The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

darjeeling

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you for that helpful link to our friend Wood. I've linked several of his articles to this thread before.

Yes, there is variation amongst creationists. Why would you think they differ from evolutionists in that?

I'm not in the least surprised by the extraordinary level of fundamental disagreement over science amongst creationists.

You claim these sorts of disagreements are common in evolutionary science too. Well, they aren't - I can tell you that creationism is in a different league. But you tell me, how many leading evolutionary scientists have you heard saying that the evidence for Biblical young earth creationism is compelling? That it is scientifically valid? That the only reason they reject it is out of faith? None, I bet. But - in mirror image - that's the compliment that Wood pays to evolution in the blog post I linked, and in others too, such as this demolition of the creationist ribosome paper trumpeted by JC here.

The leaders of the 'creation science' movement are a highly disparate group of people who are in the main more interested in a peculiar form of Christian apologetics than they are in science, and whose starting assumptions for understanding the physical world are completely at odds with reality. For every honest researcher like Wood, you've a ludicrous Hovind or Ham! It comes as no surprise at all, then, that there are plenty of creationists who continually come up with ad hoc, just-so-story explanations for everything in nature, and in doing so contradict both each other and themselves.

.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...your enthusiasm for Molecular Information Theory obviously knows no bounds!!

...but unfortunately I have BAD NEWS for you.

...an intelligent input is required for ALL functional information, whether the 'carrier' is physical, chemical (AKA Molecular) or electronic!!!!:eek::eek::)

Molecular information theory supports evolution, as is evident from molecular information theory papers. You have been corrected on this many times before.

And after doing a little searching, it seems that functional information is a valid term used by evolutionary biologists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16301205
http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/2007/404/tw340

However, it supports evolutionary biology, and is unrelated to what you and wolfsbane have been asserting.

Morbert

Hmm... It seems my suspicions about JC being a troll were correct.

JC wrote:

We don't want Creation Science to be classed as science.

Well it's good to finally see some honest opinion from you JC. You've finally admitted that Creation Science is not science.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

You should watch this video by Ken Miller. A bit long, but worth it. Not only does he show strong evidence for evolution, such as intermediate fossils of land to water mammal ear development and the fusion of chromosomes in humans, he also takes apart the ID argument of irreducible complexity and demonstrates how the judge (a conservative Christian Republican) concluded that Creationists were lying during the Dover trial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

...

I have watched it.

The nub of the issue ... and it is not going to go away ... is that one RELIGION (Materialistic Humanism and its 'fellow travellers') is trying to force it's worldview on people who have a DIFFERENT FAITH and wordview THAT IS BASED ON THEIR 'ORIGINS EXPLANATIONS'!!!

It is perfectly illustrated by the issue over the the definition of science that Dr Ken Miller referred to in his talk.

The definition which he claims to be the correct definition for science is "the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us".

This is a perfectly adequate definition, in so far as it goes, when science is CONFINING ITSELF to doing normal scientific activity in accordance with this definition i.e. it is measuring, comparing, experimenting, etc. with real world phenomena that can be repeatably observed ... and therefore repeatably verified!!!!
This definition is adequate and applies to all of the normal, day to day activities of science in producing drugs to treat disease, cars that run on solar power, genetic engineering of food crops, etc, etc

...where this definition comes unstuck, is when scientists attempt to extend this (materialist) definition of science to answering questions of a phiosophical/religious nature, like the 'origins issue'.
Myself and many people of MANY FAITHS deeply believe,and with good reason, in our opinion that a God or indeed gods exist and many of us believe that this God or gods Created life.
We may be wrong, but two things are for sure - we are quite entitled to our opinions AND as citizens, in a pluralist society, we are entitled to have an equal weight given to our opinions when it comes to the scientific evaluation of the hypothesis that 'God or gods did or didn't do it'.
The 'figleaves' used by Materialistic Humaists and their 'fellow travellers' to prevent a proper scientific evaluation of Intelligent Design are various ... but their most blatant strategy is their extrapolation of the definition of 'operative science' to ALSO cover the scientific investigation of 'origins issues' ... where at the very least, a valid hypothesis ALSO exists that an 'outside intelligence' produced life originally.

Some Materialistic Humanists then have the 'brass neck' to try to use legal prohibitions that prevent ANY religion being favoured by the State to ACTUALLY ensure that the RELIGIOUS BELIEFS of ONE RELIGION (their OWN) are favoured !!!!

