The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I wonder is it possible for you guys to argue your corner without scripture? I mean, if this is science then it should all be demonstrable without unverifiable chunks of blue verse.

...Creation Science is indeed demonstrable ... and demonstrated ...
...and, as this is the Christianity Forum, I must also point out that...
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
...a double benefit ... for both your 'logical' and your 'spiritual' selves!!!!

...now go and get Saved ... and stop stalling!!!:D:eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...we are alike in that we share a common Humanity ... we are unalike in that I am Saved Sinner though NO MERIT on my part ... and you remain an Unsaved Sinner ... through NO BELIEF on your part!!!!

AtomicHorror
That's the least of our differences, though most of the other differences are also fantasies of yours.

...the ONLY difference of any long-term significance between you and me, is my Salvation certainty ... and your perdition risk!!!

...now go and get Saved ... and stop stalling!!!:D:eek:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Interesting to note that both AnswersInGenesis and Creation.com have specific section in there Arguments Creationists Should Not Use articles about speciation.

Funny that they would have to signal the argument that it doesn't happen out and tell Creationists to stop using such an argument if, as Wolfsbane claims, they never did use that argument in the first place.

But I digress ... Whale evolution anyone?

It is there for ignoramuses like me, who might jump to conclusions, not for scientists arguing for creation.

Not that all their items addressed so simple concepts - some of the arguments were scientific cases that have been proved wrong.

So I repeat - I know of no case made by creation scientists that denied speciation/diversification.

wolfsbane

Just a quickie for tonight on vestigial organs. Hope to return to it and whales tomorrow:
Are wisdom teeth (third molars) vestiges of human evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/wisdomteeth.asp

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just a quickie for tonight on vestigial organs. Hope to return to it and whales tomorrow:
Are wisdom teeth (third molars) vestiges of human evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/wisdomteeth.asp

I wonder sometimes... do you honestly think that the entire scientific community, all 10 million or so of us, are in some manner maintaining total ignorance of a truth heralded by about 1000 scientifically-qualified people who between them produce practically no data at all and refuse to be a part of the same peer-review system. I'm sure there would be claims that this is revolutionary science we're talking about. But we've seen many revolutions before. They were peer-reviewed.

Another question. If creation is scientifically verifiable and indeed is suggested by the evidence itself, why then are there no atheists supporting intelligent design or similar? Similarly, why are there no moderate religious people suggesting it? Given that there are some very conservative religious people who accept evolution, we would expect at least some atheistic and moderate creationists. But barring the occasional outlier like Berlinski (is that guy really agnostic?) I've never heard of any- there's certainly no secular creationist movement! Why do the only people who consistently maintain that the evidence suggests creation also happen to be the only people who's faith would be threatened by acceptance of evolution?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I wonder sometimes... do you honestly think that the entire scientific community, all 10 million or so of us, are in some manner maintaining total ignorance of a truth heralded by about 1000 scientifically-qualified people who between them produce practically no data at all and refuse to be a part of the same peer-review system. I'm sure there would be claims that this is revolutionary science we're talking about. But we've seen many revolutions before. They were peer-reviewed.

...Evolutionists WON'T peer review Creation Science Papers ... because they don't regard conventionally qualified Creation Scientists as 'real' scientists ... and Creation Science has therefore set up it's own Peer-Review systems ... so thanks ... but no thanks for your 'offer'!!!!
...equally, your estimate of Creation Scientist numbers are grossly under-estimated ... because most Creation Scientists don't place their names into the public domain because of the risk of job discrimination if they did so!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Another question. If creation is scientifically verifiable and indeed is suggested by the evidence itself, why then are there no atheists supporting intelligent design or similar? Similarly, why are there no moderate religious people suggesting it? Given that there are some very conservative religious people who accept evolution, we would expect at least some atheistic and moderate creationists. But barring the occasional outlier like Berlinski (is that guy really agnostic?) I've never heard of any- there's certainly no secular creationist movement! Why do the only people who consistently maintain that the evidence suggests creation also happen to be the only people who's faith would be threatened by acceptance of evolution?

