The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Why?

...because your question is based on a false premise.

..I have said what I have said ... and that is all I am going to say!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...because your question is based on a false premise.

..I have said what I have said ... and that is all I am going to say!!

Why can't you give an example?
Surely there is at least one technique that wouldn't be against ethics to disclose?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Why can't you give an example?
Surely there is at least one technique that wouldn't be against ethics to disclose?

....it is not within my power to do so

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....it is not within my power to do so

Why hint/mention at them so?

monosharp

JC. Give us one single example of how creation science has being of beneficial use to society.

Any medical reason, any geological reason, any astronomical reason, any scientific discipline at all.

robindch

J C wrote: »

that is all I am going to say!!

Is that a promise?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Is that a promise?

No!!:pac::):D:eek:

J C

monosharp wrote: »

JC. Give us one single example of how creation science has being of beneficial use to society.

Any medical reason, any geological reason, any astronomical reason, any scientific discipline at all.

...Conventional Science is based on Creation Science principles and vice versa!!!:D:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...Conventional Science is based on Creation Science principles and vice versa!!!:D:)

So an example then would be ....

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...Conventional Science is based on Creation Science principles and vice versa!!!:D:)

Thats not an example. Give us an example of creation science being used in any scientific discovery, ever.

Creation Science is not science, its pure utter nonsense created by people so deluded with their beliefs that they are shunned both by the majority of their own religions people and the majority of humanity as a whole.

Its complete rubbish and doesn't even make good fiction.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

So an example then would be ....

...any conventional scientific endeavour ... and every Creation Science project!!!:)

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Thats not an example. Give us an example of creation science being used in any scientific discovery, ever.

Creation Science is not science, its pure utter nonsense created by people so deluded with their beliefs that they are shunned both by the majority of their own religions people and the majority of humanity as a whole.

Its complete rubbish and doesn't even make good fiction.

...saying this doesn't make it true!!!:D

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...saying this doesn't make it true!!!:D

So give us one example. If you can't even come up with one single example then why should anyone here listen to you ?

Every time anyone of us make a claim we back it up with references and evidence. Every time you make a claim you back it up with absolutely nothing. You don't even back it up with references from creationists. :eek:

I'd really love to know why creationists even try to argue science when they ignore facts and sprout such rubbish so easily.

I mean whats the point in arguing when you know your position is wrong ? Is it just some ill-thought out attempt to defend what they think is their beliefs ?

Is it that anything that contradicts the Bible in a literal way is wrong and must be attacked ?

I mean why ? The vast majority of Christians have enough common sense not to believe in creationism so its not like your going to convert anyone. Unless of course you want to get it into the schools to vulnerable children.

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

Thats not an example. Give us an example of creation science being used in any scientific discovery, ever.

Creation Science is not science, its pure utter nonsense created by people so deluded with their beliefs that they are shunned both by the majority of their own religions people and the majority of humanity as a whole.

Its complete rubbish and doesn't even make good fiction.

Evolutionary science and Creation science are both interpretations of Science. Evolutionism and Creationism have all the great Laws of science in common. They both incorporate the main body of Science but they differ on how that explains the matter of the development of the universe, or more particularly, the biosphere.

Here's an example of evolutionary science misleading the medical world and the creation model being seen as correct:
Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/back.asp

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I note the abiotic and biotic origins of oil is still debated. JC goes for the former, another creationist goes for the latter:
The Origin of Oil
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti.../origin-of-oil
So is the flatness of the Earth

And many other sensible and non-sensible issues. Or are your ideas beyond debate?

Can you provide an example of where predictions of a Creationist theory was actually used to do something useful, such as find an oil deposit?

I'm not aware of oil being found by principles peculiar to either evolutionism or creationism.

Here's some predictions of creationism, but I'm not aware whether they have been put to practical use yet:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

But maybe you can give me an idea of what you want by showing me where predictions of an Evolutionist theory were actually used to do something useful?

Do you understand why a complete lack of useful predictions from Creationism would raise many an eyebrow from the scientific community who Creationists are demanding take them seriously?

I do. But I assume the predictions I pasted would lead to good uses. But I'll wait for your list of useful predictions of Evolutionism before I go further. Remember, they must be of principles exclusive to evolutionism, not those that are shared by creationism and evolutionism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I note too that it was a creationist who first introduced the idea of continental drift, back in 1859.
Weren't most people Creationists back then?