...if they succeed, these prohibitions will then effectively suppress the religious beliefs of other faiths in the scientific evaluation of 'origins issues' (while exempting Materialists from any prohibition on promoting their 'origins explanation').

If these 'origins issues' are 'beyond science' ... as is sometimes claimed, when Materialists are criticising Creation Science then the Materialists are ALSO 'beyond science' when they are discussing Evolutionism! and Abiogenesis as 'origins' explanations!!!

I think that the 'origins issue' is beyond normal 'operative science' based on repeatably observable and therefore repeatably verifiable evidence...but it is NOT beyond 'forensic science' where the hypotheses (for both Evolution/Abiogenesis and Creation) can BOTH be tested by observing the physical evidence around us and drawing logical reasoned conclusions from this evidence. Forensic Science draws similar logical inferences every day in law courts throughout the world...and men have been hung on the basis of far less forensic and circumstantial evidence than currently exists in favour of Direct Creation and against Materialistic Evolution!!!!

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Hmm... It seems my suspicions about JC being a troll were correct.



Well it's good to finally see some honest opinion from you JC. You've finally admitted that Creation Science is not science.

WHERE did I say that???

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...

Some Materialistic Humanists then have the 'brass neck' to use legal prohibitions that prevent ANY religion being favoured by the State to ACTUALLY ensure that the RELIGIOUS BELIEFS of ONE RELIGION (their OWN) are favoured !!!!

...and they then use these prohibitions to effectively suppress the religious beliefs of other faiths in the scientific evaluation of 'origins issues'.

Dover trial was Christians vs Christians : nothing to do with materialism.

Just curious JC, how do creationists explain the fusion of the chromosome 2?

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

You feel that The Bible has to be proven to you because faith is a concept that is completely foreign to you and something that you are not willing to participate in. Faith is the necessary ingredient to gain a revelational understanding of The Bible, not proof that the doubting Thomas was looking for. Faith is considered a spiritual law by Christians, and it is by this law that miracles occur.
You are trying to put God in your box of reality, and as I mentioned before, He is not limited by this. He will more than willingly agree to visiting you in this box, but not without your permission. He must respect the free will that He gave you.

Because we are programmed to make distictions between what is considered to be fact and fiction, some of us automatically put God in the same category as Santa Clause. What I find interesting though is that when our mum's and dad's told us about santa, we believed it (atleast I did and most of you atheist's - come on fess up!) but we eventually discovered to our great dissapointment that it was a white lie to make Christmas a novelty for our young growing minds. But here is what I am getting at - we started out as people of great faith by believing in a myth that didn't exist! Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying to go believe in things that are complete fictional fantasies. I'm simply drawing attention to a valid point. Social norms and secular reasoning infiltrated and poluted our thinking, and we clinged for social acceptance by following the herd. Our faith became more and more squashed. It only increases my faith, because it makes it more and more obvious exactly who the god of this world is - satan. He has worked diligently to indocrtrinate people into negativity and unbelief in all the major social institutions of this world - education, government, the media, music etc.. Some of us believed what we were told to believe, others questioned and were rebuked.
So I challenge you - Return to your innocence. If God is who says He is - omnipresent (everywhere) then encountering Him should be easy and simple. And I can assure you that it is. I have been a Christian all my life.

Even if you were satisfied that God did exist, you would still have to accept the message of His Word. After all, satan very much believes in God's existence. Jesus said 'No man comes to the Father, except through me'. If you wanted to get to know Him and understand Him, you would have to receive what His Son did for you. It is the only way.

Christianity is a promise of great things! Eternal life and all the blessings of God here in this life and that which is to come. God's will is for not one single person to be in that horrific place known as hell, but how can He contradict the way He created us by overriding our will - it would make him a liar and His Word would be invalid. Satan is the one that takes a man's soul to hell because we gave him dominion over it. God has done everything that is legal and just to reverse this - sending His Son to take our punishment. It's now up to us to receive it.

The point you don't seem to be getting is that this unbelief and blindness and cold heartedness and lack of faith etc etc etc you accuse me of is exactly the same thing you do for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of religions. If I disbelieve 85,264 religions (and denominations) then you disbelieve 85,263. It's undeniable that the vast majority of the world's population has picked the wrong branch or the wrong religion altogether, in most cases picking the same one as their parents, and I'm not prepared to throw my weight behind one particular set of unsubstantiated claims no matter what they promise if I do and no matter what they threaten if I don't

man of faith wrote: »

If Mohummad, Buhdda or Krishna was the saviour, then why isn't the western calender centred around their time here on earth?

