 'micro-evolution' cannot explain the diversity we see today.

6,000 years of Micro evolution does quite a good job of explaining ONE OF THE WAYS that genetic diversity arose.
Could I draw your attention to the huge diversity in for example, the breeds of domesticated animals, as an example of the innate genetic diversity present in the originally created Kinds.

A billion years of undirected mistakes, as postulated by Macro-evolution, DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously.


bmoferrall
As for evolution, seemingly a popular view from and since Darwin's time was that human evolution (such as its extent may have been) was somehow special and distinct, and not subject to the same progression from lower orders as other creatures, extinct or otherwise
Theistic evolutionists console themselves with thoughts such as these – but the hard reality is that Evolution is postulated as a scientific theory to explain how living species arose, full stop.

Darwinian Evolution does not, and indeed logically cannot, make any distinctions between Humans and other species.

Indeed somebody else on this thread has already correctly pointed out that (if evolution is true) a bird, because it can fly, might actually be more highly evolved than a person.


bmoferrall
How these folk would have reacted in the light of recent developments in evolutionary theory is anyone's guess.

I don’t know if they would have gone into denial on Intelligent Design, but it certainly is a possibility!!

J C

Wicknight
Your great-great-great grandmother, and your father didn't live in the same time period, or have sex with each other (I hope), yet they are both your accestors

We are talking here about the common male and female ancestors of ALL of Mankind – not a list of MY lineal antecedents who obviously weren’t all contemporaneous!!!


Wicknight
There is nothing in the theory of M-Eve or Y-Adam that say they had sex with EACH OTHER, just that they are the common ancestors on the male and female sides respectively.
The common male ancestor of ALL of Mankind must logically be the first man. The common female ancestor of ALL of Mankind must logically be the first woman.

For the Human population to grow, they would have to produce children and therefore they would have to be contemporaneous - AND have sex with each other.

Of course, there are an infinite variety of possible common and/or intermediate ancestors to PROPORTIONS of Mankind – and they don’t have to be either contemporaneous or mate!!!


Wicknight
If a self replicating molecule cannot replicate anymore it "dies off" in that the system produces no more new molecules.

A tad inconvenient for Evolution that all of these putative molecules have ‘died off’ don't you think?


Wicknight
I would hope so, considering neither salt or glucose are self replicating molecules.
They both do form crystalline structures, which previous posters have claimed to be analogous to life – when of course they are nothing of the sort, due to the extreme simplicity and repetitivity of their structures - and therefore their poor information storage potentials.


Wicknight
Water flowing over a smooth flat surface will not cause any downward force at all, beyond its weight. And the weight of the water would not have been enough to have a see-saw effect on the "land" to thrust it up to "counterweight" the water flowing over the "sea".

I agree. The forces involved were largely tectonic with the water weights having little effect.


Scofflaw
I appreciate these are relatively personal questions, but you do refer to your scientific credentials quite often, so the matter is germane to the debate.
They are indeed quite personal questions.
Equally, I DON’T actually gratuitously refer to my scientific credentials – I have been merely responding to repeated questioning of them by posters on this thread.
I don’t think that my credentials are really germane to the debate – I take all postings on their merits and all I expect is the same in return.


Scofflaw
Of course, astrophysics needs to be wrong too, and a lot of physics. And the mining and petroleum industries. And archaeology. Also most history. And large chunks of genetics. The deep structure of the earth and continents is obviously not really anything like it looks like it is. Most studies of radioactivity are probably flawed too. And the plant-breeding industry is clearly wasting its money breeding from mutants - no good can ever have come of it. Obviously a good deal of botany and zoology will need to be fundamentally revised. Every other religion on the planet will clearly need to be told to stop. A lot of Christians (so-called) will need to go to re-education. Oh, did I mention chemistry needing a good shake-up? And those guys "breeding" software through genetic algorithms - they're obviously faking their results.

Some of the above are not affected one way or the other by the ‘origins debate’.

In any event, the EVIDENCE leads where it may – and it is the job of all scientists to critically evaluate it!!!


Assyrian
That is the problem, most ordinary people aren't qualified to dispute the details. Creationist sites publish their claims for ordinary Christians who simply don't have the training and skill to see how bad their arguments really are.

Sounds a tad patronising to me !!

It’s also not borne out on this thread (that Creation Science research is invalid).

Could I point out that your so-called ‘ordinary Christians’ sit on juries, vote in elections and indeed ARE capable of recognising when something isn’t quite what it claims to be.

For example, the Evolutionist claim that ‘muck evolved into Man’ is about as plausible as suggesting that ‘sticking a feather in the ground will grow a hen’.

Could I suggest that it IS obvious to ‘ordinary Christians’ that NEITHER the feather nor the muck propositions have the POTENTIAL to actually occur – and a University degree ISN’T required to reach such a conclusion – just some common sense!!!


Wicknight
Well it wasn't made of limestone. Most likely it was gypsum, which is very common in areas of coal formation.

Creation scientists have examined this Gypsum claim and they have found that ALL stalactites examined display an identical physical structure and are made from Calcite.
They walk like Calcite, they sound like Calcite and they look like Calcite – do you know what – they ARE Calcite!!


Wicknight said
The process that creates limestone stalactities cannot be speeded up significantly by increasing water flow. Not without changing the laws of chemistry, which I suppose a Creationist could argue God did do, but then you have to ask why?

It is simply not possible that these structures could have formed in such a short time as 6-4 thousand years. That alone would debunk young earth creationism,

…….and then Wibbs said
To be fair limestone can be more common in coal deposits. Stalactite formation and speed of same has been debated by scientists(not creationists either). There do exist examples of limestone stalactites that have grown faster than expected. While this in NO way suggests a young earth it is an interesting area of debate. While most follow the rules, some do seem to buck the trend.

………and then Wicknight said
Sshhh ... not in front of the creationist

Could I suggest that Wicknight and Wibbs get together for a long chat!!!

Not only is there a debate amongst top evolutionary scientists about the ‘stalactite issue’ – but practically every other aspect of macro-Evolution is also being furiously debated by Evolutionists as well.

The public normally only become aware of these debates when they reach ‘boiling point’ and spill over into the public domain (like happened with Intelligent Design).

All of this debunks ‘millions of years’ Evolution and supports a Young Earth and Direct Creation!!!

Wibbs

J C wrote:

Could I suggest that Wicknight and Wibbs get together for a long chat!!!

Nah, we would likely disagree much, except for this of course.

Not only is there a debate amongst top evolutionary scientists about the ‘stalactite issue’ – but practically every other aspect of macro-Evolution is also being furiously debated by Evolutionists as well.

Debate in small doses, certainly, A debate, hardly. Link me or quote me a recent "evolutionist" calling for the radical changes in the science of life as you see it.

The public normally only become aware of these debates when they reach ‘boiling point’ and spill over into the public domain (like happened with Intelligent Design).

I'm "the public", I'm pretty aware of the debates thanks very much and I see little in same to even vaguely support your blinkered theiscentric view.

All of this debunks ‘millions of years’ Evolution and supports a Young Earth and Direct Creation!!!

Eh no it doesn't and if this wieghty tome of thread doesn't convince you of at least the possibilities of an old earth, then nothing will.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The common male ancestor of ALL of Mankind must logically be the first man. The common female ancestor of ALL of Mankind must logically be the first woman.

No, not in the slightest. As I said JC, you really aren't getting the concept we are talking about here

J C wrote:

For the Human population to grow, they would have to produce children and therefore they would have to be contemporaneous - AND have sex with each other.

A woman, call her Sarah has one daughter, we will call her Jane. Jane has one daughter, we will call her Mary.

A man called John has one son called Tim. Tim has one son called David.

David and Mary get married and have a son Barry and a daughter Laura.

The only unbroken mitocontrial ancestor of Laura is Sarah.

The only unbroken y-chromosone ancestor of Barry is John

There is an unbroken materinal line from Sarah to Laura in the mitocontrial DNA. There is an unbroken paterinal line from John to Barry in the Y-Chromosone. Dispite this John and Sarah never meet, never had sex and never produced children together.

Of course they have other ancestors not mentioned. But they don't form unbroken lines. If Jane had died before giving birth, or had had only a son, that line of mitochontrial DNA would have been broken. If Tim had only had a daughter, that line of Y-Chromosone DNA would have been broken

Everyone on Earth also has other ancestors appart from M-Eve and Y-Adam. There is nothing in the theory that says M-Eve and Y-Adam were the only ancestors of humanity. But none of these ancestors are common and unbroken lines.

M-Eve is the most recent common and unbroke line in women. Y-Adam is the most recent common and unbroke line in men. But just like John and Sarah never meet, M-Eve and Y-Adam never meet.

J C wrote:

A tad inconvenient for Evolution that all of these putative molecules have ‘died off’ don't you think?

No, why do you say that?

The conditions of Earth are nothing like those of Earth 4 billion years ago, so it would be very strange if we still had seas full of simple self-replicating molecules. We do have sees full of complex self-replicating molecules, which we call "life".

The only way to create these simple self-replicating molecules again is to simulate the contition of Earth 4 billion year ago in a lab. And low and behold, you get simple self-replicating molecules again.

J C wrote:

They both do form crystalline structures, which previous posters have claimed to be analogous to life – when of course they are nothing of the sort, due to the extreme simplicity and repetitivity of their structures - and therefore their poor information storage potentials.

As I said, neither salt or glucoise are self-replicating molecules.

J C wrote:

I agree. The forces involved were largely tectonic with the water weights having little effect.

Tectonic caused by what? God?

You do know that tectonic forces push side to side, not up right? A landmass cannot just spring up. For a start, what forces it up? And what fills in the space under it. Also how does the surface area stretch to join the upper bit with the lower bit instead of simple cracking?

God, there are so many problems with that idea I could list them for days.

Also, where is the evidence this happened?

J C wrote:

Creation scientists have examined this Gypsum claim and they have found that ALL stalactites examined display an identical physical structure and are made from Calcite.
They walk like Calcite, they sound like Calcite and they look like Calcite – do you know what – they ARE Calcite!!

Well thats simply not true. Which Creation Scientist claim this?

J C wrote:

All of this debunks ‘millions of years’ Evolution and supports a Young Earth and Direct Creation!!!

No actually it doesn't. For a start, you still have not explained the stalactite that have been dated over 10,000 years. Even if large stalactites can form with in 6000 years (they can't) that doesn't explain the ones we know formed over 10,000+ years.

You will no doubt say that all dating of these stalactites are incorrect. If that is so, how come they match up with independent estimates of things like the ice ages. Explain the odds of two independent dating methods being incorrect but coming up with the same answer. Now explain those odds when you mulitply them to every instance of a dated stalactite.