...there is no Secular Creationist Movement because Atheists don't generally become Creation Scientists because their faith in the non-existence of God would obviously be threatened by the acceptance of Creation!!!!

....there are growing numbers of Secularists like David Berlinski, who are taking an active interest in the Intelligent Design that is apparent in living organisms (without any determination of who/what produced the design).

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

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

...Evolutionists WON'T peer review Creation Science Papers ... because they don't regard conventionally qualified Creation Scientists as 'real' scientists ... and Creation Science has therefore set up it's own Peer-Review systems ... so thanks ... but no thanks for your 'offer'!!!!
...equally, your estimate of Creation Scientist numbers are grossly under-estimated ... because most Creation Scientists don't place their names into the public domain because of the risk of job discrimination if they did so!!!

Well that's just a lie. Any submitted paper has to go through review. It can be rejected, certainly, but it's not like there's a box to check that automatically disqualifies creationists. The very thought is laughable. And if they're hiding their identifies, as you imply, how on Earth would reviewers even know they were creationist?

All submitted papers are subjected to review, regardless of teh subject matter. The sad reality is that no creation science is ever even submitted for peer review! I've asked for a single example of the review that any submission would receive back from both you and wolfsbane and nary a single example to be seen!

I'd even like to see the review from your "creationist peer-reviewers" to see how rigorous it is. Please furnish me with one of the above, or at least stop lying about the peer review process. :pac:

Turtwig

2Scoops wrote: »

I'd even like to see the review from your "creationist peer-reviewers" to see how rigorous it is.

Trust me, you don't wanna go there.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...Evolutionists WON'T peer review Creation Science Papers ... because they don't regard conventionally qualified Creation Scientists as 'real' scientists ... and Creation Science has therefore set up it's own Peer-Review systems ... so thanks ... but no thanks for your 'offer'!!!!

Perhaps true, though I'd say it would be hard to filter out creation science submissions unless their motives were very heavy handed. And we don't maintain a black list of authors (but sure 90% of them are in the closet so how would we spot them even if we did?). Much more likely that, as 2Scoops suggests, the submissions are simply never made. Or are of very poor quality when they are made.

It's certainly not what you think it is anyway. Consider that even when Einstein proposed to overturn the scientific community's fundamental understanding of the universe itself, after hundreds of years of the Newtonian model, that Einstein was still peer-reviewed. Even though his ideas undid decades or even lifetimes of work for thousands of contemporary physicists, he was not disregarded as pseudoscience. It was not some small cadre of fringe adherents who ushered in that revolution, nor did Einstein's followers feel compelled to re-define science, or create their own version of peer-review. Newton's tried and tested theories were not discarded but were placed in a new context. Revolutions in science may be sudden, like Kuhnian paradigm shifts, but are more often gradual. Darwin's evolution was re-framed within the modern synthesis, just as Newton was re-framed within Relativity. The modern synthesis came as a gradual revolution. But throughout the history of modern science, whether scientific revolutions be swift or gradual, they are above all scientific. They have never needed to redefine the philosophy of sceptical empiricism itself, and that is very telling.

Your kind have decided not to follow science and fit God into the gaps, but rather to fight science, to subvert it. To fetishise it and attempt to acquire the power you have observed it to have. The power that religion alone has bit by bit been losing wherever science has influence. Creationism uses the language and style of science in an attempt to convince as science convinces- but with none of the substance. This isn't a revolution J C. It's the only tactic you have left if you don't want to be chasing those gaps forever. It's the last gasp of unreason.

J C wrote: »

...equally, your estimate of Creation Scientist numbers are grossly under-estimated ... because most Creation Scientists don't place their names into the public domain because of the risk of job discrimination if they did so!!!