Many of the scientific world were not. But certainly Creationists were more free to express themselves back then.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's an example of evolutionary science misleading the medical world and the creation model being seen as correct:
Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/back.asp

Hmm, unless you can show how creationism was actively involved in correcting that mistake you have just backed up the theory of evolution as a means of advancing science:)

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll wait for your list of useful predictions of Evolutionism before I go further.

What's "Evolutionism"?

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolutionary science and Creation science are both interpretations of Science. Evolutionism and Creationism have all the great Laws of science in common. They both incorporate the main body of Science but they differ on how that explains the matter of the development of the universe, or more particularly, the biosphere.

Here's an example of evolutionary science misleading the medical world and the creation model being seen as correct:
Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/back.asp

There's just so much wrong in that article: response from talk origins:

Response:

1. Williams' treatment for back pain was not based on evolutionary theory. It was based on observations of normal people and people with back pain. Part of his rationale was that people from African and Asian cultures who sat on the floor had less back pain than Westerners with their chairs.

Furthermore, Williams did not recommend decreasing lordosis all the time, but only in cases of posterior disc bulging. It was already well known that anything which interfered with the spine's normal curvature, increasing or decreasing it, tended to cause pain. As even Bergman acknowledges, the Williams flexion exercises are beneficial in cases of spinal stenosis.

2. Mackenzie's exercises were more effective because they were simple and required no special equipment, so patient compliance was much greater.

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

I mean why ? The vast majority of Christians have enough common sense not to believe in creationism so its not like your going to convert anyone. Unless of course you want to get it into the schools to vulnerable children.

On the contrary, belief in evolution is a direct hindrance to many people believing the Bible. Some can take it as given that the Creation and the Flood are metaphoric of evolution and judgement, but the simpler of us find that too incredible - and the gospel is mainly for them:
1 Corinthians 1:26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.

It would be interesting to interview many of the millions who have converted to Christ over the past few years and see what understanding of the Creation issue they have. I would be surprised if most of them are not becoming creationists, if they already aren't.

On the other hand, failure to reconcile evolution and the Bible has led many who professed faith to apostatize, for example:
A famous evangelist goes from hope to hopelessness
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/unbelief.asp
‘I believe that there is no supreme being with human attributes — no God in the biblical sense — but that all life is the result of timeless evolutionary forces … over millions of years.’

‘I believe that, in common with all living creatures, we die and cease to exist as an entity.’

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Hmm, unless you can show how creationism was actively involved in correcting that mistake you have just backed up the theory of evolution as a means of advancing science:)

Since the error was based on evolutionary presupposition and the remedy fits the creationist model, I win.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolutionary science and Creation science are both interpretations of Science.

Creation Science or Scientific Creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

Creation Science is fundamentalist religious people desperately trying to discredit any science which contradicts their religion.

It is not an interpretation of science, it is a religious group who feel science threatens their beliefs and as all good fundamentalists do, they fight against anything which goes against their beliefs.

Creation 'science' is no different from the nonsense sprouted by opponents of Galileo Galilei and even now, 2009, there are still some religious people who actually believe the sun orbits the earth. Do you ?

Evolutionism and Creationism have all the great Laws of science in common.

Objects on Earth tend to fall downwards unless otherwise prevented from doing so.
The tendency of objects to fall is called gravity.
Gravity is a fact.

The prevalence of different traits changes from generation to generation in populations of living organisms.
Changes in trait prevalence from generation to generation is called evolution.
Evolution is a fact.

Gravity is a fact and a theory.
Evolution is a fact and a theory.

Einstein's explanation of the fact of gravity, called the general theory of relativity, greatly modified the older Newtonian notions of gravity and is currently the most accepted theory of gravity.

The modern explanation of the fact of evolution, called the modern evolutionary synthesis, has greatly modified and extended the ideas of Darwin and is currently the most accepted theory of evolution.

They both incorporate the main body of Science but they differ on how that explains the matter of the development of the universe, or more particularly, the biosphere.

No, they differ on science which contradicts the Bible for religious reasons.

Here's an example of evolutionary science misleading the medical world and the creation model being seen as correct:
Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/back.asp

Oh good you found an example.