Besides, the Earth has been dated JC, a lot. You cannot escape that fact.

You claim radio-meteric dating cannot be trusted because of a handful of mistaken results. You ignore the fact that radio-metic dating has been proven to work 95% of the time, through independent verification, the very same way these mistakes were discovered.

The same system used to provide the mistakes (dating object we already know the date of) has been used to provide correct answers, far far more times that mistakes..

So while radio-meteric dating can fail, it is correct 95% of the time. You seem to ignore that fact, probably because it blows Young Earth Creationism completely out of the water, and therefore is a little troubling for your theories.

So how do you explain the dates that say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. At the most 5% of them are incorrect, but you haven't explained the 95% that are correct.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

If you have five deer being chased by leopard, naturally the weakest deer is going to be the slowest and get eatten. There is no morality in this action. Its just nature. No one is saying that deer getting eatten is a "good" thing.

When a man does the same to gain his daily bread, we call it 'robbery' or 'murder'. It too is just nature, red in tooth and claw. Most theists condemn such behaviour not only as a threat to themselves, but as intrinsically immoral. Most atheists do the same, but can offer no reason for not doing so other than the risk of being caught.

As Dawkins explains in the introduction to "The Selfish Gene", evolution is selfish but evolution is not a person. It is a process and a process has no concept of morality, or right or wrong. Just because we find processes in nature that are selfish it doesn't mean being a selfish person is a good thing.

Nor a bad thing. That's my point.

It does get a bit annoying that certain posters on this forum constantly assume atheists some how live by this idea of selfishness in nature is the natural state humans should follow, that selfishness and looking after yourself at the expense of others is some how the atheist philosophy.

I must say I have not seen that. Haven't read every post closely though. I have stated many times that atheists may well live moral lives - it is just that atheism gives them no reason to do so.

For a start there is no atheist philosophy. Atheism isn't a belief system. Being an atheist simply means you don't believe in supernatural gods. You might be a psychopathic serial killer, or you might spend your life helping orphans in Africa.

If one starts with the premise that this is all there is, that we are unaccountable to any eternal Person, that we are essentially no different from the dirt under our feet or interstellar gas, then one has no reason to behave other that how one likes. Maybe one man likes to help orphans, mabye another likes to rape and kill them.

Secondly, to an atheist such as myself, being an atheist simply means I recongise that the moral teachings of western and eastern religions come from humanity rather than gods.

Yes, just someone's ideas.

That doesn't mean they aren't a good idea. I think it is a very good idea to help others, to not judge others, to want to help my fellow man.

But another might think it a good idea to hurt others, to exploit them. Is his 'morality' not just as good as yours?

But I see these ideas as not coming from a father like God, but from the nature of humans. We are by nature social creatures, and with that comes the concepts of community and morality.

For most people that might be true. For others it is not. They excel at predation.

I could spend the rest of this post showing examples of where nature isn't selfish (mothers dying for their young, birds signallying others in the flock of danger), but I would be falling into the same trap I was giving out about, that being trying to justify human behaviour based on examples in nature. We shouldn't look to the non-moral processes in nature for some kind of moral guidence about what we as humans should or should not do.

That makes sense, given your presupposition.

Nature has no system of morality. It has no concept of right or wrong, moral or immoral. It just is

OK, but how then can you say this is right and that is wrong, that being kind is good and being cruel is bad? And if you invent those classifications for yourself, why am I wrong if I hold to getting what I want by whatever means it takes?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Most atheists do the same, but can offer no reason for not doing so other than the risk of being caught.

That is complete nonsense. Where did you get that from?

You speak as if the civil and criminal legal system in Ireland jumped straight out of the Bible. Last time I check there is nothing in the law against robbery that says "Oh, by the way this also pisses off God, so it is therefore bad".

That vast majority of laws in this country are completely secular in nature. The reason they are there is because society, not God, has decided that certain things are unacceptable behaviour. Robbery would be one such thing.

Atheist have the advantage that they can see morality and laws for what they are, structures in society that society agree at the best way for us, as communial creatures, to live. Because of this they are also in a position to see the rational behind these laws, and to argue against them if they disagree with the rational. Can you argue against the laws of your god even if you disagree with them?

I can tell you exactly why I believe every single aspect of morality that I do. Can you do the same beyond "Its immoral because God says so"?

wolfsbane wrote:

Nor a bad thing. That's my point.

Exactly, there is no moral lession to be gained from understanding the process of evolution. There is no right or wrong taking place in evolution. It just is.

wolfsbane wrote:

I must say I have not seen that. Haven't read every post closely though. I have stated many times that atheists may well live moral lives - it is just that atheism gives them no reason to do so.

Atheism isn't supposed to. It is a description, not a belief system. Being blonde doesn't give you a reason to live a moral life either. But if you are saying that there is no reason to be found, beyond punishment from the law, to lead a moral life if you are an atheist, you are very very wrong.

wolfsbane wrote:

If one starts with the premise that this is all there is, that we are unaccountable to any eternal Person, that we are essentially no different from the dirt under our feet or interstellar gas, then one has no reason to behave other that how one likes.

All humans have concepts of morality, concepts of emotion and concepts of right or wrong. That doesn't change if you are an atheists. Atheists have concepts of morality, just like everyone else. They feel guilt, empathy, sadness, loneliness, happiness etc etc just like everyone else.

You seem to be saying you believe the only reason a Christian doesn't go around raping and killing someone is because they believe they will be punished if they do by God? That is a rather horrific idea, and I certainly hope it isn't true. I would hope that most Christians don't go around raping and killing people because they believe that it is wrong to do, not simply that they have been told it is wrong and if they do they will get in trouble.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, just someone's ideas.

Societies ideas, formed based on compassion, logic, emotion and instinct.

wolfsbane wrote:

But another might think it a good idea to hurt others, to exploit them. Is his 'morality' not just as good as yours?

No, its not. I don't need a universe "He-is-always-right" God to tell me that either. I don't respect anothers "moral" beliefs when they harm others. I don't care if a phediophile thinks it is moral to rape 6 year olds. I can explain in detail why it isn't ok, and I stand by that even if he/she doesn't agree.

wolfsbane wrote:

OK, but how then can you say this is right and that is wrong, that being kind is good and being cruel is bad?

I don't claim that there is a "universal" right or wrong that exists outside of ourself, that exists independently of humanity. But there doesn't need to be, humanity is quite capable of establishing its own morality.

I would ask though, why do you assume God can't be wrong either. Why are the morality passed down from your god set in stone. If I can be wrong about morality why can't he?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
There is nothing in the theory of M-Eve or Y-Adam that say they had sex with EACH OTHER, just that they are the common ancestors on the male and female sides respectively.
The common male ancestor of ALL of Mankind must logically be the first man. The common female ancestor of ALL of Mankind must logically be the first woman.

OK - but this is not what M-Eve or Y-Adam is. They are NOT the common female ancestor and the common male ancestor. They are the "only known female ancestor with an unbroken female line of descent" and the "only known male ancestor with an unbroken male line of descent".

JC wrote:

Wicknight
If a self replicating molecule cannot replicate anymore it "dies off" in that the system produces no more new molecules.

A tad inconvenient for Evolution that all of these putative molecules have ‘died off’ don't you think?

Well, apart from DNA etc, which continue to do so.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
I would hope so, considering neither salt or glucose are self replicating molecules.
They both do form crystalline structures, which previous posters have claimed to be analogous to life – when of course they are nothing of the sort, due to the extreme simplicity and repetitivity of their structures - and therefore their poor information storage potentials.

Actually, their information storage potential is fine. Their entropy (a measure of the information required to describe them) is very low.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
I appreciate these are relatively personal questions, but you do refer to your scientific credentials quite often, so the matter is germane to the debate.
They are indeed quite personal questions.
Equally, I DON’T actually gratuitously refer to my scientific credentials – I have been merely responding to repeated questioning of them by posters on this thread.
I don’t think that my credentials are really germane to the debate – I take all postings on their merits and all I expect is the same in return.

Your credentials are relevant to the debate as long as you cite them in posts in ways like "as a scientist, I...", which you do, every other post more or less. As long as you cite your "scientific credentials" in apparent support of your arguments, your credentials are germane. I don't mind if you don't answer the question, but you will have to bear with the ridicule as long as you continue to cite credentials that you won't identify.

As I said, I'm an NUI graduate myself (major Geology, minor Botany, 2.1), so I know how NUI courses operate. The grandiose credentials you appear to claim are not something NUI could provide in anything less than 20 years. If you spent 20 years in NUI, in Science, then I would have heard of you while I was there. I have, therefore, every reason to doubt your claims entirely.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
Of course, astrophysics needs to be wrong too, and a lot of physics. And the mining and petroleum industries. And archaeology. Also most history. And large chunks of genetics. The deep structure of the earth and continents is obviously not really anything like it looks like it is. Most studies of radioactivity are probably flawed too. And the plant-breeding industry is clearly wasting its money breeding from mutants - no good can ever have come of it. Obviously a good deal of botany and zoology will need to be fundamentally revised. Every other religion on the planet will clearly need to be told to stop. A lot of Christians (so-called) will need to go to re-education. Oh, did I mention chemistry needing a good shake-up? And those guys "breeding" software through genetic algorithms - they're obviously faking their results.

Some of the above are not affected one way or the other by the ‘origins debate’.

In any event, the EVIDENCE leads where it may – and it is the job of all scientists to critically evaluate it!!!

I have cited those that would be impacted by the arguments you have given on this thread. The evidence has been, and continues to be, critically evaluated by scientists. Virtually none have come to your conclusions - a fact easily proven, and to which I am uncertain of your reply (I know wolfsbane's).

JC wrote:

Assyrian
That is the problem, most ordinary people aren't qualified to dispute the details. Creationist sites publish their claims for ordinary Christians who simply don't have the training and skill to see how bad their arguments really are.

Sounds a tad patronising to me !!

It’s also not borne out on this thread (that Creation Science research is invalid).

Certainly you appear to believe so. I am unaware that you have persuaded anyone else.

JC wrote:

Could I point out that your so-called ‘ordinary Christians’ sit on juries, vote in elections and indeed ARE capable of recognising when something isn’t quite what it claims to be.

Except that science does require expertise.

JC wrote:

Could I suggest that it IS obvious to ‘ordinary Christians’ that NEITHER the feather nor the muck propositions have the POTENTIAL to actually occur – and a University degree ISN’T required to reach such a conclusion – just some common sense!!!

You yourself are proof that this is not the case, up to a point.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
Well it wasn't made of limestone. Most likely it was gypsum, which is very common in areas of coal formation.

Creation scientists have examined this Gypsum claim and they have found that ALL stalactites examined display an identical physical structure and are made from Calcite.
They walk like Calcite, they sound like Calcite and they look like Calcite – do you know what – they ARE Calcite!!