Because christianity is popular here and islam and buddhism are popular there. This is a logical fallacy known as an argument ad populum. Being popular does not make something true

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point you don't seem to be getting is that this unbelief and blindness and cold heartedness and lack of faith etc etc etc you accuse me of is exactly the same thing you do for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of religions. If I disbelieve 85,264 religions (and denominations) then you disbelieve 85,263. It's undeniable that the vast majority of the world's population has picked the wrong branch or the wrong religion altogether, in most cases picking the same one as their parents, and I'm not prepared to throw my weight behind one particular set of unsubstantiated claims no matter what they promise if I do and no matter what they threaten if I don't

...that is fine ... but then you are not entitled to claim scientific validity for your beliefs UNLESS you allow the scientific evaluation of all other competing 'origins' explanations as well the scientific evaluation of the evidential deficiencies for your belief in a Materialistic origin of life.
This you are not prepared to do ... and to defend this indefensible position, you extend the definition of 'science' to include the support of your own (Materialistic) views on the 'origins' issue while simultaneously claiming that 'science' cannot evaluate a perfectly valid Thesitic ALTERNATIVE 'origins' explanation.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Dover trial was Christians vs Christians : nothing to do with materialism.

...strange then, if the issue was essentially an inter-nicene Christian squabble, as you claim, that Materialists have been celebrating the result ever since it was announced.

...what is currently happening in general, with the 'origins' issue is that the Materialists have 'slipped in under the radar' and have gained acceptance that an essentially religious issue can be ONLY evaluated using (their) Materialistic assumptions ... and therefore all (non-Materialistic) alternative Theistic / ID hypotheses are prevented from even being discussed!!!!

....this DOESN'T happen in any other area of science .... which is ALWAYS based on testing two opposite hypotheses e.g that drug Y has effect X ... AND that drug Y hasn't effect X.

darjeeling

J C wrote: »

...it is equally strange, if the issue was essentially an inter-nicene Christian squabble, as you claim, that Materialists have been celebrating the result ever since it was announced.

"Inter-Nicene squabble" - hah! I shall cut that out and keep it for future use. Now, who says mutations can't create useful information! :pac::pac::pac:

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

On the 8th day of a new born's life, the levels of prothrombin are elevated above 100 percent of normal. This one day is the perfect and most safest day for surgery.

Just another coincidence? I seriously beg to differ
Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K.

1.Although the danger of severe bleeding is worst in the first week, it can occur any time in the first month (Zipursky 1999). According to most medical experts, the best time for circumcision is never (Ritter and Denniston 1996). The procedure is medically unnecessary at best. The procedure is painful, and there is some evidence that pain in early infancy makes one more sensitive to pain throughout life (Ruda et al. 2000).

2.Attributing a requirement of some special knowledge for this insight assumes the ancient Hebrews were stupid. Classic hemorrhagic disease of the newborn is usually seen on days two through five (Zipursky 1999); it would not take a lot of observation and thought to conclude that it would be best to wait until the worst danger is over.

The Susus near Timbuctoo and the Guemos of South America are also said to perform the rite on the eighth day (Hirsch et al. n.d.).

Were the Guemos of South America also given special knowledge by the bible ? :pac:

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

If it's too confronting for you then I understand. This is extremely confronting information for a devout atheist.

man of faith, this 'knowledge' is;

1. Not accurate. 8 days is enough time for some infants but not all.

2. Other societies completely seperated from the bible knew about this.

3. You can find this out by OBSERVATION, you do not need biblical or divine inspiration.

4. Circumcision is never 'safe' according to the vast majority of medical experts. Its 'safer' to wait at least 5 days to a month but its not 'safe'.

You know I was thinking before about one of my previous posts, where I was talking about the flaws of perceiving God with the logical mind. If you don't want to entertain the possibility that God exists with your logical mind, then you won't be able to see His existence. Don't get me wrong though - God will fully integrate Himself with your logical mind, but He won't do so without an invite. The reason that you can't see Him is because He will not over-ride your will. He is the perfect gentleman.

And yet you are trying to prove him with what you consider to be logic, don't see a contradiction here ?