Maybe. But even the ones who are out in the open don't publish primary papers- be it under the mainstream system or their own version of peer-review. How many creationist research papers per creation scientist have been published in the last year? How many papers per dollar of research budget? How many dollars of research budget per researcher? And now the big question. How many dollars in publishing material not even peer-reviewed under your own system but instead pumped into leaflets, videos, mainstream websites... Your output seems a little one sided to me. It is almost entirely directed at people who don't understand science...

J C wrote: »

...there is no Secular Creationists Movement because Atheists don't generally become Creation Scientists because their faith in the non-existence of God would obviously be threatened by the acceptance of Creation!!!!

The Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus who advocate evolution have no such motive, and no motive to pay any heed to atheists.

Besides, the identity of the creator/designer is supposedly not testable. Surely, if the evidence for design were compelling then what we would have is a substantial minority fraction of biologists, of all faiths and none, who would hold that life were in some manner designed. After all, you're not proposing an actual mechanism- the tools used or the techniques employed- so the argument is surely for design via an unspecified or unknowable process. The atheist would simply claim that the designer were mundane, natural. An advanced but naturalistic intelligence that predated life on Earth, perhaps. The religious scientists might speculate about God or Gods, but that element need not be conclusive for the unspecified design hypothesis to be supported with evidence. But there's no such movement, there's just the fundamentalists. Just, conveniently enough, the very people with anything to lose by accepting evolution.

J C wrote: »

....there are growing numbers of Secularists like David Berlinski, who are taking an active interest in the Intelligent Design that is apparent in living organisms (without any determination of who/what produced the design).

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

I already mentioned Berlinski myself- do you read my posts? You quoted the part where I mentioned him yet you bring him up like he's news. I called him an outlier, and that's a good description as he's the only notable secularist I've ever heard of who supports design.

But you say he's part of a growing movement? Please provide evidence that he is part of a "growing movement" of secular creationists. How much has the movement grown in say, the last 5 years? Which secularists have joined Berlinksi? Are any of them biologists? They'll need some of them, since Berlinski is a philosopher and pop mathematics writer, rather than a scientist.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...there is no Secular Creationist Movement because Atheists don't generally become Creation Scientists because their faith in the non-existence of God would obviously be threatened by the acceptance of Creation!!!!

....there are growing numbers of Secularists like David Berlinski, who are taking an active interest in the Intelligent Design that is apparent in living organisms (without any determination of who/what produced the design).

AtomicHorror
I already mentioned Berlinski myself- do you read my posts? You quoted the part where I mentioned him yet you bring him up like he's news. I called him an outlier, and that's a good description as he's the only notable secularist I've ever heard of who supports design.

But you say he's part of a growing movement? Please provide evidence that he is part of a "growing movement" of secular creationists. How much has the movement grown in say, the last 5 years? Which secularists have joined Berlinksi? Are any of them biologists? They'll need some of them, since Berlinski is a philosopher and pop mathematics writer, rather than a scientist.

...I do read your posts ... but you obviously didn't fully read mine!!!
I didn't say that there was a growing movement of Secular Creationists (which is an oxymoron) ...I said the direct opposite ... that there is no Secular Creationist Movement because Atheists faith in the non-existence of God would obviously be threatened by the acceptance of Creation!!!!...
... and I then went on to explain that ....
"....there are growing numbers of Secularists like David Berlinski, who are taking an active interest in the Intelligent Design that is apparent in living organisms (without any determination of who/what produced the design)."