Hmm. Calcite walking? You may have them confused with ducks, of course. I'll just file it under "JC".

JC wrote:

Not only is there a debate amongst top evolutionary scientists about the ‘stalactite issue’ – but practically every other aspect of macro-Evolution is also being furiously debated by Evolutionists as well.

The public normally only become aware of these debates when they reach ‘boiling point’ and spill over into the public domain (like happened with Intelligent Design).

All of this debunks ‘millions of years’ Evolution and supports a Young Earth and Direct Creation!!!

What a bizarre set of claims! There is no debate whatsoever amongst evolutionary scientists about stalactites - they are part of geology and geomorphology, and are entirely unrelated to evolution. The attempts to claim a "furious debate" would look better if there was some sort of proof of the claim. Again, of course, you may have mistaken scientific debate for theological debate - after all, you regularly do confuse science with theology...

You seem to be assuming that scientists failing to agree with the majority will be declared anathema at some kind of "science council", and slung out of science...


Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

...many good points...

Go Wicknight!


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

For a start genetics has shown there is no real difference, genetically, between the classical forms of race (black, white, yellow, brown) in humans. There certainly are differences, but you find as much genetic difference inside what is know as a "race" than between them. The idea of race can only be quantified if you already know what to look for (eg, genetics markers that signal a person is from Asia).

Keep me right on this: if evolution occurs, then is must be gradual, a slight move toward a more 'advanced' organism than before? To move from Neanderthal to Homo Sapien meant some of them changed from generation to generation. Or do you insist they all evolved at the same rate? In the evolutionary scenario, did not Homo Sapien co-exist with the remnants of Neanderthal? Correct me if I have picked this up wrong.

Secondly, something cannot be "more" evolved than something else. Evolution adapts creatures based on their environment. We for example cannot fly. Birds can. Are birds more evolved than us, or are we more evolved than birds? We have incredable brain power, far in excess of any bird, but if a lion was about to eat me I cannot fly away to safety. A cat can see 10 times better than a human. A dog can smell 100 times better than a human. Neither can build computers. Who is more evolved? The question depends on the context it is asked. In general terms the question is meaningless

So it would be wrong to say Homo Sapien was more evolved than Neanderthal, or Homo Erectus?

Thirdly, you are applying morality to the process of evolution. Why may I ask, do all Creationists do this when science itself doesn't?

I'm not applying it to the process at all. I'm applying it to the behaviour of men. Cannibalism may be natural for some people-groups, but it is immoral.

What do you mean by some races are more "fit" than others? More "fit" for what?

Fit for survival, is the Darwinian concept. I thought you held it was a central driver of evolution.

Also the idea that an atheist suddenly losses all morality once he rejects the idea of supernatural gods is frankly highly insulting. Some of the most "moral" people in the history of humanity have been atheists. All that happens if you are an atheists is the realisation that morality comes not from a God, but from humanity itself. The morality still exists.

I agree it exists - the point is it is ultimately an irrational demand if it goes beyond serving the needs of the individual. My needs may conflict with yours, so no morality can apply to us both. There is no absolute morality in atheism.

And quite frankly I find it a little worrying that you seem to believe that Christians are only moral because they are afraid of God.

I don't and I have said so. Christians are moral because they love God and agree in their hearts that His standards are good and true. They also fear Him, which acts as a further brake when they are tempted to sin.

You should follow a set of morals because you believe in them, not because you are scared of punishment.

No need for an either /or.

That leads very quickly to the abandonment of morality when it is believed it runs no risk of punishment

It would, if that were the only reason for not sinning.

the famous example being the excuse "God is on our side", used for horrific acts of war through out the centuries.

Yes, God's will has at times been misunderstood even by the best of people. But this example is not an one of abandoning morality, but creating a false one: that our enemies are necessarily God's enemies, and that we are called to act on His behalf.

But I'm sure you will agree that sometimes it is the moral thing to go to war.

That is complete nonsense. Where did you get that from?
You speak as if the civil and criminal legal system in Ireland jumped straight out of the Bible. Last time I check there is nothing in the law against robbery that says "Oh, by the way this also pisses off God, so it is therefore bad".
That vast majority of laws in this country are completely secular in nature. The reason they are there is because society, not God, has decided that certain things are unacceptable behaviour. Robbery would be one such thing.

As I said, the only rationale for secular morality is the risk of being caught. Society - the majority of individuals - decides they individually would be safer if these laws were imposed. That is only pragmatism, sensible though it be. It is not a statement that something is intrinsically wicked. Put yourself in the place then of the individual who would benefit from violating this law: for him it would not be immoral, only risky.

Atheist have the advantage that they can see morality and laws for what they are, structures in society that society agree at the best way for us, as communial creatures, to live. Because of this they are also in a position to see the rational behind these laws, and to argue against them if they disagree with the rational.

Exactly my point: one person's morality may differ from another's, and who can say which one is correct?

Can you argue against the laws of your god even if you disagree with them?

Of course I could - but that would make me a violater of those laws. For atheism, morality changes with the individual; for Christians, morality exists whether we agree with it or not. The Christian will agree with what God says is good.

I can tell you exactly why I believe every single aspect of morality that I do. Can you do the same beyond "Its immoral because God says so"?

I would have at least your pragmatic reasons. But on top of those I have the wise laws of the One who created all things, not just the opinions of mere men.

Atheism isn't supposed to. It is a description, not a belief system. Being blonde doesn't give you a reason to live a moral life either. But if you are saying that there is no reason to be found, beyond punishment from the law, to lead a moral life if you are an atheist, you are very very wrong.

Please tell us these other reasons.

All humans have concepts of morality, concepts of emotion and concepts of right or wrong. That doesn't change if you are an atheists. Atheists have concepts of morality, just like everyone else. They feel guilt, empathy, sadness, loneliness, happiness etc etc just like everyone else.

I agree: but feelings, emotions, do not constitute reasons.

You seem to be saying you believe the only reason a Christian doesn't go around raping and killing someone is because they believe they will be punished if they do by God? That is a rather horrific idea, and I certainly hope it isn't true.

I'm not and it isn't.

I would hope that most Christians don't go around raping and killing people because they believe that it is wrong to do, not simply that they have been told it is wrong and if they do they will get in trouble.

Exactly so. But we have a reason for so believing, atheists do not. At least I still waiting for you to tell me one.

I don't respect anothers "moral" beliefs when they harm others. I don't care if a phediophile thinks it is moral to rape 6 year olds. I can explain in detail why it isn't ok, and I stand by that even if he/she doesn't agree.

I'm eagerly awaiting your reasons.

I don't claim that there is a "universal" right or wrong that exists outside of ourself, that exists independently of humanity. But there doesn't need to be, humanity is quite capable of establishing its own morality.

So a thing is moral if society says it is? Killing and eating one's enemy is perfectly OK in some societies. Deflowering of maidens by the chief/lord is OK in others. Man/boy sex was quite the thing in Roman times. Are these moral?

I would ask though, why do you assume God can't be wrong either. Why are the morality passed down from your god set in stone. If I can be wrong about morality why can't he?

The clue is in the word: GOD. If He were fallible like you and me, He wouldn't be the God revealed in the Bible.

robindch

> Fit for survival, is the Darwinian concept. I thought you held it was
> a central driver of evolution.

<sigh> Here's this week's reminder that "survival of the fittest" was thought-up-of by an economist and not by a biologist and is a wildly inaccurate description of the current understanding of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Use "differential reproductive success" instead.

Out of interest, apart from BrianCalgary, has any creationist actually noticed this or understand it, if they did?

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

But you can't.
It's even more dubious than prison - at least one knows a prison is there; one has heard stories of going to court and terms in prison and knows that it happens because people come back from prison to tell them. People don't come back from heaven or hell.

I know the truth of God's word. Your point however has to do with the perpetrator believing it or not. If he believes it, then he will be restrained from his evil. You say I can't prove the reality of the eternal stick to him, as no one has returned from the dead to tell. But that is to miss the nature of conscience and its conviction by the word of God. God convinces the sinner of the reality of the Judgement to come; for example, in Paul's defence before the Roman governor Felix:
Acts 24:24 And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. 25 Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.”

There is in every human an awareness to some degree of the reality of these things, and that restrains them from being as wicked as they could be. To the degree we suppress this knowledge, to that degree we freed from its restraints.

If. Whereas it's quite clear to anyone that there are consequences right here on earth. Not just to them, but to others.

What can you say to the one who cares nothing about others, calculates the chances of suffering bad consequences, and thinks the risks are worth the prize?

Some christians might think it's fine to do as they please with regards to violence etc, mouth a few words of confession, and then think there are no consequences. They believe in your religion and your consequences but are convinced they're not going to suffer them.

Those are not the actions of true Christians. As you say, they deny the very truths they claim to hold.

People can be innately selfish, not just any particular branch. If they're determined to find a comfort zone for their actions, they will do it regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

True, even true Christians can be overcome with temptation (sexual, financial, etc) but it will be an exception to their lifestyle and will be repented of. Those who profess faith and whose lifestyle denies it are just phonies.

And yet here appears irrationality to my eyes - you don't have any problem with people suffering if god says so.

I have no problem with the wicked being punished, and I dare say you don't either. Your objection seems to come from who determines what is wicked - God or you.

If god had had it written in the bible "prostitution is a-ok", would you care about it so much?

If God condoned wickedness, He wouldn't be God.

If your reason is only "god said so" without a further explanation of even "god says it's wrong because...". It's only "god says it's wrong and this will happen".

Who says there is no explanation? It is wrong to harm my neighbour because he is undeserving of my wrath and he is made in God's image and therefore worthy of respect. But if my neighbour is breaking into your house to rape your wife and steal your goods, then it would be right for me to harm him.

All living things can suffer and can feel pain. All living things deserve not to.

The paedophile?

From a selfish point of view - I don't want to suffer - and from a more compassionate point of view - I don't want my loved ones to suffer - and then extending this all around.
I don't need a god to tell me that suffering is wrong; I can see and feel it for myself, in what I feel and what I see others feel.

As I said before, feeling is not a reason.

But for our own actions we would be like them. Our own actions.
It is no mysterious force that keeps me in my home - my own actions keep me here. And so on. Theirs keeps their away from them.

And what causes them to act? It just happens? No, they act according to their desires. It is God who has kept you and me from the vilest crimes. We may think, 'I could never want or do that', but that is to be ignorant of the evil that is in man's heart. The most depraved criminal once was not so. The concentration camp commander once thought he was a very refined and moral fellow - until the opportunity presented itself and the inticements called.

A different reason is not no reason at all; it's just one you don't personally accept. Just as someone else may not accept yours and instead accepts another.