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

It would be so far from your mind being able to process it, that you would lash out in some mocking critical manner ie. the spaghetti monster or some other mocking gest just to pull down my credibility and make me look like a lunatic. I won't give you the pleasure.

I don't believe in your god the same way you don't believe in Zeus. I can give you just as much evidence for Zeus as you can give me for the Judeo-Christian god.

There are absolutely incredible miracles that have taken place, and millions of people all throughout the world have came to accept Jesus as Lord as a result.

There are absolutely terrible atrocities that have taken place, and millions of people all throughout the world have prayed to Jesus and have gotten no reply.

When he sends a miracle my way with his signature on it then I'll consider accepting him.

I have seen things that have been seen by all the other people present in the room that would make your hair stand on end.

And I should take your word for it ? Maybe it was Buddha not god that did those things.

There are absolute mountains of evidence to underline The Bible's credibility.

There isn't a single grain of sand of evidence to underline the Bibles credibility.

What appear to be contradictions can be proven to be the exact opposite.

Of course they can, when all you have to do is believe :pac:

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

Another link to answer your questions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp

'If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God ... I will put none of these diseases upon thee' (Exodus 15:26).

This is supposed to be evidence for contagious diseases ?

I believe this would fit under 'faith' healing and if you want to try that out, well, just look at what has happened recently in the states because of this nonsense.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I realise I'm not being scientific in my language. I was thinking specifically of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster.

So maybe you can help me by pointing out how far generations of fruit flies have changed from the originals being tested:

What new traits have they added?
What new genetic sequences do they possess?
Do they have the ability to interbreed with them?
Are any no longer visibly recognisable as fruit flies?
Are any no longer genetically recognisable as fruit flies?

Wolfsbane, I am not going to bother to answer this question until you define what is acceptable to you as a 'non-fruit fly'.

If its 'visibly not recognisable as fruit flies' then you have to define that because thats not scientific and is completely up to the individual.

Also 'genetically recognisable as fruit flies', again you need to define this. How much difference does there need to be ?

Your trying to make me use your terms when I don't know what your terms are.

And you also realise that Evolution takes a very long time to change organisms.

man of faith

Well said JC.
We have the religion of atheism forced upon us at school and society and they attack our belief in ID. It goes back to what I said before - Satan is the god of this world. He's been manipulating it since the fall and his deception has infiltrated education, government and society.

They will argue my comment 'the religion of atheism', but when you thiink about it, that is exactly what it is. I don't put God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit into the category of religion - that's an insult to Him. Religion is an institution set up by mans wisdom. Secularism just refers to it as religion, as this is the only way they understand it.

man of faith

If you people are so deceived into thinking that irreducible complexity has been refuted, then I agree with you 100% when you say that it would take a supernatural act of God for you to believe.

What on earth could I possibly say to you all to make you believe?

Seriously, I give up!!

I am now absolutely convinced that nothing I could say could convince you to believe.

It's a waste of good time and energy even bothering to reply to any of your other posts and comments.
I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna bother posting here anymore. See ya.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...
I have watched it.

A waste of youtube bandwidth I assume ?

The nub of the issue ... and it is not going to go away ... is that one RELIGION (Materialistic Humanism and its 'fellow travellers') is trying to force it's worldview on people who have a DIFFERENT FAITH and wordview THAT IS BASED ON THEIR 'ORIGINS EXPLANATIONS'!!!

There are millions of people from hundreds of different religions who believe in Evolution and see no contradiction between their religion and evolution.

Are you trying to tell us that these people are non-religious ? That any true Christian has to be a creationist ?

It is perfectly illustrated by the issue over the the definition of science that Dr Ken Miller referred to in his talk.

Ken Miller the Catholic yeah ?

...where this definition comes unstuck, is when scientists attempt to extend this (materialist) definition of science to answering questions of a phiosophical/religious nature, like the 'origins issue'.

The 'origins' issue is not philosophical or religious. Philosophy and religion talk about origin the same way they talk about any number of other stuff.

Religion used to teach us that lightning was god having a bad day. Science has now showed us thats nonsense the same way science has shown us that creationism is nonsense.

Was there another JC back a few hundred years ago who fought against the scientific explanation of lightning claiming it was a religious/philosophical issue ? :pac:

Myself and many people of MANY FAITHS deeply believe,and with good reason, in our opinion that a God or indeed gods exist and many of us believe that this God or gods Created life.

Just like Ken Miller ?