....even Prof Dawkins has joined the ranks of the growing (Secular) ID movement ... and now admits that living systems have 'the appearance of Design'...which is half-way to accepting that life IS designed ... “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1
... if it appears to be designed as a Duck ... and behaves like it was designed as a Duck.... then it was Designed as a Duck ... and Spontaneous Evolution has become a DEAD DUCK!!!:eek:


...and Prof Dawkins also accepts that life on Earth could have been designed by "a Higher Intelligence from elsewher in the Universe" .... which is a FULL acceptance of the possible Intelligent Design of life ...
Prof Dawkins then goes further and accepts the possibility that such design has left EVIDENCE in the form of a discernible 'signature' within the details of Biochemistry / Molecular Biology ... which is no more and no less than other 'Evolutionist' Intelligent Design advocates have been saying all along !!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

Prof Dawkins also points out the circularity inherent in the 'Aliens did it' argument ... in determining the ultimate origins of life ... because this argument doesn't establish who/what produced the 'Aliens' themselves, in the first place ... and Prof Dawkins answer to this conundrum was that some kind of Darwinian Process did it after "the origin of the first self replicating molecule" ... and he promptly admitted that nobody has the faintest idea how this could ever happen!!!

...not much 'explanatory power' there then ... but an amazing admission that the study of Intelligent Design in living things IS a legitimate EVIDENCE-BASED activity ... but with the caveat (in Prof Dawkins case) that the 'designer' can only be 'Anything but God' ... he would say that ... wouldn't he????!!!


...I can assure Prof Dawkins that life was not designed by 'Aliens' (plural) ... but by an 'Alien' (singular) AKA as the Transcendent Creator God of the Universe ... so the argument really isn't over the scientific validity of ID ... it is only about 'who did it' ... which is essentially a religious question.

As a scientist, I am prepared to 'park' the WHO did it (religious) question ... in order to scientifically study the Intelligent Design itself.

...of course, the WHO question is also a fascinating religious question that won't go away ... and if the Atheists weren't the religious zealots that they claim not to be ... they wouldn't be interested in this question ... but the thousands of posts on this thread proves them to be deeply-religious people indeed!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....even Prof Dawkins has joined the ranks of the growing (Secular) ID movement ... and now admits that living systems have 'the appearance of Design'...which is half-way to accepting that life IS designed ... “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1
... if it appears to be designed as a Duck ... and behaves like it was designed as a Duck.... then it is a Designed Duck ... and Spontaneous Evolution has become a DEAD DUCK!!!:eek:

:facepalm:

Sam Vimes

So JC, dolphins with legs?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...I do read your posts ... but you obviously didn't fully read mine!!!
I didn't say that there was a growing movement of Secular Creationists (which is an oxymoron) ...I said the direct opposite ... that "there is no Secular Creationist Movement because Atheists don't generally become Creation Scientists because their faith in the non-existence of God would obviously be threatened by the acceptance of Creation!!!!"...
... and I then went on to explain that ....
"....there are growing numbers of Secularists like David Berlinski, who are taking an active interest in the Intelligent Design that is apparent in living organisms (without any determination of who/what produced the design)."

ID is creationism- when I write "creationism", you can take it that I mean all of it's flavours. Berlinski aside, there is no atheistic ID movement.

J C wrote: »

....even Prof Dawkins has joined the ranks of the growing (Secular) ID movement ... and now admits that living systems have 'the appearance of Design'...which is half-way to accepting that life IS designed ... “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1

"Appearance" only to the ignorant, as I am quite certain Dawkins would clarify if he read your post. That's not half way to your position- it is an apology for those who preceded Darwin.

J C wrote: »

... if it appears to be designed as a Duck ... and behaves like it was designed as a Duck.... then it is a Designed Duck ... and Spontaneous Evolution has become a DEAD DUCK!!!:eek:

Meaningless waffle.

J C wrote: »

...and Prof Dawkins also accepts that life on Earth could have been designed by "a Higher Intelligence from elsewher in the Universe" .... which is a FULL acceptance of the possible Intelligent Design of life ...

He accepts it is conceptually possible to design life, and that it might once have been acceptable to hypothesise that life on Earth were designed. We are close to doing it for ourselves, so it would be rather short sighted of him to deny that. But he certainly hasn't said the evidence supports that assertion for life now.

