The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

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

Well J C, you have just admitted that evolution is true. These flippers were useless but if supernumerary flippers that long can grow on a dolphin then there is no reason that longer flippers could not grow, flippers that would be long enough to serve a purpose, even the purpose of walking on land.

/thread

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

..supernumerary, non-functional flippers are no more evidence that ancestral Dolphins had four legs ... than supernumerary nipples indicate that ancestral women had four breasts!!!!:eek:

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well J C, you have just admitted that evolution is true. These flippers were useless but if supernumerary flippers that long can grow on a dolphin then there is no reason that longer flippers could not grow, flippers that would be long enough to serve a purpose, even the purpose of walking on land.

...dream on ... but don't expect anybody else to think you have applied any logic to your conclusions!!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror

One again he dodges the question.

I'll try it again. J C, you said Berlinski is part of a growing movement or secular ID adherents. Please show us how that movement has grown in the last 5 years.

J C wrote: »

...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 Intelligent Design to be 'Creationist' in any strict or meaningful sense of the normal use of the word 'Creationist'!!!!

Not really. The underlying motive behind ID is specified in the Wedge Document as being to make a scientific case for the Abrahamic God as a creator. The fact that the ID movement has a couple of people who don't bother to investigate that part does not mean that ID is anything less than creationism. Whatever definition we use, whatever category ID is placed in, you haven't answered my question about Berlinski.

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 all scientific research into identifying and proving the existence of this 'signature' is ruthlessly repressed and labelled as 'pseudo-science' (or worse) within the Evolutionist Scientific Community!!!

It's possible to detect whether the sky is green. We can do that scientifically. Is it scientifically acceptable to maintain that the sky is green when the evidence says it is blue? No, it is pseudo science. Creationism is labelled pseudo science for that same reason and others, amongst which is the lack of a means to verify the existence and methods of the creator who forms a central part of the pseudo hypothesis.

J C wrote: »

...and it is completely hypocritical given the Evolutionist commitment to identifyng and proving the existence of an Alien Intelligence 'signature' via the SETI project, for example!!!

No, it is a logical inference that if life could arise on a planet like Earth, it might arise elsewhere. We have something verifiable to compare such life to- ourselves. And we do not hypothesise anything outside of the naturalistic, so there's nothing unscientific there. We have not verified supernatural beings, so how do we test them? To what do we compare them? Completely different cases and not at all hypocritical.

J C wrote: »

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

Aside from delusion, there is none. The verification of the existence of your God does not screw with anyone's life. Nobody, no matter how mired in secular depravity, would have anything to fear from the discovery of the existence of God. Anyone can at any moment repent of anything they've done in life and be saved, so if an atheist becomes convinced by evidence, there is simply no motive to reject it. You're left with only the delusions crafted by Satan, and you've never been able to explain here how one would differentiate between delusion and earnest acceptance of evolution.

J C wrote: »

...especially when they have most of the so-called 'liberal churches' parroting their unfounded Evolutionary ideas!!!

It's hardly "parroting" when a great number of them are actively involved in the research which forms opinions on evolution.

J C wrote: »

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

Funny, it looks to me like the debate is in full swing, with open publication and the works intact. And it's even on the terms you like. In public, rather than within the community of relevant experts.

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!!!!

That's demonstrably not true. There are loads of popular science books on the subject of evolution, there are some 16,000 titles on Amazon alone. Even allowing for editions that's thousands of books aimed at the mainstream. They work too. As a biologist myself I can say that the grasp of the subject amongst the proponents on this thread and elsewhere on the internet is surprisingly nuanced. That shows us that efforts by the likes of Dawkins to explain evolution to the public have actually worked rather well. The difference is that we have both the hardcore research (hundreds of thousands of papers per year) and the popular science books based upon that ever-advancing research. We offer the way into the science and the substance if the reader wishes to go further.

You've got the pop books and some websites which say the same thing as the books.

AtomicHorror

That was a pretty long post, so I decided to put this bit separately as it's an important point.

J C wrote: »

...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 rfesult of the appliance of intelligence!!!!

No. Let's try an analogy. Put aside the question of the detectability of intelligence for a moment.