Evolution does not discount a deity, even Abiogenesis (which I am sick of you trying to claim is the same thing) does not discount a deity.

Only in the minds of creationists.

We may be wrong, but two things are for sure - we are quite entitled to our opinions AND as citizens, in a pluralist society, we are entitled to have an equal weight given to our opinions when it comes to the scientific evaluation of the hypothesis that 'God or gods did or didn't do it'.

Trying to make this look like religion vs science is not going to work.

Science says NOTHING about the supernatural, it can't. If it did then it wouldn't be science.

Science has proven that many things in the Bible cannot be taken literally, this does not mean that god does or doesn't exist. It has absolutely NO bearing on god whatsoever which the vast vast majority of people of all religions agree with.

The 'figleaves' used by Materialistic Humaists and their 'fellow travellers' to prevent a proper scientific evaluation of Intelligent Design are various ... but their most blatant strategy is their extrapolation of the definition of 'operative science' to ALSO cover the scientific investigation of 'origins issues' ... where at the very least, a valid hypothesis ALSO exists that an 'outside intelligence' produced life originally.

Fair enough, you have a hypothesis. Now do some research, give us some evidence, give us some things we can test and replicate and have it peer-reviewed. You know what this is called ? Its called 'SCIENCE'

Because the absolute nonsense that has been passed off as 'evidence' for Intelligent design is just that, complete nonsense that has been disproven 100 times over again and again.

And besides, I thought you were a creationist not an ID'er ?

Some Materialistic Humanists then have the 'brass neck' to try to use legal prohibitions that prevent ANY religion being favoured by the State to ACTUALLY ensure that the RELIGIOUS BELIEFS of ONE RELIGION (their OWN) are favoured !!!!

JC, just what are you talking about ? Are you talking about religion, are you talking about politics, are you talking about science ?

When your talking nonsense at least keep to the one subject please.

...if they succeed, these prohibitions will then effectively suppress the religious beliefs of other faiths in the scientific evaluation of 'origins issues' (while exempting Materialists from any prohibition on promoting their 'origins explanation').

JC, is Ken Miller a materialist ? What about the 60% of professors in third level education who are religious and reject creationism and ID as nonsense, are they materialists ?

If these 'origins issues' are 'beyond science' ... as is sometimes claimed, when Materialists are criticising Creation Science then the Materialists are ALSO 'beyond science' when they are discussing Evolutionism! and Abiogenesis as 'origins' explanations!!!

The fact of evolution is an observation of trait changes over generations of organisms.
The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life. It says nothing about the origin of life.

This is absolutely NOTHING in Evolution which states that god didn't start the whole process.

Abiogenesis is a scientific study on how life 'COULD' have arisen on Earth from inanimate matter. There are many theories under the Abiogenesis umbrella.

This is absolutely NOTHING in Abiogenesis which states that god didn't start the whole process.

I think that the 'origins issue' is beyond normal 'operative science' based on repeatably observable and therefore repeatably verifiable evidence

This rubbish sentence does not apply to evolution at all.

Abiogenesis never claims to be how life started, it claims to try to explain how life 'COULD' have started.

...but it is NOT beyond 'forensic science' where the hypotheses (for both Evolution/Abiogenesis and Creation) can BOTH be tested by observing the physical evidence around us and drawing logical reasoned conclusions from this evidence.

This is complete nonsense.

But I would love to see how you think you can logically reason that the 'creator' is the judeo-christian god.

Forensic Science draws similar logical inferences every day in law courts throughout the world

Please oh please give us an example of one compared with an example of the other.

..and men have been hung on the basis of far less forensic and circumstantial evidence than currently exists in favour of Direct Creation and against Materialistic Evolution!!!!

That would be nothing then ? :P Well I suppose thats quite true, men have been hung for no other reason then religious nonsense in the past.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...strange then, if the issue was essentially an inter-nicene Christian squabble, as you claim, that Materialists have been celebrating the result ever since it was announced.

Materialists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Catholics etc who care about science and education have been happy with the result yes.

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

Well said JC.
We have the religion of atheism forced upon us at school and society and they attack our belief in ID. It goes back to what I said before - Satan is the god of this world. He's been manipulating it since the fall and his deception has infiltrated education, government and society.

Well wouldn't it be a good idea to stay on his good side then ? I mean, I don't believe in a god/gods so this life is all I've got to look forward too. Shouldn't I make the most of it and side with the guy in charge ?