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins then goes further and accepts the possibility that such design has left EVIDENCE in the form of a discernible 'signature' within the details of Biochemistry / Molecular Biology ... which is no more and no less than other 'Evolutionist' Intelligent Design advocates have been saying all along ... and getting sacked for doing so!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

Oh come on J C. Argument from authority? Am I supposed to abandon my argument based on some snippet from that worthless waste of film?

Yes, if life were designed then there should be evidence. So why isn't there any? Why do all life forms share improbable similar traits? Why does the relationship between traits have a bifurcating pattern which is only broken by lateral transfer events? If life is designed, there should be combinations we do not see, unless life were designed to look to the informed like it were not designed. Which would compromise the integrity of the design and leave deception as its only function.

Sounds about right for your God, actually.

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins also points out the circularity inherent in the 'Aliens did it' argument ... in determining the ultimate origins of life ... because this argument doesn't establish who/what produced the 'Aliens' themselves, in the first place ... and Prof Dawkins answer to this conundrum was that some kind of Darwinian Process did it after "the origin of the first self replicating molecule" ... and he promptly admitted that nobody has the faintest idea how this could ever happen!!!

Yes the design hypothesis is circular because it still requires and origin for the designer. That doesn't matter. If the evidence supported it, secular scientists would certainly publish extensively on the matter. It would be a Nobel Prize winning discovery and a whole new source of funding for biologists. It would not require the invocation of a supernatural being- so there'd be little reason for atheists to disingenuously reject the evidence.

J C wrote: »

...not much 'explanatory power' there then ... but an amazing admission that the study of Intelligent Design in living things IS a legitimate EVIDENCE-BASED activity ... but with the caveat (in Prof Dawkins case) that the 'designer' can be 'Anything but God' ... he would say that ... wouldn't he????!!!

Still don't get it do you? Positing a naturalistic designer would be scientifically testable because that designer would have to be observable by evidence or by inference. The mechanism of that design might be unknown to us- but it would be amenable to determination by experimentation.

By contrast, when you posit your designer you place Him deliberately beyond science. Ineffable will, incomprehensible aesthetic and unknowable mechanisms that we must simply assume- not test- account for whatever we happen to observe. You're the ones who have placed your designer beyond science, not us.

Unless, perhaps, you'd like to hypothesise as to how the Designer went about designing life? What specific mechanisms were used and what testable implications that would have?

J C wrote: »

and if the Atheists weren't the religious zealots that they claim not to be ... they wouldn't be interested in this question ... but the thousands of posts on this thread proves them to be deeply-religious people indeed!!!

We post here because your cause undermines science itself. It dilutes the currency of evidence-based knowledge and attempts to reduce it to an incomprehensible language- a code the purpose of which is the same as "the science bit" on a shampoo commercial. Not there to explain or to enlighten. Rather to confuse and silence. To end questions with the vague assurance that someone who knows the code has done the thinking for us. As you have said yourself "don't sweat the small stuff". A good motto for pseudo scientists of all sorts.

That is why there are a mere 1000 scientists amongst your number- which is your entire movement combined (ID included). That is why the proportion of that 1000 who are biologists does not appear to match the proportion of biologists in the general scientific community (about 30%). That is why your followers are 99% non scientists and why your authorities dedicate most of their time and resources to outreach and practically none to new research.

We're also here because your main tactic- to deny the evidence that does not agree with you, to create a parallel peer-review system, in essence to create a parallel reality in which you are simply correct- would stifle the growth of human knowledge if successful. If Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Jenner, Pasteur or Einstein had followed this tactic their revolutions would have been stillborn; incomprehensible to the masses, inspiring no debate and immune to criticism or modification.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So JC, dolphins with legs?

...looks like a Dolphin with two mutated supernumerary flippers to me!!!:D:eek:

...Evolutionists have great imaginations ... but they have a 'blind spot' when it comes to the evidence for Creation that is staring them in the face!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...looks like a Dolphin with two mutated supernumerary flippers to me!!!:D:eek:

Well they are supernumerary, but not really fins in the normal sense because dolphin and whale fins still have finger and toe like bones inside them because, of course, they used to be legs.