Imagine we find a hiker, dead in the woods. His throat has been opened in a series of puncture marks. These are identified as the cause of death but there are also many other wounds such as scrapes and bruises that probably contributed to the hiker's untimely end. Is it scientifically acceptable to posit that the man was killed by "an animal"? Without identifying the animal is it okay to then rule out accident and then to say "the identity of the animal is irrelevant so long as the man is dead by verifiable, physical means"? No.

How can we really, with confidence, test whether the man was killed by an animal if we cannot define the capabilities and killing methods of the animal? How can we be sure it was one animal and not many? How can we be certain if they were of one species or multiple? What if someone says, "there are rocks in the woods shaped like those bruises, and tangled bushes that make those sorts of scrapes and thorns that make puncture makes like the ones in his neck". If we do not identify the animal, one with known and defined characteristics, how can we make a meaningful case for an animal attack? How can we convincingly refute the Misadventure Hypothesis, when we cannot say anything about the nature of our animal? When more hikers die by the some of the same wounds but with some unique ones, all we have to compare the body to is the first hiker. Because we have refused to try and meaningfully explain the first event, even to reduce the identity parade down to a panel of several dozen options, we cannot meaningfully unify the first event with the new events.

Leaving aside the analogy then. If we come to the point of agreeing that "a designer" is one viable option for the origin of life and species on Earth, if we agree that it is suggested by the evidence, how do we test this rigorously without defining the nature, habits and capabilities of the designer? How do we rule out the "hiker's accident", if you forgive the overdrawn analogy? We know there are natural processes that could plausibly make life look a lot like it does today, so if we're going to rule that out in any meaningful way, you're going to have to do a lot better than "a designer".

I suspect learning isn't actually your motive. You don't actually want to bring the world new knowledge, you want to remove what you see as false knowledge, leaving only that which suits you. I suppose, so that you can be left to your gaps without having to hear all that upsetting science. One thing is for certain; it is a nonsense to say that the nature and capabilities of the Designer are irrelevant to science.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

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

Diversified is a better description - no land animal to whale change is involved.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

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

No, a few thousand years of suffering and death is VERY BAD. Haven't you heard about the Fall? Man's sin brought suffering and death to man and beast.

That's my point - one can't have VERY GOOD and suffering and death.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

..supernumerary, non-functional flippers are no more evidence that ancestral Dolphins had four legs ... than supernumerary nipples indicate that ancestral women had four breasts!!!!:eek:

Actually, afaik supernumerary nipples indicate exactly that, our ancestors had more than two breasts like dogs and pigs. I'd have to look that up though, I'm not totally sure on that

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

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

the few thousand years since the Fall are not 'very good'... and neither are the supposed millions of years of death and evolution!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...dream on ... but don't expect anybody else to think you have applied any logic to your conclusions!!!!:eek::D

You said that if we consider useless supernumerary flippers to be evolution then the dolphin evolved. But if it can produce short useless flippers that serve no function what is stopping it producing long useful flippers that could be used to move about on land?

J C

wrote:

AtomicHorror
That was a pretty long post, so I decided to put this bit separately as it's an important point.

Originally Posted by J C
...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 rfesult of the appliance of intelligence!!!!


AtomicHorror
No. Let's try an analogy. Put aside the question of the detectability of intelligence for a moment.

...Ah ... but that is the issue!!!!
....the appliance of Intelligence is detectable ... and the question of who/what the intelligence was is a separate issue!!!!

Scientific Intelligent Design limits itself to evaluating the evidence for the appliance of intelligence ... and it doesn't concern itself with who/what the 'Intelligence' was !!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You said that if we consider useless supernumerary flippers to be evolution then the dolphin evolved. But if it can produce short useless flippers that serve no function what is stopping it producing long useful flippers that could be used to move about on land?

...you are 'flip-flopping' on these useless appendages ... one minute you claim they are residual 'throwbacks' to some putative legged ancestor ... and the next minute you are claiming that they are 'budding' futuristic structures!!!

...they are NEITHER ...