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

If you people are so deceived into thinking that irreducible complexity has been refuted, then I agree with you 100% when you say that it would take a supernatural act of God for you to believe.

You only believe irreducible complexity because you want to believe it. It has no scientific merit whatsoever and has been disproven a hundred times over. Ken Miller (A Catholic) absolutely wiped the floor with Michael Behe on this issue.

Its complete utter nonsense. Its the same as saying lightning bolts are proof that god is angry with the world, although I'm afraid that some people here might be willing to defend that too.

The scientific community is made up of people from all religious backgrounds and the vast overwhelming majority reject creationism and ID as complete utter nonsense.

What qualifications in Biology do you possess by the way that you know more then 99% of all the biologists and scientists in the world ?

What on earth could I possibly say to you all to make you believe?

Absolutely nothing you say will make me do anything. If you want to 'make' people believe I suggest three options;

1. Become Muslim and go to a Muslim country to 'make' non-Muslims believe.
2. Move to North Korea and join the party.
3. Become a Christian missionary in Sri Lanka or elsewhere where previous Christian missionaries have used bribery of food and medicine to convert people.

Seriously, I give up!!

Bye bye now.

I am now absolutely convinced that nothing I could say could convince you to believe.

Why do you think anything you say would convince us ? Especially when what you are saying is ridiculous nonsense most Christians wouldn't even agree with.

2Scoops

man of faith wrote: »

What on earth could I possibly say to you all to make you believe?

Evidence for ID would be a start. Do you have any?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...I certainly don't believe that radiometric dating (of rocks) is valid.

Because it disagrees with your nonsense.

Like I have said, the discovery of the first polystrate fossil tree should have invalidated the radiometric hypothesis.

Few points.

1. Polystrate is a creationist not a geological term.
In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees.

Link to a definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

2.

Debunk wrote:

Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?

Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

More details here -> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

3. The above has no bearing on radiocarbon dating regardless of its validity.

Radiocarbon dating has some validity

When it fits your nonsense.

... but the Turin Shroud age controversy highlights the deficiencies of this method which is only capable of measurement over thousands (and not millions) of years

According to the nonsensical rantings of a minority of religious fundamentalists whose only basis for accepting or rejecting scientific fact is if it agrees or disagrees with a literal interpretation of a religious book which the overwhelming majority of their religious peers reject as nonsense and the vast overwhelming majority of scientists of all fields reject as nonsense.

Please give some decent reasonable scientific testable evidence on why you believe radiocarbon dating is faulty.

J C

monosharp

A waste of youtube bandwidth I assume ? ..NO ...I always lke to closely examine alternative points of view.



There are millions of people from hundreds of different religions who believe in Evolution and see no contradiction between their religion and evolution.
I was referring to Materialist explantions of 'origins' ...NONE of the Judeo-Christian religions believe in such an explanation...could I remind you that the Apostles Creed begins 'I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."

Are you trying to tell us that these people are non-religious ? That any true Christian has to be a creationist ?
...NONE of the Judeo-Christian reliogions believe in such a Materialistic explanation...could I remind you that the Apostles Creed begins 'I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."



Ken Miller the Catholic yeah ?
...NONE of the Judeo-Christian reliogions believe in such an explanation...could I remind you that the Apostles Creed begins 'I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."


The 'origins' issue is not philosophical or religious. Philosophy and religion talk about origin the same way they talk about any number of other stuff.
...the 'origins issue' is FUNDAMENTALLY a faith matter......NONE of the Judeo-Christian reliogions believe in a Materialistic explanation of 'origions' ... could I again remind you that the Apostles Creed begins 'I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth."


Religion used to teach us that lightning was god having a bad day. Science has now showed us thats nonsense the same way science has shown us that creationism is nonsense.
...the Christian Faith has NEVER held such a doctine!!!!


Was there another JC back a few hundred years ago who fought against the scientific explanation of lightning claiming it was a religious/philosophical issue ? :pac:...I don't know ... YOU tell me!!!


Evolution does not discount a deity, even Abiogenesis (which I am sick of you trying to claim is the same thing) does not discount a deity.
...the ONLY acceptabe version of Evolution is the MATERIALIST one ... and its OBJECTIVE is to discount any deity ... BECAUSE the definition of 'science' that they are also extending to the scientific evaluation of the 'origins issue' is ..."the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us". This is despite the fact that there is overwhelming forensic evidence for the involvement of an intelligence in the 'origins' of life ... and NO unambiguous evidence for Materialistic processes, even being capable of doing so!!!