Still waiting to hear what it is.

Actions have consequences. All of them. I know I'm arguing from a slightly different point of view to the atheists here - I think? - but I'm sure we can see this.
Follow this man's life along - perhaps he starts off having it good, but what about getting into debt for his drug habit? What about dying a horrible death from his drug intakes? Plus so many more things I could add on.
Perhaps in the short term it would appear to bring more personal benefit, but it doesn't stay rosy forever - that I would bet!

Generally, you are right. But for many wicked, it can be said of them as the Psalmist puts it in
Psalm 73:4 For there are no pangs in their death,
But their strength is firm.
5 They are not in trouble as other men,
Nor are they plagued like other men.
6 Therefore pride serves as their necklace;
Violence covers them like a garment.
7 Their eyes bulge with abundance;
They have more than heart could wish.
8 They scoff and speak wickedly concerning oppression;
They speak loftily.
9 They set their mouth against the heavens,
And their tongue walks through the earth.

If he is so persistent in questioning, neither can he have a reason to believe in a god if he has none already. It just adds another stick to try to avoid

The reason lies in his heart - the awareness that is stirred by the preaching of the gospel, and must be heeded or supressed.

I am disappointed you call this irrational, wolfsbane, particularly when you claim your own god insists on love for your fellow humankind.

It is only irrational if we presuppose there is no God, no one to whom we certainly must answer. For the Christian, of course love - even self-sacrificial love, is rational.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

<sigh> Here's this week's reminder that "survival of the fittest" was thought-up-of by an economist and not by a biologist and is a wildly inaccurate description of the current understanding of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Use "differential reproductive success" instead.

I used it in the sense Darwin did, and that still seems to be accepted. From the same article you quoted:
However, Darwin and Spencer used "survival" as a proxy for "fitness" in the modern sense and "fittest" to refer to those individuals that are functionally most capable to tackle life challenges, i.e. to individuals endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve most strongly one's probability of survival and reproduction. Therefore "survival of the fittest" intends to be a short version of the statement "those who are best at surviving and reproducing will have higher fitness" and this is not a circular statement since the sentence indicates that fitness is the consequence of one's ability to tackle life challenges.

Would differential reproductive success not mainly involve the ability to ensure own's offspring survive better than the competition? Would that not involve, at least for man, the ability to overcome our neighbours by murder and enslavement? Maybe you will be able to tell us how man and his supposed non-human ancestors achieveddifferential reproductive success without violence?

robindch

> Would that not involve, at least for man, the ability to overcome our
> neighbours by murder and enslavement?

No. Why on earth should it? Why would I want to murder somebody else? Wouldn't that mean that somebody else is going to try to murder me later on in revenge? Doesn't that mean I'm going to have to waste a lot of resources making sure that somebody's not out to kill me, or my kids? Wouldn't this longterm cost outweigh any short-term gain from bopping somebody over the head and stealing his woolly-mammoth sandwich?

"Differential reproductive success" means that some variations in a species will inevitably produce more offspring than others, so there'll be more of them than the less successfully reproducing variations. Nothing magical about that, you'll agree? And if being nice to your neighbours increases your chances of reproduction, then being nice to your neighbours will spread as a reproductive strategy over long periods of time. So, what do you reckon -- does being nice to folks increase your chances of reproducing yourself?

J C

bmoferrall
Conversely, those who characterised their interpretations as tentative and speculative, and who were tolerant of alternative views, have been made to look wise in the light of history and scientific progress. I think there are obvious lessons in this for us today. If this world continues for another 2000 years the scientific picture will obviously change dramatically again, potentially making current theories completely redundant.

I agree that science is essentially a tentative enterprise subject to continuous change as new evidence emerges – and Creation Science recognises this reality.
Current Creation Science theories WILL undoubtedly change as new evidence emerges.
Ditto for Evolutionary Science e.g. the Intelligent Design Hypothesis.

Humility is an essential characteristic of a good scientist – and the truism that “the more you know, the more you know that you don’t know” is indeed something that we all need to keep in mind.

I think that Evolutionists will continue to keep Creationists ‘on the straight and narrow’ – and after reading their ‘acidic’ comments about Creation Science on this thread, humility shouldn’t present much of a problem for Creation Scientists as a result!!!


bmoferrall
'Flood geology' was seemingly held in some disdain right from its inception (late 1700s) and virtually disappeared from view for a long period, before being resurrected in the recent past and presented erroneously as the prevailing view of evangelical christians since it was formulated.

‘Flood Geology’ was indeed the original Geological Science (or Natural Philosophy) of the late 18th Century.

It is true that Evolutionary Geology eclipsed ‘Flood Geology’ for a considerable period (just like Evolutionary ideas eclipsed Creationist ones in other areas of science as well).

However, Creation Science NEVER disappeared within the Scientific Community. It was maintained by some of the top scientists in their fields as a valid alternative to the rapidly developing Evolutionary ideas of the late 19th and 20th Centuries.
These great scientists knew that Creationism had NOT been scientifically disproven and that it therefore continued to be a valid scientific endeavour.

Creation Science has NEVER claimed that it is “the prevailing view of Evangelical Christians”. Indeed, some Evangelicals actually espouse (Theistic) Evolutionary beliefs.

Equally, Creation Science today contains within it’s ranks people from a diversity of different religious beliefs including members of practically every Christian Denomination as well as Agnostics, Jews and Moslems.

Historically, the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal were all Creationists – and mostly members of mainstream Christian Churches.


bmoferrall
With all due respect to its current proponents, I think it seems pretty clear that flood geology as a 'catch all' explanation for observed geological and archeological phenomena is deeply flawed, and that the universe is indeed a lot older than 6000 years.

BM, that is essentially what the debate on this thread is all about.

I would never claim that Creation Science is ‘perfect’ or indeed ‘has all of the answers’.
As an under-funded and largely voluntary scientific endeavour it has made great advances in recent years, but obviously much more remains to be done.

After over 1,600 posts I think that it is fair to say that Materialistic Darwinian Evolution has essentially been DISPROVEN.
The ‘jury may be out’ on other aspects of the ‘origins debate’ such as OEC and whether God used Evolution – but even these concepts are also looking increasingly ‘shaky’ if one makes an objective assessment of ALL of the evidence presented on this thread.


Wibbs
Link me or quote me a recent "evolutionist" calling for the radical changes in the science of life as you see it.

I certainly will!!

Many peer reviewed radical ideas for “changes in the science of life” are discussed HERE:-

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science


Here are some other pertinent quotes also “calling for radical changes in the science of life”:-

Prof. Sir. Fred Hoyle Late Astronomer Royal & Professor of Astronomy Cambridge University as quoted in ‘Hoyle on Evolution’. Nature vol. 294 12 November 1981 pp 105
“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therin.”

Frederick B. Jueneman, FAIC, ‘Secular catastrophism’ Industrial Research and Development June 1982, pp21.
“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of Uranium and Thorium. Such ‘confiremation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realisation that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.
This could mean that the atomic clocks were reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather within the age and (the folk) memory of man”.

Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, in ‘Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp 107.
“To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts”.

Dr Alan C Riggs formerly of the US Geological Survey ‘Major carbon 14 deficiency in modern snail shells, from southern Nevada springs’ Science vol. 224 6 April 1984 pp58.
“Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3 with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.”

In other words these LIVING snails are dated radiologically as having died 27,000 years ago!!!

Prof Gunter Faure, Professor of Geology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio and Prof James L Powell, Professor of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio in ‘Strontium Isotope Geology’ Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York pp102.
“These results indicate that even total-rock systems may be open during metamorphosis and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age”.

Dr Derek V Ager Department of Geology & Ocenography, University College, Swansea. ‘The nature of the fossil record’. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol. 87(2) 1976 pp132.
“We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular palaeontologists.”

Prof Sir Edmund R Leach, Address to the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Nature, vol 293, 3 September 1981 pp19 & 20.
“Scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of Wilberforce’s criticism of Darwin just as they would also accept the criticisms raised by (Creationist) geologist Adam Sedgewick, whose review (of Darwin) was published in The Spectator in April 1860.

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and likely to remain so.”

J C

Wicknight
A woman, call her Sarah has one daughter, we will call her Jane. Jane has one daughter, we will call her Mary.

A man called John has one son called Tim. Tim has one son called David.

David and Mary get married and have a son Barry and a daughter Laura.

The only unbroken mitocontrial ancestor of Laura is Sarah.

The only unbroken y-chromosone ancestor of Barry is John

There is an unbroken materinal line from Sarah to Laura in the mitocontrial DNA. There is an unbroken paterinal line from John to Barry in the Y-Chromosone. Dispite this John and Sarah never meet, never had sex and never produced children together.

Your above example has confined itself to the common male and female ancestors of only TWO people. As I have said before, the common ancestors of PROPORTIONS of Mankind don’t have to meet or mate.

However, what we are talking about with M-Eve and Y-Adam are the common male and female ancestors of ALL of Mankind – and these two people ARE logically the first man and the first woman.

As the First Man and the First Woman M-Eve and Y-Adam MUST meet and MUST mate!!!


Wicknight
Everyone on Earth also has other ancestors apart from M-Eve and Y-Adam. There is nothing in the theory that says M-Eve and Y-Adam were the only ancestors of humanity.

I agree that we all INDIVIDUALLY have many lineal common ancestors who weren’t contemporaneous and therefore didn’t meet (or mate).
However, the CRITICAL aspect of M-Eve and Y-Adam is that they were the common ancestor to ALL of Mankind. They therefore WERE the First Man and the First Woman!!!

It’s actually the phenomenon described by Robin in an earlier post as follows:-
“if you bear in mind that each woman has only one mother, but possibly many offspring, meaning that the number of common ancestors must decrease at each generation. Go back far enough and the number will eventually reduce to one. Think about it -- it's easy!!!”.

It’s apparently easy for Robin to grasp the concept – ‘get with the programme' Wicknight!!!!

Or talk to Robin !!!


Originally posted by J C
A tad inconvenient for Evolution that all of these putative (simple self replicating) molecules have ‘died off’ don't you think?
Reply by Scofflaw
Well, apart from DNA etc, which continue to do so.

DNA is neither SIMPLE nor SELF-REPLICATING!!!

DNA requires RNA, pre-existing DNA and a whole host of other molecular machines and organelles to facilitate it’s replication.


Robin
Here's this week's reminder that "survival of the fittest" was thought-up-of by an economist and not by a biologist and is a wildly inaccurate description of the current understanding of evolution.

And here is this weeks reminder that “survival of the fittest” is actually genetically THE SAME AS “differential reproductive success”.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

However, what we are talking about with M-Eve and Y-Adam are the common male and female ancestors of ALL of Mankind – and these two people ARE logically the first man and the first woman.