But how does a creationist/IDer explain things like this? The person who wrote the article on AIG that I was responding to was under the impression that such things don't exist so I'd love to hear your explanation

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... don't Evolutionists have great imaginations??!!!!!:):D

Been a while since I posted here (I do read the thread from time to time mind), but your style of arguing has somehow gotten worse since I left. basically what you are doing now when someone raises a good point is:

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

ID is creationism- when I write "creationism", you can take it that I mean all of it's flavours. Berlinski aside, there is no atheistic ID movement

...your defective conclusion (that all ID is Creationism) is so heavily reductionist that it would label Prof Dawkins admission that life on earth could have been Intelligently Designed by Aliens as a 'Creationist' statement ... when neither myself nor Prof Dawkins believes such putative Intelligent Design to be 'Creationist' in any strict or meaningful sense of the normal use of the word 'Creationist'!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

He accepts it is conceptually possible to design life, and that it might once have been acceptable to hypothesise that life on Earth were designed. We are close to doing it for ourselves, so it would be rather short sighted of him to deny that. But he certainly hasn't said the evidence supports that assertion for life now.

...Prof Dawkins has made the key admission that it is POSSIBLE to detect the 'signature' of Intelligent Design within Molecular Biology / Biochemistry ... and it is therefore unacceptable that scientific research into identifying and proving the existence of this 'signature' is repressed or labelled as 'pseudo-science' (or worse) within the Evolutionist Community!!!

...and it is also hypocritical, given the Evolutionist commitment to identifyng and proving the existence of possible Alien Intelligence 'signature(s)' via the SETI project, for example!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes the design hypothesis is circular because it still requires and origin for the designer. That doesn't matter. If the evidence supported it, secular scientists would certainly publish extensively on the matter. It would be a Nobel Prize winning discovery and a whole new source of funding for biologists. It would not require the invocation of a supernatural being- so there'd be little reason for atheists to disingenuously reject the evidence.

...when the evidence is overwhelmingly supporting the existence of the Creator God of the Bible...there is EVERY reason for Atheists to reject it!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Still don't get it do you? Positing a naturalistic designer would be scientifically testable because that designer would have to be observable by evidence or by inference. The mechanism of that design might be unknown to us- but it would be amenable to determination by experimentation.

...you're the one not getting it!!!
..whether the 'designer' was 'natural' or 'supernatural' doesn't matter once the resut was a PHYSICAL manifestation of the appliance of it's intelligence ... and life is a very PHYSICAL and obvious result of the appliance of intelligence!!!!

Evolutionists are quite entitled to critically evaluate the means by which a conclusion that life was Intelligently Designed is arrived at ... and they are quite entitled to point out that science has been unable to establish (yet) who the Intelligent Designer(s) was/were ... but they are NOT entitled to suppress a new and very important area of science just because it might result in the conclusion that 'God did it' ... with obvious effects on the intellectual credability of their Beliefs.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

By contrast, when you posit your designer you place Him deliberately beyond science. Ineffable will, incomprehensible aesthetic and unknowable mechanisms that we must simply assume- not test- account for whatever we happen to observe. You're the ones who have placed your designer beyond science, not us.

Unless, perhaps, you'd like to hypothesise as to how the Designer went about designing life? What specific mechanisms were used and what testable implications that would have?

....the designer(s) may or may not be supernatural and we may never know HOW the designer(s) produced life ... but none of this invalidates the search for the 'signature' of 'Intelligent Activity' that potentially exists within life. If Prof Dawkins idea that Aliens possibly seeded life on Earth is valid ... then, as he has admitted, the 'signature' of such intelligent activity SHOULD be there in the Molecular Biology and Biochemistry of life ... and it should be discernable even if we DON'T know who the Aliens were or how they did it!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We post here because your cause undermines science itself. It dilutes the currency of evidence-based knowledge and attempts to reduce it to an incomprehensible language- a code the purpose of which is the same as "the science bit" on a shampoo commercial. Not there to explain or to enlighten. Rather to confuse and silence. To end questions with the vague assurance that someone who knows the code has done the thinking for us. .....