Well first of all what you are talking about is the Williams exercises developed in the 1930's. So lets start rebuking the rubbish in that article shall we.

1. Williams believed that back problems were the result of our sedentary lifestyle, slouching etc. Specifically the curve of our spine.

www.backtrainer.com wrote:

Dr. Paul Williams first published his exercise program in 1937 for patients with chronic low back pain in response to his clinical observation that the majority of patients who experienced low back pain had degenerative vertebrae secondary to degenerative disk disease (Williams 1937). These exercises were developed for men under 50 and women under 40 years of age who had exaggerated lumbar lordosis, whose x-ray films showed decreased disc space between lumbar spine segments (L1-S1), and whose symptoms were chronic but low grade.

2. Evolution says we once walked on all fours, it also says we used to live in the sea but I don't expect many doctors will tell you to start drinking sea water for your health. Williams did not base his exercises on evolution, he based his exercises on the spine because of what he observed as problems with his patients.

There is no doubt in either Williams' mind or McKenzie's that the stresses induced on the intervertebral disc by poor posture are the root cause of all back pain. However, while they seem to agree on the discal origin of back pain, they disagree on the postural part. Williams seems more concerned about the lack of flexion in our world, while McKenzie talks mostly about increasing extension.

3. Your article incorrectly claims that the Williams technique is harmful, again truth mixed with lies.

For patients suffering from some types of spinal problems the Williams technique is harmful.

In general, extension exercises may cause further damage in people with spondylolysis, spondylolisthesis and facet joint dysfunction (Harvey 1991), not to mention the possibility of crushing the interspinous ligament (McGill 1998). While flexion exercises should be avoided in persons with acute disc herniation (Harvey 1991).

In others most chiropractors still use it for many back related problems and many use it more extensively than McKenzies method.

chiroweb.com wrote:

Which Is Better?

If you're waiting for me to state which of the procedures is better, here goes. It depends: maybe Williams; maybe McKenzie; maybe neither. I have my opinions, but when it comes to treating your patients, you decide!

4. Your article than claims that creation 'science' gave us the truth. Yeah.
Well first of all McKenzie is not a creationist.

Brief History of McKenzie Back Exercises
The McKenzie back extension exercises have been order by physicians and prescribed by physical therapists for at least two decades (McKenzie 1981). Robin McKenzie noted that some of his patients reported lower back pain relief while in an extended position. This went against the predominant thinking of Williams Flexion biased exercises at this period of time.

Secondly his thinking and exercises are NOT based on creationism. Its based on exactly the same thing as Williams. He observed pain in his patients and designed exercises to try and relieve that pain.

The McKenzie Method is grounded in finding a cause and effect relationship between the positions the patient usually assumes while sitting, standing or moving, and the generation of pain as a result of those positions or activities.

Both doctors based their techniques on their belief that the stresses induced on the intervertebral disc by poor posture are the root cause of all back pain.

This has nothing to do with creationism.

If our spine was designed there would be no problem, because our spine evolved we have these problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skeletal_changes_due_to_bipedalism

This is one of the most laughable things I have ever read, to suggest the notion that god 'magicked' us into existence as we are was supportive of an exercise to relieve back pain. Only delusional fundamentalists could come up with this.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

What's "Evolutionism"?

A main plank of the materialist religion ( or 'understanding', for those of you with a squeamish disposition). The belief that the present biosphere arose from the simplest self-replicating structure (and by implication, from non-life).

Though contrary to the known laws of science - of Entropy, for instance - evolutionism has captured the hearts of countless millions who looked for a plausible alternative to theism.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since the error was based on evolutionary presupposition and the remedy fits the creationist model, I win.

No, you don't.

Since the error, you claim, was based on evolution you have to show how the creationist model actively rectified the error. If you can't, then you have shown, what has been stated here before many times, which is that evolution isn't afraid to correct itself and allows science to advance without hindrance.
Ask yourself WB how many times has science being held up by this creationist model : If geologist and paleontologists used the creationist model of the 10,000 year earth then they'd have a big problem at explaining the various fossils found at the various strata now, wouldn't they? Even before 1859 it was well established that the earth was several million years old.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since the error was based on evolutionary presupposition and the remedy fits the creationist model, I win.

McKenzies exercises have nothing to do with the creationist model and Williams exercises are still used very extensively.