You really don't follow this at all, do you? That's exactly what we're not talking about.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
Everyone on Earth also has other ancestors apart from M-Eve and Y-Adam. There is nothing in the theory that says M-Eve and Y-Adam were the only ancestors of humanity.

I agree that we all INDIVIDUALLY have many lineal common ancestors who weren’t contemporaneous and therefore didn’t meet (or mate).
However, the CRITICAL aspect of M-Eve and Y-Adam is that they were the common ancestor to ALL of Mankind. They therefore WERE the First Man and the First Woman!!!

It’s apparently easy for Robin to grasp the concept – ‘get with the programme Wicknight’!!!!

Or talk to Robin !!!

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

JC wrote:

Originally posted by J C
A tad inconvenient for Evolution that all of these putative (simple self replicating) molecules have ‘died off’ don't you think?
Reply by Scofflaw
Well, apart from DNA etc, which continue to do so.

DNA is neither SIMPLE nor SELF-REPLICATING!!!

DNA requires RNA, pre-existing DNA and a whole host of other molecular machines and organelles to facilitate it’s replication.

Hmm. 4 constituent molecules? What's not simple? DNA requires some other molecules (not "organelles and other cellular machinery", which are there only in eukaryotic organisms) to replicate, but there is no requirement that early "self-replicating" molecules did not also do so. RNA would be a better example, I suppose, particularly viral mRNA. "Pre-existing DNA" would obviously be a requirement for replication, yes....

JC wrote:

Robin
Here's this week's reminder that "survival of the fittest" was thought-up-of by an economist and not by a biologist and is a wildly inaccurate description of the current understanding of evolution.

And here is this weeks reminder that “survival of the fittest” is actually genetically THE SAME AS “differential reproductive success”.

They have the same genes? Is that what you're saying? Or do you mean that they mean the same thing in a genetic sense, because if that is what you mean, you're wrong, again.

By the way, I see that once again all the scientific quotes are truncated and over 20 years old. Fred Hoyle, of course, was a champion of panspermia, not a Cretinist.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

There is in every human an awareness to some degree of the reality of these things, and that restrains them from being as wicked as they could be. To the degree we suppress this knowledge, to that degree we freed from its restraints.

This is an assumption that "everyone is a Christian really but some people don't admit it". While it is completely understandable that that would be your point of view, it is not rational or rationally defensible.

wolfsbane wrote:

Quote:
If. Whereas it's quite clear to anyone that there are consequences right here on earth. Not just to them, but to others.
What can you say to the one who cares nothing about others, calculates the chances of suffering bad consequences, and thinks the risks are worth the prize?

...and...

Quote:
People can be innately selfish, not just any particular branch. If they're determined to find a comfort zone for their actions, they will do it regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
True, even true Christians can be overcome with temptation (sexual, financial, etc) but it will be an exception to their lifestyle and will be repented of. Those who profess faith and whose lifestyle denies it are just phonies.


and

Quote:
Some christians might think it's fine to do as they please with regards to violence etc, mouth a few words of confession, and then think there are no consequences. They believe in your religion and your consequences but are convinced they're not going to suffer them.
Those are not the actions of true Christians. As you say, they deny the very truths they claim to hold.

In other words, you can say nothing either, even if these people are professed Christians, except that they are not Christians, but "phonies". Circular, I fear - it makes being a Christian dependent on living up to certain moral ideals. If we define such a thing as a "moral atheist", then we can simply say that those who do not live up to the ideal are not "moral atheists" even if they claim to be. Actually, we can just use "Humanist" there, since there's a perfectly well worked-out morality involved.

wolfsbane wrote:

Quote:
If god had had it written in the bible "prostitution is a-ok", would you care about it so much?
If God condoned wickedness, He wouldn't be God.

This contradicts all your previous statements. On the other hand, I suspect it is what you actually think - in other words, you are Christian (of the particular sect) because that sect's morality agrees with yours. Your morality is not God-given, but a God-enforced version of your own morality.

wolfsbane wrote:

Quote:
I don't need a god to tell me that suffering is wrong; I can see and feel it for myself, in what I feel and what I see others feel.

As I said before, feeling is not a reason.

Actually, the ability to feel the suffering of others is the root of all compassion. Without it, the "Christian" becomes a Pharisee, following the letter of the law blindly, unable to understand the spirit.

For some people, this is sufficient - that you can feel the pain of the other means that they are made in your own image, and deserving of the same respect you are yourself.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is God who has kept you and me from the vilest crimes.

No. You have kept yourself from them, as I have kept myself from them. You have chosen to ascribe it to God, I have not.

wolfsbane wrote:

Quote:
A different reason is not no reason at all; it's just one you don't personally accept. Just as someone else may not accept yours and instead accepts another.
Still waiting to hear what it is.

Compassion.


Overall, your entire position rests on your belief that your God is the only true God. This is a perfectly sensible position for a believer, but I can show you how it looks to a non-believer - I have highlighted word swaps:

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree it exists - the point is it is ultimately an irrational demand if it goes beyond serving the needs of the individual religion. My doctrinal requirements may conflict with yours, so no morality can apply to us both. There is no absolute morality in religion.

wolfsbane wrote:

Exactly my point: one religion's morality may differ from another's, and who can say which one is correct?

wolfsbane wrote:

For theists, morality changes with the religion; for theists, morality exists whether they agree with it or not. The theist will agree with what their God says is good.

wolfsbane wrote:

...on top of those I have the wise laws of my Deity of choice, not just the opinions of mere men.

In other words, to an atheist, your entire argument is a "special claim" - that your religion, and only your religion, has "true morality", because it is "the Word of God", and an atheist can only counter-propose a "human morality" without divine sanction, which is clearly a lesser choice.

To me, your religion is one of a very large number of religions made up by people as an explanation of the cosmos and enforcer of public morality. It has no more grounding than any other system of morality, and it is a matter of personal choice (influenced by upbringing) which you opt for.

wolfsbane wrote:

Quote:
I would hope that most Christians don't go around raping and killing people because they believe that it is wrong to do, not simply that they have been told it is wrong and if they do they will get in trouble.
Exactly so. But we have a reason for so believing, atheists do not. At least I still waiting for you to tell me one.

Compassion - the recognition of kinship between all things. You, on the one hand, take a step of faith to believe in the Christian God, and therefore follow the appropriate morality (and I'll come back to that). I, on the other hand, feel compassion, and take the step of faith that everything else is worthy of respect in the same way that I am. Is your step of faith more "rational" or "logical" or "necessary" than mine? How could it be?

wolfsbane wrote:

Quote:
I don't respect anothers "moral" beliefs when they harm others. I don't care if a phediophile thinks it is moral to rape 6 year olds. I can explain in detail why it isn't ok, and I stand by that even if he/she doesn't agree.
I'm eagerly awaiting your reasons.

Compassion. Other people are real. It is certainly possible to follow logically through from that starting premise to a system of morality, and the required step of faith is far less baroque than yours.

wolfsbane wrote:

Quote:
I would ask though, why do you assume God can't be wrong either. Why are the morality passed down from your god set in stone. If I can be wrong about morality why can't he?
The clue is in the word: GOD. If He were fallible like you and me, He wouldn't be the God revealed in the Bible.

Except that there is so little agreement, even between Christians, about the "God revealed in the Bible". How many Christian sects are there? How many adherents in each sect? Who is right, and who doomed?

As to the morality of the Bible - there are many laws given in the OT, and very few in the NT. There are references in the NT that appear to abridge or remove some of the OT laws, although it is not clear which ones. Overall, there is no clear statement of morality in the NT at all, which has allowed many divergent interpretations to flourish - to simply state that all are wrong except one is merely to make it clear which sect you adhere to.

The clue is in the word GOD - you believe, and I do not - to me, your morality is as "man-made" as mine. Not only that, but it cannot apply to a believer in any other God, or to a non-believer. How would you persuade me out of crime, if you could not convince me to believe what you believe?


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

I know the truth of God's word. Your point however has to do with the perpetrator believing it or not. If he believes it, then he will be restrained from his evil. You say I can't prove the reality of the eternal stick to him, as no one has returned from the dead to tell. But that is to miss the nature of conscience and its conviction by the word of God. God convinces the sinner of the reality of the Judgement to come; for example, in Paul's defence before the Roman governor Felix:
Acts 24:24 And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. 25 Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.”

If quoting scripture to me isn't going to convince me, and I have no reason or intention of going around harming anyone, how do you know it's going to work on anyone else?It's dubious at best.
Incidentally, I will nitpick here: you believe that it's truth. I doubt you "know" it.

There is in every human an awareness to some degree of the reality of these things, and that restrains them from being as wicked as they could be. To the degree we suppress this knowledge, to that degree we freed from its restraints.

Ah, so finally you admit humans have a conscience, I was starting to wonder

What can you say to the one who cares nothing about others, calculates the chances of suffering bad consequences, and thinks the risks are worth the prize?

About the same as you can, if not more.
If they think the risks of hell are worth the prize, then you're in the same boat as I am. And since there are people who seem to think so... well that's that

Those are not the actions of true Christians. As you say, they deny the very truths they claim to hold.

And yet they claim to be christians just like you.
I think I'll defer to Scofflaw's reply here.

True, even true Christians can be overcome with temptation (sexual, financial, etc) but it will be an exception to their lifestyle and will be repented of. Those who profess faith and whose lifestyle denies it are just phonies.

Same again.

I have no problem with the wicked being punished, and I dare say you don't either. Your objection seems to come from who determines what is wicked - God or you.

My objection, and curiosity, lies with wondering if you would blindly follow your god regardless of his commandments, or if you have any independent personal moral judgement that happens to agree with your god's.

If God condoned wickedness, He wouldn't be God.

Can you reconcile this with your earlier answer? :-

me: I mean with your version, if god didn't have a problem with it (hypothetically, so don't protest otherwise!) then you'd be happy with that?

You: Correct. God reveals right and wrong, it's not something we know without His work in our conscience.

Who says there is no explanation? It is wrong to harm my neighbour because he is undeserving of my wrath and he is made in God's image and therefore worthy of respect.

Bingo. Without the "god's image". He is undeserving of your wrath, and worthy of respect simply by his existing.

But if my neighbour is breaking into your house to rape your wife and steal your goods, then it would be right for me to harm him.
...
The paedophile?

Preferably restraint if possible.

As I said before, feeling is not a reason.

What else is your faith?
If you are convinced your faith is right and good, it's a reason.
Ditto for my reasoning.