...these flippers are non-functional information-degraded supernumerary copies of functional flippers ... and they have no potential to ever become functional flippers ... or anything else!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually, afaik supernumerary nipples indicate exactly that, our ancestors had more than two breasts like dogs and pigs. I'd have to look that up though, I'm not totally sure on that

...and are you saying that the ancestral 'women' gave birth to 'litters' of up to 10 children each time????

....one unfounded idea obviously begets another equally unfounded idea!!!!:D:)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...you are 'flip-flopping' on these useless appendages ... one minute you claim they are residual 'throwbacks' to some putative legged ancestor ... and the next minute you are claiming that they are 'budding' futuristic structures!!!

In this case they are residual throwbacks but as a creationist you'd have to deny the existence of residual throwbacks, meaning these structures would have to be new. Either way, these limbs cannot be explained by creationism or intelligent design but are expected by evolution.

J C wrote: »

...these flippers are non-functional information-degraded supernumerary copies of functional flippers ... and they have no potential to ever become functional flippers ... or anything else!!!

That's quite a claim to make. What makes them information degraded and what prevents them becoming functional in some way, maybe as flippers or for moving about on land? If this dolphin can have extra short flippers I see no reason why its offspring can't have longer flippers and that offspring longer ones again until they serve a function.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...and are you saying that the ancestral 'women' gave birth to 'litters' of up to 10 children each time????

....one unfounded idea obviously begets another equally unfounded idea!!!!:D:)

I don't know if that is actually the case but it's a possibility. I see no reason why one of our ancestors can't have had more nipples and the genetic code would still be there, just inactive in most people

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Diversified is a better description

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

He's not splitting hairs exactly. Diversification is the creationist version of evolution that allows for changes within a species or "kind" but has an imaginary barrier preventing changes from one "kind" to another. The word kind is not defined beyond statements like "a dog is a kind" and they don't explain exactly what level of change would be necessary for them to accept that one kind has changed to another, although I think a cat giving birth to a dog was mentioned as something they would accept as proof of evolution, even though such a thing would actually disprove evolution.

Galvasean

Oh don't worry about me Sam I've been on this thread before. I know all about 'kinds' and the logical backflips and 'make up as you go' terminology they use.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I see no reason why one of our ancestors can't have had more nipples and the genetic code would still be there, just inactive in most people

....there is NO REASON why this should be true .... bearing in mind that supernumerary nipples are non-functional and are randomly distributed across the torso...
..equally the presence (or absence) of supernumerary nipples has little or no effect on reproductive success ... and they therefore aren't affected by natural or sexual selection ... and they therefore don't contribute to 'Evolution'...one way or the other ... just like the supernumerary Dolphin flippers!!!!:D;)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....there is NO REASON why this should be true .... bearing in mind that supernumerary nipples are non-functional and are randomly distributed across the torso...

No they're not, they grow along the milk lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_line

J C wrote: »

..equally the presence (or absence) of supernumerary nipples has little or no effect on reproductive success ... and they therefore aren't affected by natural or sexual selection ... and they therefore don't contribute to 'Evolution'...one way or the other ... just like the supernumerary Dolphin flippers!!!!:D;)

Again you show your misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does not require that every mutation is beneficial, just that some are. In fact evolution expects that vast majority of mutations to be either detrimental or neutral. But creationism requires that none are beneficial. Pointing out that a particular mutation is not beneficial is irrelevant unless you can show that it's impossible for any kind of mutation to produce anything that could be of any use.

condra

I love the people who use the "It says so in The Bible" argument. :P

AtomicHorror

Third times a charm:

J C, you said Berlinski is part of a growing movement or secular ID adherents. Please show us how that movement has grown in the last 5 years.

You know I'm not going to let this go. I don't like it when people ignore my questions. It might make me start reposting those two lists of questions that seem to make you go on holidays for weeks on end.

Could have sworn I posted a response to the below already. Must have closed my browser or something. Oh well.

J C wrote: »

...Ah ... but that is the issue!!!!
....the appliance of Intelligence is detectable ... and the question of who/what the intelligence was is a separate issue!!!!

Refute my analogy then. Explain how we can make a determination between intelligent-looking accident (if we could call it such) and actual intelligence when we cannot define what that intelligence ought to look like. There are plausible natural explanations for things like complexity, even for irreducible complexity.