...We're also here because your main tactic- to deny the evidence that does not agree with you, to create a parallel peer-review system, in essence to create a parallel reality in which you are simply correct- would stifle the growth of human knowledge if successful. If Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Jenner, Pasteur or Einstein had followed this tactic their revolutions would have been stillborn; incomprehensible to the masses, inspiring no debate and immune to criticism or modification.

....the suppression of intellectual freedom and debate is ACTUALLY being engaged in by the Evolutionists on this one!!!!

....and evolutionist scientists often patronise us with the idea that they know best ... and that only 'qualified evolutionists' can really understand Evolution!!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....and evolutionist scientists often patronise us with the idea that they know best ... and that only 'qualified evolutionists' can really understand Evolution!!!!

It's not that only "qualified evolutionists" can understand evolution, it's just that creationists can't. If they really wanted to they could, it's not that difficult to understand but if they had a correct understanding of it they would see that it makes perfect sense and is as strongly supported as anything else in science. That just wouldn't do so they build ridiculous straw men, call these straw men evolution and knock them down, much to the amusement of the people who don't feel the need to stick their heads in the sand because of their religious beliefs.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well they are supernumerary, but not really fins in the normal sense because dolphin and whale fins still have finger and toe like bones inside them because, of course, they used to be legs.

But how does a creationist/IDer explain things like this? The person who wrote the article on AIG that I was responding to was under the impression that such things don't exist so I'd love to hear your explanation

..like I said they were two supernumerary (and useless) flippers that probably arose due to a problem with the Hox Box genes of the Dolphin!!!

...they're like the supernumerary (and useless) legs that sometimes 'adorn' the heads of irridated Fruit Flies!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Prof Dawkins has made the key admission that it is POSSIBLE to detect the 'signature' of Intelligent Design within Molecular Biology / Biochemistry ... and it is therefore completely unacceptable that research into identifying and proving the existence of this 'signature' is ruthlessly repressed within the Evolutionist Scientific Community!!!

Sorry where did he say that such a signature can be detected?

And as people keep asking you, could you please provide an example of a paper that was suppressed? The sciencific community has no control over a creationist's own website so surely they've put these scientifically valid but ruthlessly suppressed papers that prove intelligent design up for all to see? And if you provide examples, can you also provide any evidence that they were suppressed by the scientific community or at least that they were submitted to the scientific community for review?

When everything someone puts forward is being ruthlessly suppressed, it can look a lot like they're not actually saying anything at all. And it's very easy for someone who is not saying anything at all to pretend that they're being suppressed. Do you have any evidence that this is not the case?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

..like I said they were two supernumerary (and useless) flippers that probably arose due to a problem with the Hox Box genes of the Dolphin!!!

...they're like the supernumerary (and useless) legs that sometimes 'adorn' the heads of irridated Fruit Flies!!!

What kind of problem with the hox box gene? Are you saying that a genetic mutation added information to the dolphin's genome that caused it to produce extra fins?

Whether the flippers are useless is a matter of opinion btw and irrelevant because no one is claiming that they would be useful in their present form, just that their existence is evidence that the dolphins ancestors had legs.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I wonder sometimes... do you honestly think that the entire scientific community, all 10 million or so of us, are in some manner maintaining total ignorance of a truth heralded by about 1000 scientifically-qualified people who between them produce practically no data at all and refuse to be a part of the same peer-review system. I'm sure there would be claims that this is revolutionary science we're talking about. But we've seen many revolutions before. They were peer-reviewed.