And what causes them to act? It just happens? No, they act according to their desires. It is God who has kept you and me from the vilest crimes. We may think, 'I could never want or do that', but that is to be ignorant of the evil that is in man's heart. The most depraved criminal once was not so. The concentration camp commander once thought he was a very refined and moral fellow - until the opportunity presented itself and the inticements called.

God has not kept me from anything that god has not kept these people from.
Nice and comforting as it might be to think there is a safety net there, it is simply their actions alone and ours that differ. Personal responsibility.

Still waiting to hear what it is.

Simple compassion. Not proscribed enforced compassion, just compassion.

The reason lies in his heart - the awareness that is stirred by the preaching of the gospel, and must be heeded or supressed.

And if there is no awareness stirred? If it is just a bunch of pretty words to him?

It is only irrational if we presuppose there is no God, no one to whom we certainly must answer. For the Christian, of course love - even self-sacrificial love, is rational.

Why?
You seem to be implying you love because you have someone to answer to. What kind of love could that ever be?

Assyrian

J C wrote:

You must be joking, Assyrian!!

Let’s examine how an interpretation of the DAYS of Creation as being EONS of Evolutionary Time would actually ‘stack up’ when applied to the Genesis 1 account of the origins of the Universe and all life therein.

If the FIRST DAY of Creation was actually the first EON of Evolution then we have a problem straight away.

The Biblical account states that the Heavens (i.e. empty space) and a WATER-COVERED Earth were made on the First DAY (or EON) while the Theory of Evolution and it’s ‘fellow traveller’ the Big Bang Theory postulates that empty space and the stars (including our Sun) were the first to appear in a massive explosion of heat energy and matter.
Genesis indicates that God started with a WHISPER while Evolutionists believe that He started with a (big) BANG!!

You problem is how loud Genesis says creation was?

The Biblical account of The SECOND DAY of Creation describes a process of dividing ABUNDANT WATERS on the Earth into two parts – while Evolutionists postulate that a FIERY HOT Earth was formed from interstellar dust – with water obviously arriving much later (by some unknown process).

You don't think the earth would have time to cool down over the vast length of time that went before?

A traditional interpretation of the 'waters' here is that they refer to the fluid unformed mass of the earth. However a plain reading of the bible, and geological evidence, both suggest that before the continents formed the earth was covered with a vast ocean of water. Interestingly, the bible says that when God created land he set limits that the waters would never again cover the earth. It sounds like geology agrees better with the bible than creationism and its global flood does.

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 "Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb,
9 when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10 and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors,
11 and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.
7 At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.

Prov 8:29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

The Biblical account of The THIRD DAY of Creation states that dry land appeared and life started with MACROPHYTE TERRESTRIAL plants – while Evolution postulates that the first life was MICROSCOPIC and AQUATIC.

Actually, if you want to read Genesis that way, God didn't create aquatic plants at all, or bacteria, fungi or moses. But before there were fish swarming in the seas or great beasts wandering the land, the most significant change happened to the earth through plants. It was plants and the oxygen they produced that made larger organisms possible.

The Biblical account of The FOURTH DAY of Creation states that the Sun and the Stars were created, i.e. AFTER plants were created on the Third Day – while Evolution postulates that the first life evolved billions of years AFTER the Sun had come into existence.

According to Job, the morning stars were around when the foundations of the earth were laid. Genesis doesn't say God created the sun and moon on the fourth day, rather he made lights in the firmament, in the sky. Job says the earth was covered in thick cloud in the beginning. However the atmosphere seems to have changed when plants started doing their work, and the sun amd moon became clearly visible.

The Biblical account of The FIFTH DAY of Creation states that all aquatic life (including marine mammals) and birds were created – while Evolution postulates that early animal life evolved into fish but that birds and marine mammals evolved millions of years afterwards via intermediate amphibian and reptilian ancestors. In addition marine mammals are supposed to be amongst the ‘last arrivals’ because Evolutionists postulate that they actually evolved from land mammals who ‘returned to the sea’ and land mammals weren’t created until the SIXTH DAY according to Genesis 1.

The Biblical account of The SIXTH DAY of Creation states that land mammals, INVERTEBRATES and REPTILES were created i.e. AFTER birds and marine mammals were created, on the Fifth Day – while evolution postulates that INVERTEBRATES were amongst the earliest multi-cellular creatures to evolve and reptiles WERE ANCESTRAL to birds.
The Biblical account also states that Man was directly created by God on the SAME day as all of the other land-based animals.

I said in the previous post that Genesis gives a simplified account, with three categories of plant, three categories of astronomical object, three categories of non terrestrial creature and three categories of terrestrial creature. It also speaks of God commanding processes that continued on after, creatures are still being fruitful and multiplying, trees still bear fruit, the sun moon and stars still mark out the seasons. So while the earliest plants appeared in the start of 'day three' fruit trees can come later. There is strong suggestion that days are meant to overlap, both in the layout of evening and mornings, and in the discussion of the Seventh day in Hebrews.

So in the scheme we are given in Genesis, living creatures swarming in the seas came before land animals, and interestingly, winged creatures (which is what the word in Genesis meant) ruled the air, before the great era of amphibians reptiles and mammals. Does that mean no reptiles took to the air and no mammals went back to the water? Not at all. As is said it is a very simplified picture.

I hasten to add, as a scientist, that the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence is a reasonable Sequence IF Gradual Evolution did, in fact occur – i.e. primitive life would have had to evolve into ever-higher life forms over enormous lengths of time IF (and it is a big IF) that Evolution is TRUE.
However, the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence CANNOT be logically or coherently reconciled with Genesis 1, as I have illustrated above – so somebody must be WRONG.

Creation Science coherently explains how life was actually CREATED EXACTLY AS GENESIS SAYS IT WAS. Creation Science research also PROVES this to be true using objective, repeatable (i.e. scientific) means.

In summary, if the Days of Creation were literal 24 hour days, Genesis provides a rational, coherent and scientifically verifiable account of the origins of life and the early history of the Earth and of Mankind.

In fact Genesis cannot be reconciled with a literal six day creation, as each numbered day does not begin until the the work of creation has been completed. Remember in the bible, days only begin in the evening. So all the great work of creation in the first four and a half verses of Genesis, including at least one complete day and night, all happened before the start of day one. The entire work of creation in Genesis was finished before the start of the sixth day. Your literal six day creation simply doesn't fit. But then again, Genesis never says the world was created in six days.

Assyrian

Assyrian

J C wrote:

To argue that fossilised ‘raindrop marks’ DISPROVE Noah’s Flood is certainly a novel form of argument – but Evolutionists never cease to amaze me with their ingenuity!!!

All of the above phenomena were either deposited / created in the days preceding the Flood, during localised recesses during the Flood or much more recently in localised fossilisation events.

It does not require that much ingenuity, creation 'science' relies on bits and pieces of 'evidence' they think support some of their claims about the flood, but they never try, presumably they cannot, bring these pieces of evidence together in a coherent whole. They are self contradictory. Localised recesses during the flood? Have you read the account? 15 cubits over the highest hills yet it can recede to allow dinosaurs to walk by?

You believe the strata contain fossils that were water sorted for shape and size, yet somehow this catastrophically violently turbulent water sorting of massive thick multi mega tons of waterborne sediment would recede enough for dinosaurs to walk around and raindrops to leave marks on mud, shellfish to establish burrows, termites to build their mounds, all before the next layer of sediment leaves its tracks and burrows, the flood ebbing and receding to leave evidence of life in every layer of sediment it laid down.

SOME polystrate trees are fossilised in situ. The fact that sedimentary layers with adventituous tree roots may be several metres deep but clearly had to be laid down in less than 100 years – actually DISPROVES evolutionists ‘millions of years’ Geology – which ascribes ‘millions of years’ to these metres deep sedimentary layers due to it's gradualist assumptions.

You clearly don't understand how geologist view the earth's history and instead argue against the YEC straw man that everything happened very slowly. What YEC cannot explain is how a tree that has been covered in layers of sediment in a global flood can keep growing roots. This certainly could happen in less than a hundred years, as could a tree that rotted away when when the sediment layers built up, and small animal fall into the hole that was left behind. This kind of process happening in less than a hundred years is no problem in geology. It is impossible in a single catastrophic flood that covered the earth for just one year.

It is not in the least disingenuous – Creation Science recognises that there are examples of LOCALISED RECENT sedimentation and fossilisation events (where erosion, etc would be observable).
The vast majority of sedimentation events did occur during Noah’s Flood as proven by the absence of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between THESE layers.

The problem for creation 'science' has is that it cannot point to a single layer that doesn't have erosion, soil formation, animal burrows, animal tracks, roots indicating that life was going on when these layers were formed. The situation is so bad that some creationist geologists have abandoned the idea the fossil bearing strata being from the flood at all, and place the flood way back in the Hadean eon in the early Precambrian (3800-4500my ago conventional). They try to explain how the ten of thousands of feet of strata with all the neatly arranged fossil occurred after the flood.

Which geological strata are the flood sediments supposed to lie between anyway? Which strata are without animal tracks, burrows, raindrops, roots, river beds, soil formation or erosion?

Assyrian

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Keep me right on this: if evolution occurs, then is must be gradual, a slight move toward a more 'advanced' organism than before?

No, "advanced" has no meaning in evolution. One species is not more evolved than the other.

Instead of saying "advanced" say "adapted". Evolution adapts a species to a certain environment. There are certainly degrees of adaption, some species are nearly prefectly adapted to the environment they live in (sharks for example).

And because every environment is different it is nearly impossible to compare species, or even compare different evolved states of the same line of species.

wolfsbane wrote:

To move from Neanderthal to Homo Sapien meant some of them changed from generation to generation.

Exactly, some changed due to mistakes in reproduction. If their changes better adapted them to the environment then they did better against survival threats than others in the species facing the same survivial threats. Following on from that their children, with the same changes did better, and so on and so on. They mated with others passing these changes on to them. Eventually, the changes become domanent in the species, as those without the changes do not face the challanges as well as those with the changes.

wolfsbane wrote:

So it would be wrong to say Homo Sapien was more evolved than Neanderthal, or Homo Erectus?

It all depends on what you mean by "more".

Neanderthals etc were adapted to their environment. But the environment is constantly changing. Those changes require species to constantly be evolving to meet the changes. They adapted into us.

We are more adapted to our particular environment, but that is not to say we are more advanged than the species that came before us. Neanderthals had other advantages that adapted them to their environments, that humans from this environment wouldn't last 5 minutes in. They were a lot stronger than we were for example.

Its impossible to say who was "more" evolved because the environments are not the same.

If you are talking in the context of a time line, then yes we are "more" evolved simply because on a time line we are here and they aren't.

But if you are talking about "better" then that is hard to say.