You spent 2 minutes posting a link. I spent 10 minutes writing an answer with references and pointing out blatant lies in your article.

Are you going to just ignore it, respond or apologize for wasting our time ?

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Though contrary to the known laws of science - of Entropy, for instance - evolutionism has captured the hearts of countless millions who looked for a plausible alternative to theism.

Please WB in your OWN words explain how evolution contradicts entropy.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Though contrary to the known laws of science - of Entropy, for instance [...]

Like, seriously wolfie, ideology, religion and everything else aside, which of these two options do you think is the more likely:

1. that the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who spend their lives examining this stuff down to molecular level in one way or another are clueless enough to be unable to explain why this might appear, to the untrained eye, to be so. Or,
2. That you don't understand what you've just written.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not aware of oil being found by principles peculiar to either evolutionism or creationism.

You should be aware of oil being found by principles of Old Earth geology, a field Creationists claim is wrong since the Earth isn't old.

They not only have science they have working science, science that can be used to do stuff.

Do Creationists have this? What have Creationists done with the predictions of their science? Can you name examples where predictions of Creationist theories have lead to predicted geological discoveries?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's some predictions of creationism, but I'm not aware whether they have been put to practical use yet:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

Those aren't predictions. Those are We think the current theory is wrong or inaccurate and look we have discovered evidence the current theory is wrong or inaccurate. Disproving one theory does not support your own theory.

I'm looking for predictions from Creationist theories in the scientific sense, not a vague We think everyone else is wrong.

Specific measurable predictions, such based on Flood models there should be an oil deposit right here, and look there is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But maybe you can give me an idea of what you want by showing me where predictions of an Evolutionist theory were actually used to do something useful?

The features of the Haikouella were successfully predicted before the fossil of the species was found

More here
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

and here
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

What have Creationists successfully predicted with Creation Science?

wolfsbane wrote: »

they must be of principles exclusive to evolutionism, not those that are shared by creationism and evolutionism.

Er why?

You are asking about examples of the types of scientific predictions theories such as evolution make so you can provide your one.

I'm not attempting to demonstrate evolution to you, I'm demonstrating what a scientific prediction is so you can give me a list of predictions Creationists have made.

Whether or not you believe the list I'm giving you, or believe that they can also be explained with Creationist doesn't matter, since Creationists didn't predict them. It is easy to come along afterwards and say that your theory can also explain something someone has already discovered. That isn't prediction.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Many of the scientific world were not. But certainly Creationists were more free to express themselves back then.

Check the internet, Creationists don't seem to have much trouble expressing themselves :P

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolutionary science and Creation science are both interpretations of Science. Evolutionism and Creationism have all the great Laws of science in common. They both incorporate the main body of Science but they differ on how that explains the matter of the development of the universe, or more particularly, the biosphere.

...also bear in mind that many Conventionally employed Scientists are Creationists ... but because of the 'sensitivities' of Evolutionists, these Creation Scientists have a 'love that dare not speak its name'!!!!

...and they therefore wisely keep their Creationism to themselves!!!!:eek:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...also bear in mind that many Conventionally employed Scientists are Creationists ... but because of the 'sensitivities' of Evolutionists, these Creation Scientists have a 'love that dare not speak its name'!!!!

...and they therefore wisely keep their Creationism to themselves!!!!:eek:

Ohh like a secret resistance group. C'mon JC, there are no creation scientists NONE whatsover. You cannot even give an example of so-called creation science in action, can you?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Ohh like a secret resistance group. C'mon JC, there are no creation scientists NONE whatsover. You cannot even give an example of so-called creation science in action, can you?

....sadly many Evolutionists regard Creation Scientists as 'non-persons' ... that don't exist ... and have no rights!!!
... once 'targets' are defined as 'non-persons' ... and once that is accepted by the general population, then almost anything can then be visited upon these 'targets'!!!!

....there are three levels to Creation Science:-

1. Full-time Creation Scientists - who work full-time in Creation Science Research and/or teaching.

2. Part-time Creation Scientists - who work part-time in Creation Science Research and/or teaching.

3. Creation Scientists who have an interest in Creation Science but who are not active in Creation Science teaching or research.

ALL Creation Scientists are eminent conventionally qualified scientists - but because of the virulent discrimination that would probably result, the vast majority of Creation Scientists do not publicly proclaim their scientific position.