Trying to make this look like religion vs science is not going to work.
...it ISN'T religion v science ... it is the Materialistic RELIGION v the Christian (and other) FAITHS!!!!

Science says NOTHING about the supernatural, it can't. If it did then it wouldn't be science. ...well then could I suggest that your 'science' stay out of the 'origins' issue altogether then ... because it is FUNDAMENTALLY a FAITH issue ... and there is overwhelming forensic evidence for the involvement of an intelligence in the 'origins' of life ... and NO unambiguous evidence for Materialistic processes, even being capable of doing so!!!

Science has proven that many things in the Bible cannot be taken literally, this does not mean that god does or doesn't exist. It has absolutely NO bearing on god whatsoever which the vast vast majority of people of all religions agree with. ...could I suggest that your 'science' stay out of the 'origins' issue then ...because it is FUNDAMENTALLY a FAITH issue ... and there is overwhelming forensic evidence for the involvement of an intelligence in the 'origins' of life ... and NO unambiguous evidence for Materialistic processes, even being capable of doing so...
...and if you want to have your science examine the 'origins issue' then you are going to have to accept alternative hypotheses than your quite unbelievable one, that 'Muck pulled itself up by its own bootstraps using purely materialistic processes to become Man'!!!!!


JC, is Ken Miller a materialist ? What about the 60% of professors in third level education who are religious and reject creationism and ID as nonsense, are they materialists ? ..if they do as you say they OBVIOUSLY ARE Materialists, even if they don't admit it to themselves



The fact of evolution is an observation of trait changes over generations of organisms.
The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life. It says nothing about the origin of life.
This is absolutely NOTHING in Evolution which states that god didn't start the whole process. ...if this is the case, WHY is scientific research into ID (which is research into the hypothesis that God started the process) being actively suppressed ... note it is not being merely challenged (which is legitimate) ...it is being BANNED or suppressed (which is illegitimate)!!!


This is absolutely NOTHING in Abiogenesis which states that god didn't start the whole process...once again, if this is the case, WHY is scientific research into ID (which is research into the hypothesis that God started the process) being actively suppressed ... note it is not being merely challenged (which is legitimate) ...it is being BANNED or suppressed (which is illegitimate)!!!


Abiogenesis never claims to be how life started, it claims to try to explain how life 'COULD' have started. ..either way, the alternative theistic hypothesis also DESERVES to be evaluated....could I suggest that your 'science' stay out of the 'origins' issue then ...because it is FUNDAMENTALLY a FAITH issue ... and there is overwhelming forensic evidence for the involvement of an intelligence in the 'origins' of life ... and NO unambiguous evidence for Materialistic processes, even being capable of doing so...
...and if you want to have your science examine the 'origins issue' then you are going to have to accept alternative hypotheses than your quite unbelievable one, that 'Muck pulled itself up by its own bootstraps using purely materialistic processes to become Man'!!!!!


But I would love to see how you think you can logically reason that the 'creator' is the judeo-christian god. ...ID is silent on who/what the intelligent input was ... but it HAS established that an intelligent input occurred!!!


That would be nothing then ? :P Well I suppose thats quite true, men have been hung for no other reason then religious nonsense in the past....and the innocent blood on the hands of assorted Materialists from Pol Pot to Stalin is legion!!!
...and indeed one could not consider ANYBODY who kills another Human Being because they hold a different Faith Position to be a Christian ...where in the New Testament does Jesus authorise such behaviour?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...that is fine ... but then you are not entitled to claim scientific validity for your beliefs UNLESS you allow the scientific evaluation of all other competing 'origins' explanations as well the scientific evaluation of the evidential deficiencies for your belief in a Materialistic origin of life.
This you are not prepared to do ... and to defend this indefensible position, you extend the definition of 'science' to include the support of your own (Materialistic) views on the 'origins' issue while simultaneously claiming that 'science' cannot evaluate a perfectly valid Thesitic ALTERNATIVE 'origins' explanation.

Creationism Intelligent design has been given plenty of opportunities to prove itself and it has failed every time. Behe himself admitted that for intelligent design to be considered science we would have to expand the definition of science and we would have to do it so far that astrology would also be considered science.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

If you people are so deceived into thinking that irreducible complexity has been refuted, then I agree with you 100% when you say that it would take a supernatural act of God for you to believe.