It is not really possible to look at species, even speceis on the same evolutionary line, and say one is better than the other. It doesn't work like that.

wolfsbane wrote:

Fit for survival, is the Darwinian concept. I thought you held it was a central driver of evolution.

But that has no meaning without the context of the environment they are living in. Sub-sharian Africans are more fit to survived in sub-sharian Africa than an Eskimo from Canada, but there is very little you can draw from that fact.

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree it exists - the point is it is ultimately an irrational demand if it goes beyond serving the needs of the individual.

Says who?

wolfsbane wrote:

I don't and I have said so. Christians are moral because they love God and agree in their hearts that His standards are good and true. They also fear Him, which acts as a further brake when they are tempted to sin.

That doesn't make much sense. If they beleived his standards are good and true, why would they sin in the first place?

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, God's will has at times been misunderstood even by the best of people.

You call it "misundertanding" they would call it the word of God. Religion is just as open to interpritation and adaption as human morality.

wolfsbane wrote:

But this example is not an one of abandoning morality, but creating a false one: that our enemies are necessarily God's enemies, and that we are called to act on His behalf.

Exactly, they believe they are still acting within the morality of the religion. That is what makes this form of morality so dangerous and hypocritical. If you based your morality solely on your interpritation of something like the Bible, which is so vague and contradictory, you can pretty much justify anything and still stay on the side of "morality" with out having to justify or explain that morality beyond "God says so"

wolfsbane wrote:

As I said, the only rationale for secular morality is the risk of being caught.

No, its not. That implies humanity, in the abstance of God, as no emotions or empathy or compassion. Which isn't true.

I don't beat up old people to steal their money not because I am scared I am going to get caught, but because I believe it is wrong to beat up old people, I would empathise with the hurt I would cause them, I feel compassion for the state I would leave them in with no money.

Therefore I feel it is immoral for anyone to beat up old people, not just me. I don't need God to tell me this.

wolfsbane wrote:

Exactly my point: one person's morality may differ from another's, and who can say which one is correct?

Philosophy, logic, arguement and debate (see that rational for not beating up old people and stealing their money above). Something that is abstant from religion.

wolfsbane wrote:

The Christian will agree with what God says is good.

Well if history has taught us anything it is that a Christian will agree with what they think God says is good. And often what a Christian thinks God says is good is also what they want God to say is good. I'm not saying that is any worse than an atheists coming up with his own moral system, just that it isn't really any better, and a lot harder to argue with.

wolfsbane wrote:

Please tell us these other reasons.

Compassion and empathy, leading on to logic and reason (eg I know, through empathy, that my sister or mother being raped would be horrific for them, the logical conclusion from that is that any woman being raped will feel horrific, therefore the act rape is bad and should be out lawed)

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm eagerly awaiting your reasons.

In that example, empathy. I know that if I had been molested as a 6 year old that would have been very damaging to me. We can see the effects of molestation on children around the world. It damages them. Therefore it should not be allowed to happen.

wolfsbane wrote:

So a thing is moral if society says it is?

Depends on what you mean by "society"? I think you mean those in society who are in power. Then the answer would be no.

For example, people always use slavery in this example when they say this. They say 100 years ago US "society" said slavery was ok, does that mean it was ok back then.

But did they really. Who in society? Did all of society say slavery was ok, or just a few who were in power to control society. I'm pretty sure the slaves, who were also a large proportion of that society, did not think slavery was "ok".

If you can find no one at all who has a problem with something, then yes it is by default ok. If you can't then you need to get into a proper debate the subject until society can fairly come up with an answer. That doesn't work if "society" is actually a handful of powerful people forcing their views on others.

There is also a difference between collective morality and individual morality. Collective morality keeps individual morality in check. For example, I believe early term abortion is fine. A lot of people in this country don't. If supporters of abortion cannot convince these people that they are in fact right, then they need to reexamine their reasons for believing this in the first place. It is all about healthy debate and argument. Which is why I have such problems with people deriving morality from religion, because religion does not allow for healthy argument or debate.

wolfsbane wrote:

Killing and eating one's enemy is perfectly OK in some societies. Deflowering of maidens by the chief/lord is OK in others.

Not by the person getting eatten or the deflowered "maiden" Are they not members of the society also? What you mean is it is perfectly OK according to those in power within the society.

wolfsbane wrote:

The clue is in the word: GOD. If He were fallible like you and me, He wouldn't be the God revealed in the Bible.

That is a bit of a cycilical definition. Who decided a god cannot makes mistakes? Did we, or the god in question?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

However, what we are talking about with M-Eve and Y-Adam are the common male and female ancestors of ALL of Mankind – and these two people ARE logically the first man and the first woman.

No JC they are not. You can keep saying it over and over, doesn't make it any more correct. It just shows that you continue to not understand what we are actually talking about here.

J C wrote:

It’s actually the phenomenon described by Robin in an earlier post as follows:-
“if you bear in mind that each woman has only one mother, but possibly many offspring, meaning that the number of common ancestors must decrease at each generation. Go back far enough and the number will eventually reduce to one. Think about it -- it's easy!!!”.

That is true, which is why there is one Mitocondiral Eve and one Y-Chromosone Adam.

That is how you can get back to one Mitochondial ancestor. But you use a different line of ancestory to get back to the Y-Chromosone Adam, that goes only through men. You don't use the same line because you are looking at two different elements, the mitocondrial DNA and the Y-Chromosone.

The lines of ancestory are completely different. The odds that the two lines would eventually meet up to one couple are astronomically high, so of course M-Eve and Y-Adam didn't mate.

They also aren't the first man and woman because you need a whole load of other people around at the same time to provide for all the broken lines. Otherwise the human population would be much smaller than it is, and a lot more inbred.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Here are some other pertinent quotes also “calling for radical changes in the science of life”:-

I think you missed the "recent", "evolutionist" and "radical change" part of Wibbs question :rolleyes:

Ignoring the last two part (don't want to strain yourself) do you have any quotes that aren't 20-30 years old? Then we can see if they are calling for "radical "changes in the understanding of biology.

Wibbs

Well spotted Wickers . Now while I take some of the views on board(especially some of Hoyles zanier theories of pansmermia which appeal to my wierder side), most are woefully out of date(especially with regard to the fossil record). The radioactive dating part is misleading and out of date as well. Just because you find an anomalous reading in special circumstances, does not prove the whole method wrong. Exception proving the rule and all that. Makes more sense than Noah and a wordlwide flood that we have no evidence for, save what you believe to be true as a tenet of your faith.

To each their own. I've no particular problem with that, but like the thread in the Islam forum, where wild and inaccurate claims of scientific proof were made on behalf of the Quran, such claims need stronger proof than seems available(surprised I was the only sceptic voice in that thread. Maybe you're all here ). Like your Muslim counterpart no amount of counter argument will satisfy you as you know what you believe to be true, based on faith.

bmoferrall

JC wrote:

BM, that is essentially what the debate on this thread is all about.

My perspective up to now has been informed by the assumption that a plain literal reading of Genesis was the dominant one in historical Christianity, and in particular evangelical Christianity (who am I to argue with such collective wisdom). This book (Chapter 7) argues quite convincingly that the converse is actually true. Yes, some key Christians like Luther read Genesis this way but, great as these men were, they weren't infallible. Would they hold the same convictions in the light of present-day science? Moreover, this book (Chapter 8) shows that a (consistently) plain reading of Genesis 1-3 is actually impossible, and requires at least some of the text to be treated as allegory; that is, without resorting to a degree of lexical and theological gymnastics. Who decides which parts are allegory and which parts are literal? (I won't repeat the arguments here as they are quite lengthy.)

I believe Henry Morris was instrumental in bringing Creation Science to prominence in recent times. Here's an extract of his thinking (I don't know how representative this is of current Creation science):

Morris’ system can be summarised:
· The earth is only a few thousand years old, and was completed in 144 hours.
· Physical death of both man and animals started only after the sin of the first man and woman, which occurred at least 24 hours after the creation of birds and sea creatures.
· There were, therefore, no animal predators in the original creation, and all of them were vegetarian throughout the first day or so of their existence.
· At the first human sin (or the ‘fall’), substantial changes occurred both in biology and in physics. Though some young-earthers deny it, Morris also emphasises that the second law of thermodynamics began only at that time.
· Just after the fall of man, God somehow withdrew his hand, allowing an undirected process of evolution by natural selection to occur, leading to animals developing structures specialised for predatory habits.
· During the period between Adam and Noah (c 1000 years?), all the structures for predatory habits found in fossils developed. This universal flood laid down all the strata and engulfed the now fossilised animals.

Many young-earth creationists simply do not realise the total package they are ‘buying into’. Because Henry Morris is a sincere Christian man, he has tried to think through in detail the implications of his system. Not only has this led him (as we have seen) in practice to admit that major parts of Genesis 1-3
are figurative/allegorical, but it has also led to the anomaly that he actually has a greater belief in the efficacy of evolution by natural selection to change animal structures than anyone else we know. Though he may call it ‘degeneration’, it actually means that highly complex new structures evolved over a period of just a few thousand years! He states his views thus:

"It seems unlikely that God actually either created or ‘made’ thorns or thistles at this time. He did not ‘create’ death in the direct sense, but rather withdrew that extension of his power which maintained a ‘steady state’ of life and order, thus allowing all things gradually to disintegrate toward disorder and death... God merely “allowed” certain plant structures which previously were beneficent to deteriorate into malevolent characteristics... In terms of modern genetic knowledge, such changes probably were in the form of mutations, or random changes in the molecular structure of the genetic systems of the different kinds of organisms... If deteriorative mutational changes occurred in plants, it seems reasonable and even probable that they would also occur in animals. As smoothly rounded structures deteriorated to thorns in plants, so perhaps teeth and nails designed for a herbivorous diet mutated to fangs and claws which, in combination with a progressively increasing dietary deficiency of proteins and other essentials, gradually created carnivorous appetites in certain animals... Parasites and viral systems may also have developed in some such way.45"

He later calls mutations ‘random disruptions in their highly ordered genetic structures.’ 46 Let us be clear here how novel is this suggestion. He is saying that as originally created all animals were vegetarian, and there was no animal death. Then at the moment of that first sin of Adam, God ‘withdrew’ his power
in some way, leaving the physical world to a new system of physics which operated in some sense independently of God. Animal life evolved very rapidly (within a few thousand years between Adam and Noah) to transform the originally vegetarian structures of the Genesis ‘kinds’ into carnivores with claws and teeth for tearing, into parasites etc. The mode by which these changes occurred was random mutations - not God-directed in any way, but (Morris seems to imply) by natural selection. When, therefore, we look today e.g. at a member of the feline ‘kind’ (i.e. a cat), we see a structure which is unrecognisable as the original vegetarian creature God made, but has ‘degenerated’ into the lissom, efficient hunter with claws and teeth we know
so well.