If the distinction were so very clear, then where are all the atheistic IDists?

J C wrote: »

Scientific Intelligent Design limits itself to evaluating the evidence for the appliance of intelligence ... and it doesn't concern itself with who/what the 'Intelligence' was !!!

Why does it limit itself in this way? That is unscientific. By failing to define the agent at work, they eliminate any possible predictive power in their theory. If the agent is unspecified, then how can we possibly know what sorts of life it might create? What use is a theory with no predictive power? And by predicting here I am not limiting us to future variation, but also talking about future discovery of novel fossils and palaeontological genetic evidence. Further, they render us unable to discern accident from action, and unable to establish whether there is one agent or many.

Ismhunter

Just read the first page and the last one. And JC is still here... wow. Fair play to you for your perseverance. Unless by some mad coincidence you only commented on the last and first pages!!

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

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

But the scientific community was not always predominantly atheistic. It probably is now, but it certainly wasn't in Newton's time, nor Darwin's time. Mendel was a Christian monk and Christianity was still very much the dominant faith amongst western scientists even up to Einstein's time. These people all, without exception, challenged the dominant world view at the time. None of them needed to re-define empiricism or engage in vanity publication or selective review in order to instigate great changes. They simply convinced with logic and evidence.

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.

I agree that they probably would be. So why is there no such movement in the scientific community? Delusional rejection of the concept of intelligent aliens? Hardly, given the SETI and active SETI-style research programmes. No, the fact is that there's no evidence of design in life. That's why there is no atheistic ID movement.

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

On the contrary, making a convincing case for a naturalistic intelligent designer or designers would be a rather neat alternative way to falsify the Christian God. In fact, it would do so far more effectively than evolution plus abiogenesis, which would still allow theists to insert God into the gap prior to abiogenesis. So there really is no motive to disingenuously (or delusionally) reject the design hypothesis in itself.

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

So why do so few scientists make that transition? Where there is cross over between the two groups, they are mostly scientists who were fundamentalists to begin with.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Again you show your misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does not require that every mutation is beneficial, just that some are. In fact evolution expects that vast majority of mutations to be either detrimental or neutral. But creationism requires that none are beneficial. Pointing out that a particular mutation is not beneficial is irrelevant unless you can show that it's impossible for any kind of mutation to produce anything that could be of any use.

...Evolution requires some mutations to provide new functional information ... but mutations degrade information instead!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...and sometimes they don't!!!!

...Evolution requires some mutations to provide new functional information ... but they NEVER do so!!!

Describe a hypothetical situation in which new functional information were created and what techniques would be used to detect it.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Third times a charm:

J C, you said Berlinski is part of a growing movement (of) secular ID adherents. Please show us how that movement has grown in the last 5 years.

....I have ALREADY told you that it has grown to include Prof Richard Dawkins ... and therefore it includes practically all of 'Evolutiondom' that takes its lead from the good Professor!!!!:D;)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....I have ALREADY told you that it has grown to include Prof Richard Dawkins ... and therefore it includes practically all of 'Evolutiondom' that takes its lead from the good Professor!!!!:D;)

No, Dawkins has only stated that we should be able to detect some kinds of design, but very clearly feels that we don't detect it. That was clearly his position in the interview and clearly his position since then. I mean, he wrote a book in support of evolution since that interview, so if you had gained him you have since lost him. That means he's in opposition to any truly scientific ID position, and certainly in opposition to the variant touted by Berlinski, which is re-dressed creationism.

So far, your "growing movement" has Berlinski. Evidence of growth please.

J C

condra wrote: »

I love the people who use the "It says so in The Bible" argument. :P

...yes I find that the written Word of God (in the Bible) is infallible on matters of faith and morals ... I also find the spoken Word of God (in Creation) to be the perfect compliment to the Bible!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...yes i find that the written Word of God (in the Bible) is infallible on matters of faith and morals ... and I find the spoken Word of God (in Creation) to also be very reliable and complimentary to God's written Word!!!

Just curious JC how do reconcile the story of Elijah.
He ascended into heaven via a whirlwind.

2Kings 2:11 wrote:

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

Yet in John 3:13. .

Jesus wrote:

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man

Reliable?