Another question. If creation is scientifically verifiable and indeed is suggested by the evidence itself, why then are there no atheists supporting intelligent design or similar? Similarly, why are there no moderate religious people suggesting it? Given that there are some very conservative religious people who accept evolution, we would expect at least some atheistic and moderate creationists. But barring the occasional outlier like Berlinski (is that guy really agnostic?) I've never heard of any- there's certainly no secular creationist movement! Why do the only people who consistently maintain that the evidence suggests creation also happen to be the only people who's faith would be threatened by acceptance of evolution?

1. That's because the revolutions did not threaten the establishment world-view. They were all within the bounds of atheistic acceptability.

2. I'm sure some atheists are open to ID, provided it is of the alien sort rather than God. ANYTHING but God. Ditto for moderate religious people.

3. Why not more? It is still sailing close to the wind to even suggest any designer is necessary, for it open the door for the free-thinker to consider God as the designer. That would never do.

4. For your last point, it would be hard for anyone to hold that the evidence suggests creation and still be an unbeliever. It's the sort of conclusion that sorts the men from the boys.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. I'm sure some atheists are open to ID, provided it is of the alien sort rather than God. ANYTHING but God. Ditto for moderate religious people.

Actually funny you should mention this as ID proponents have claimed that ZEUS could be designer.
I'm ok with that, are you?
(I'm also O.K with God being the guy that kick started evolution.)

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So JC, dolphins with legs?

Well, I think JC has correctly identified mutation as possible cause of those particular 'legs'.

But on the wider issue of the sort of 'legs' the whales/dolphins possess - they may be vestiges of functional 'legs' that once were used for, say, sexual clasping or swimming. No need to extrapolate them to be real legs that they once used to walk on land. Creationists do not say whales/dolphins are today like they were created.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually funny you should mention this as ID proponents have claimed that ZEUS could be designer.
I'm ok with that, are you?
(I'm also O.K with God being the guy that kick started evolution.)

I'm ok with them reserving that as a logical possibility - depends on Zeus being real or not.

I'm not ok with it as a reality, for there is only one Creator, and He is not Zeus.

I'm also not ok with God kick-starting evolution. That would make billions of years of suffering and death 'very good', as God described His creation.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

But on the wider issue of the sort of 'legs' the whales/dolphins possess - they may be vestiges of functional 'legs' that once were used for, say, sexual clasping or swimming. No need to extrapolate them to be real legs that they once used to walk on land. Creationists do not say whales/dolphins are today like they were created.

It's almost like they... evolved...

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm also not ok with God kick-starting evolution. That would make billions of years of suffering and death 'very good', as God described His creation.

So, a few thousand years of suffering and death is 'very good', but billions of years? THAT would be taking the mic.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not that only "qualified evolutionists" can understand evolution, it's just that creationists can't.

...Creation Scientists are mostly former Evolutionists ... so they understand Evolution perfectly well ... and they NOW know it to be scientifically invalid !!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If they really wanted to they could, it's not that difficult to understand but if they had a correct understanding of it they would see that it makes perfect sense and is as strongly supported as anything else in science. That just wouldn't do so they build ridiculous straw men, call these straw men evolution and knock them down, much to the amusement of the people who don't feel the need to stick their heads in the sand because of their religious beliefs.

...the Evolutionists are the ones with their heads in the sand ... and it is the Creationists that are the ones in the 'scientific ascendant'!!!!:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...Creation Scientists are mostly former Evolutionists

Given the understanding of evolution they now display I wonder did they bang their head off a concrete slab and forget what evolution actually was.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What kind of problem with the hox box gene? Are you saying that a genetic mutation added information to the dolphin's genome that caused it to produce extra fins?

Whether the flippers are useless is a matter of opinion btw and irrelevant because no one is claiming that they would be useful in their present form, just that their existence is evidence that the dolphins ancestors had legs.

...mutations to the Hox Box genes can produce useless supernumerary flippers .... but they don't add any information ... they actually degrade it.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

It's almost like they... evolved...

...if you are saying that producing useless supernumerary appendages is 'evolution' ... then yes, these useless flippers 'evolved'!!!!:eek:;)