Is this really credible stuff? Is this not a parallel universe he's describing? As the extract suggests, Morris seems to have uncommon faith in the efficacy of evolution. One would presume from this that, were he persuaded that the world's age is on the order of billions of years, he would happily sign up to the concept of macro-evolution.

As far as the age of the universe is concerned, I've followed the arguments presented here, and elsewhere. If nothing else, my common sense tells me that a 6-10000 year time-frame and a global flood cannot explain all the observed geological/archeological phenomena; similarly, the argument that says the world only looks old because everything was created mature also appears to fails in the light of many of these observations.

As for macro-evolution, creation scientists argue that it's mathematically/statistically impossible, even given a 6 billion-year time-frame. Notwithstanding apparent major gaps in the fossil record, a significant majority of relevant scientists (Christian or otherwise) say it isn't mathematically possible and possibly/probably did happen this way. If they're right about the age of the earth, I at least have to give them the respect that they could be right about this also, however tentative their theory may be for now, and however improbable it may all seem to Joe Public. If science proves beyond all reasonable doubt that evolution is the mechanism that explains man's complexity and life's diversity, then Christians will just have to accept that this is indeed how God chose to work out our (physical) creation. We marvelled when Newton showed how planetary motion was subject to a few simple laws of nature. Can we not also marvel at man's (physical) 'creation' being subject to similar laws and mechanisms. Would this not be just as intellectually satisfying as the aforementioned laws of motion? Of course an omnipotent God could have miraculously created everything in a week, or even simultaneously; if the evidence says otherwise we shouldn't ignore or twist it. (As Christians we of course believe there is a supernatural component to our makeup; however, that's a theological rather than a scientific issue.)

As recorded in Genesis, God chose to reveal to us something about our origins and our creation. If evolution were the mechanism he used to 'create' us should we have expected a complex treatise on its scientific and mathematical underpinnings? Evidently, he chose to communicate it in such a way as to be digestible by all audiences down through the ages, not just in our (scientifically) enlightened times. Genesis says that God used existing material (dust) to create man; could this be his way of intimating a mechanism such as evolution to us?

Assyrian

Assyrian: That is the problem, most ordinary people aren't qualified to dispute the details. Creationist sites publish their claims for ordinary Christians who simply don't have the training and skill to see how bad their arguments really are.

JC: Sounds a tad patronising to me !!

It’s also not borne out on this thread (that Creation Science research is invalid).

Could I point out that your so-called ‘ordinary Christians’ sit on juries, vote in elections and indeed ARE capable of recognising when something isn’t quite what it claims to be.

Not patronising at all. It is simply the recognition that the majority of ordinary people don't have scientific training. There is no reason everybody should have, or any suggestion that they are any the less for not having it. You don't need a science degree to be a high court judge, police inspector, teacher, airline pilot, or head of state. I would trust a pilot to fly the 747 I was in, even if he didn't have any scientific training, I wouldn't trust a nobel prize winning physicist to fly the plane if he hadn't flight training.

That leaves us with the simple fact that people without scientific training are not qualified to analyse pseudoscientific arguments. They may be intelligent, moral, really nice people, but they will not be able to tell the difference between solid science and scientific sounding flim flam, especially if they have been conned into thinking that believing in Creation 'Science' is the same as trusting God's word.

For example, the Evolutionist claim that ‘muck evolved into Man’ is about as plausible as suggesting that ‘sticking a feather in the ground will grow a hen’.

Could I suggest that it IS obvious to ‘ordinary Christians’ that NEITHER the feather nor the muck propositions have the POTENTIAL to actually occur – and a University degree ISN’T required to reach such a conclusion – just some common sense!!!

'Muck to Man' or as it was called in my day 'Fish to Gish' is a great sound bite, but utterly empty argument scientifically.

J C to bmoferral wrote:

Indeed, the Bible has been intensively studied for millennia – and nobody has proven it wrong yet!!!

This is true, however some very popular interpretations people thought were based on the bible have gone by the wayside, including geocentrism and the belief that Adam and Eve proved there could not be an inhabited continent in the southern hemisphere, the Unknown Southern Land, or Terra Australis Incognita.

God said (about the fact that the working week is DIRECTLY BASED on the Creation Week):-
In Ex 20:9-10a “SIX DAYS you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh DAY is a Sabbath to the Lord” (NIV).
In Ex 20:11 “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (NIV).

Which is an anthropomorphic metaphor where God describes himself as a tired labourer resting and being refreshed after stopping work for a day (Exodus 20:11 & 31:17). Moses himself described God's days as long period of time in Psalm 90:4. Jesus denied God ever literally stopped working (John 5:17). He also denied the literal reason given for the Sabbath in Exodus that that people rest on the seventh day because God did and because God declared the Sabbath holy. Instead Jesus told us the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).

Jesus Christ said (about the fact that Man was created at the BEGINNING of Creation):-In Mt 19:4 “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” and again in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).

Yet according to Genesis God made man at the very end of creation, not the beginning. So these statements actually contradict Genesis, unless they are talking about the beginning of mankind rather than the universe, that is, when mankind was created. Or it is simply an idiom for long ago.

Jesus Christ said (about the literal truth of a worldwide Genesis Flood that destroyed all Human life except Noah and his family):-
In Mt 24:37-39a “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them away” (NIV).

Jesus didn't actually say anything about the flood being worldwide.

St. Peter said (about the literal truth of a worldwide Genesis Flood) :-
In 1 Pet 3:20b “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water” (NIV).

Again no mention of a worldwide flood.

Martin Luther said :-
“When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are.”

This was the same Martin Luther who called Copernicus a fool?

It is worth pointing out that what Luther was writing against here was the prevailing theological opinion for well over a thousand years, that the days in Genesis were figurative and that creation was really instantaneous, as was taught by men like Augustine and Aquinas.

Similarly, John Calvin stated:-
“…albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years ……. God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.”

However Calvin was much more open than Luther to the latest scientific research like Copernicus's Heliocentrism.

Calvin wrote: "Moses, by a homely and uncultivated style, accommodates what he delivers to the capacity of the people; and for the best reason; for not only had he to instruct an untaught race of men, but the existing age of the Church was so puerile, that it was unable to receive any higher instruction. There is, therefore, nothing absurd in the supposition, that they, whom, for the time, we know and confess to have been but as infants, were fed with milk." I don't think Calvin would have had any problem with the age of the universe.

The “Penny Catechism” of The Roman Catholic Church said:-
“God made the world from nothing and by His Word only – that is by a single act of His all-powerful will”

Now we have creationism being described as 'a kind of paganism' by the Vatican's astronomer Brother Consolmagno. Trying to regain some ground there after Galileo then.

Prof Marcus Dodds (19th century liberal theologian, at New College, Edinburgh), has said :-
“if, for example, the word ‘day’ in these chapters (of Genesis) does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, then the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless”.

Who?

Prof James Barr, Regis Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford University, (even though he himself doesn’t believe Genesis to be true history) has said :-“so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer of Gen 1-11 intended to convey to his readers the ideas that:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.
(b) The figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story.
(c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”

James Barr goes on to say, "...it's really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is." Notice (1) his conclusion is not based on the grammar and linguistics of Genesis, so Creationists cannot say it is Barr's expertise in the Hebrew language that lead his to that conclusion. And (2) his conclusion is based on his view of the sort of text that Genesis is, in other words, Barr come to that conclusion because he believes Genesis is simply another Ancient Near East creation myth like Epic of Gilgamesh. So while Creationists quote Barr as supporting their interpretation, his conclusion is actually based on a view of Genesis they would strongly reject.

Check out the full text of Barr's letter in http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html

Malcolm Muggeridge, Roman Catholic Philosopher and Broadcaster, said during the Pascal Lectures in the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada :-
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

Nice guy Muggeridge, but how was he qualified to discuss how flimsy the scientific evidence was?

Assyrian

Assyrian

A billion years of undirected mistakes, as postulated by Macro-evolution, DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously.

Nor does astronomy explain aerodynamics. You are confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis.

Darwinian Evolution does not, and indeed logically cannot, make any distinctions between Humans and other species.

Just as reproductive biology and gynecology cannot tell us anything about the sanctity of marriage.

Indeed somebody else on this thread has already correctly pointed out that (if evolution is true) a bird, because it can fly, might actually be more highly evolved than a person.

They certainly are better adapted if you suddenly find yourself in midair 10,000feet above the ground.

Creation Science has NEVER claimed that it is “the prevailing view of Evangelical Christians”. Indeed, some Evangelicals actually espouse (Theistic) Evolutionary beliefs.

Equally, Creation Science today contains within it’s ranks people from a diversity of different religious beliefs including members of practically every Christian Denomination as well as Agnostics, Jews and Moslems.

Historically, the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal were all Creationists – and mostly members of mainstream Christian Churches.

Agnostic Creation Scientists?

It is odd when YECs produce lists of Creationist scientists, they are mainly people who lived before Origin of Species was published and include people who believe the earth millions of years old, like Kelvin and Pasteur, and even people who believed in evolution, if not Darwin's natural selection, like Pasteur. Maxwell believed in biological evolution.

Though he died 80 years before Darwin published the Origin of Species, Linnaeus's work led him to reject the concept of fixity of species and declared "Species are the work of time".

Assyrian

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Darwinian Evolution does not, and indeed logically cannot, make any distinctions between Humans and other species.

Distinctions under what context? Because evolution, by definition, means every single species (nay individual cell) is different.

If you mean distinction as in we (humans) a "special" from other animals and plant, then no it doesn't. We are evolved animal primates, which a very complex brain structure that has put us ahead of other animals in terms of intellectual development. But our systems, at a basic level, are the same as any other animal on Earth.

But then neither does Creation "Science" provide evidence that we are special, beyond a literal reading of the Bible. Unless you want to show me the evidence presented by Creationists that we are some how a completely different form of life than any other on Earth? I'm all ears.

J C wrote:

Indeed somebody else on this thread has already correctly pointed out that (if evolution is true) a bird, because it can fly, might actually be more highly evolved than a person.

Again JC you miss the point.

My point was you cannot say a human or a bird is more highly evolved than each other because the level of evolution is irrelivent without the context of the environment the species is faced with.

For example, are we more evolved or less evolved than a shark? Most people would say we are more evolved. But while might have big brains that allow us to build computers and space ships, stick us in a ocean we would probably last a few hours at the most, a few minutes if it was under water.

The level of evolution has no meaning without the context of the environment the species is adapting to. That is after all all evolution is, adaptation. And a shark is almost perfectly adapted to its environment, which is why it has evolved very little in the last million years, where as primates have evolved at a much faster rate because we were adapting to constantly shifting environments.