Deceived?

Watch the video. The bacterial flagellum motor was declared to be irreducibly complex and the scientists came back with a bacteria which has a functional component that is missing 40 of the 50 parts of the motor. The same was done with every supposedly irreducibly complex thing they mentioned. Michael Behe also admitted under oath that he had not even read the vast amount of evidence he declared to be "not good enough". Myth busted.

pts

I'm not going to interupt the conversation you're having with monosharp too much as it is very interesting however I would ask you one thing though (which may have been answered but without search it'd be a nightmare to find) in regards to this quote:

J C wrote: »

...if this is the case, WHY is scientific research into ID (which is research into the hypothesis that God started the process) being actively suppressed ... note it is not being merely challenged (which is legitimate) ...it is being BANNED or suppressed (which is illegitimate)!!!

You claim to be a real scientist. Lets do this as real scientists do. Could you link to a paper by a creationist which has been peer reviewed but rejected for publication coupled with the feedback (which you get from the reviewers) on that paper. Additionally an explanation from you or the author why he/she thinks the peer review feedback and reason for rejection was unfounded.

If you can do that then you may have a case, if not you are talking absolute rubbish.

man of faith

If you don't accept the Christian God, atleast become a pantheist then. Abiogenesis is on par with the most far fetched science fiction movie ever produced. It is beyond insane. Do you hold this belief too mono? If you do, then you may as well say that it's only a matter of time before your car is going to sprout a pair of wings and fly away!!!

In Ken Miller's messed up mind, he believes somehow that he wiped the floor with Behe and his flagellum. What's his take on the Giraffe neck and the human eye? All Miller seems to be doing is taking the autonomous responses of an organism to survive and exist and labelling it 'evolution'. I will even concede that microevolution in some cases seems plausible, but when you maintain the belief of a creator like Miller does and apply your support of evolution to macroevolution, you are not giving your Creator any credit. Why wouldn't God just create each species individually? It serves no purpose. Not to mention that not one fossill showing macroevoltionary change has been found out of the thousands and thousands of fossils recovered. Don't get me started on the pig's tooth!! LOL
Doesn't surprise me at all that Ken Miller is a catholic. In my opinion, catholics are nearly as deceived as atheists. According to catholics, same sex marriage is perfectly acceptable. Show me where in the Bible it says we should pray to Mary?

I never professed to know more about biological science than these experts, but I'll tell you what I do profess to know more about - common sense and God and His Word that are absolute truth!!!

Morbert

man of faith wrote: »

If you people are so deceived into thinking that irreducible complexity has been refuted, then I agree with you 100% when you say that it would take a supernatural act of God for you to believe.

What on earth could I possibly say to you all to make you believe?

Seriously, I give up!!

I am now absolutely convinced that nothing I could say could convince you to believe.

It's a waste of good time and energy even bothering to reply to any of your other posts and comments.
I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna bother posting here anymore. See ya.

IC is refuted by evolutionary biology.

Morbert

man of faith wrote: »

If you don't accept the Christian God, atleast become a pantheist then. Abiogenesis is on par with the most far fetched science fiction movie ever produced. It is beyond insane. Do you hold this belief too mono? If you do, then you may as well say that it's only a matter of time before your car is going to sprout a pair of wings and fly away!!!

In Ken Miller's messed up mind, he believes somehow that he wiped the floor with Behe and his flagellum. What's his take on the Giraffe neck and the human eye? All Miller seems to be doing is taking the autonomous responses of an organism to survive and exist and labelling it 'evolution'. I will even concede that microevolution in some cases seems plausible, but when you maintain the belief of a creator like Miller does and apply your support of evolution to macroevolution, you are not giving your Creator any credit. Why wouldn't God just create each species individually? It serves no purpose. Not to mention that not one fossill showing macroevoltionary change has been found out of the thousands and thousands of fossils recovered. Don't get me started on the pig's tooth!! LOL
Doesn't surprise me at all that Ken Miller is a catholic. In my opinion, catholics are nearly as deceived as atheists. According to catholics, same sex marriage is perfectly acceptable. Show me where in the Bible it says we should pray to Mary?

I never professed to know more about biological science than these experts, but I'll tell you what I do profess to know more about - common sense and God and His Word that are absolute truth!!!

Such complex biological phenomena are explained by evolutionary biology. There is evidence for this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html