The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Excelsior · 16-01-2010 4:00pm

NT Wright, perhaps the world's leading Biblical scholar, on Genesis 1-3

The Mad Hatter · 16-01-2010 4:17pm

J C wrote: »

...but you gave me 8 points out of 14 ... which is 57% ... which isn't a fail!!!!

... indeed it is very high marks for an Evolutionist marking a Creationist ... given the wide 'conceptual gaps' that exist between Evolutionists and Creationists on origins and other biological issues!!!:D:)

... I thank you for your fairness and intellectual rigour in the marking of my answers.:D

Sorry to quote the same post twice, but it's also worth noting that you clearly didn't read the responses, just jumped straight to the points. Otherwise you would have realised you were losing a mark when it said -1.

Morbert · 16-01-2010 5:34pm

Negative marking wasn't employed. JC simply lost marks when he backpedalled.

Turtwig · 16-01-2010 5:35pm

Excelsior's vid.

equivariant · 17-01-2010 2:04am

liamw wrote: »

Eh negative marking doesn't work like that? The % score is still calculated from the range 0-14. So, if your score was <1 it would just be 0%.
Well that was my understanding...

Emmm.... no. Assigning morks of -1,0, or 1 for answers is logically equivalent to assigning 0,1, or 2.

Are you suggesting that someone who gets -14 should get the same percentage score as someone who gets -1? That doesn't seem sensible.

Turtwig · 17-01-2010 2:12am

equivariant wrote: »

Emmm.... no. Assigning morks of -1,0, or 1 for answers is logically equivalent to assigning 0,1, or 2.

Are you suggesting that someone who gets -14 should get the same percentage score as someone who gets -1? That doesn't seem sensible.

What's all this about morks?

J C · 17-01-2010 3:53am

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Sorry to quote the same post twice, but it's also worth noting that you clearly didn't read the responses, just jumped straight to the points. Otherwise you would have realised you were losing a mark when it said -1.

...you're the one jumping to conclusions!!!

...negative marking can only be validy used with multiple choice questions (to eliminate the effects of guesswork) and a +1/-1 system would only be appropriate for a '2 answer' multiple choice system, which is rarely used.
A 5 answer multiple choice system is normally used with a -0.25 mark for wrong answers and a +1 mark for correct answers.
This works on the mathematical principle that on average, if pure quesswork was used to answer a '5 answer' multiple choice paper, the 4 out of 5 wrong answers would be balanced by the 1 out of 5 right answers, giving a score of 0 under such circumstances.

However, Emma DIDN'T frame her questions as multiple choice questions ... and, as 'strict but fair marker' ... she would therefore have marked my answers conventionally.
She appears to have used a marking system with a maximum of 1 point for each correctly answered question.
She couldn't fairly use negative scoring because this wasn't a multiple choice system of questions - and therefore she didn't need to apply penalty marks for guesswork.
I scored a total of 8 points out of 14 possible points or 57% ... which is a 3rd class honour!!!!!!
... which is a very high score for an Evolutionist marking a Creationist ... given the wide 'conceptual gaps' that exist between Evolutionists and Creationists on 'origins' and other biological issues!!:D

J C · 17-01-2010 4:01am

doctoremma wrote:

Quote:
1. Do you understand that the DNA sequence can be changed? ... yes

Good. 1 point.

Quote:
2. Do you understand the various changes in DNA that can be observed (deletions, substitutions, additions, translocations etc)? ... yes

Good. 1 point.

Quote:
3. Do you understand the mechanisms that can result in changes of DNA sequence (mutations introduced by mistakes during replication, environmental damage etc)? ... yes ... but, as the terms 'mistakes/mutations' and 'damage' imply ... these 'changes' always degrade genetic information.

The term "mutation" in no way confers a negative or positive spin onto the change. It simply means "change". Suggest you look up the term "degrade" in a dictionary. It's fair to say that many changes in DNA are "naturally-occurring mistakes". This is obviously preferable to some kind of divinely-induced change. 0 points.

Follow-up question:
JC - what do you view the "purpose" of a gene to be? If a base is altered in a gene but causes no change in the encoded protein, is this a "degradation" of genetic information? Even though there is no functional effect and either state of DNA (before change .v. after change) has exactly the same outcome? In this case, how would one judge which is the "correct" information, given that it could have flipped back and forth lots of times during our genetic history?

Quote:
4. Do you accept that changes in DNA can arise from natural processes? ... yes ... 'bad' stuff as per Q 3 and 'good' stuff via recombination, isolation, transocation, frame shifts, etc.

So you firmly reject the concept that mutations in DNA can be good for the organism? This is abject lack of understanding on your part. Suggest you go back to your degree notes. Or better, read a few papers. If you're not particularly au fait with the concept of peer-reviewed, published data, try googling "nylonase " and clicking on the multiple journal links that will appear. 0 points.

Also, you might care to note that a "translocation", which you claim to be "good" is a type of mutation; in fact, translocations are probably the most devastating type of genetic mutation, aside from outright mono/trisomies. Translocations are little genetic "bombs" that can absolutely destroy at least two chromosomes. On the other hand, they can be apparently harmless and, you never know, you yourself are probably harbouring a few. You still don't know what a "frameshift" is, but here's a clue - it's the result of a mutation, specifically the addition or deletion of bases within a protein-coding region that causes an alteration in the open reading frame of the gene and subsequent "frameshift" in the protein, which alters the protein sequence after the point of mutation. Still a "good" thing? -1 point.

Quote:
5. Do you understand that recombination and independent segregation simply mixes up existing DNA in the gametes during meiosis? ...it is a good deal more sophisticated than that ... using very sophisticated transcription and gentic switches, homeotic genes, ncRNA, etc.

It isn't that much more complicated. Recombination/independent segregation has nothing to do with "transcription" (although you obviously need to transcribe and translate the cellular machinery required for the process). Please look up what "transcription" is and you will see how wide of the mark you are. -1 point.

Quote:
6. Do you understand that phenotypic traits are largely polygenic i.e. the result of the action of many different gene/s proteins, and that new traits are far more likely to emerge in an offspring by different combinations of genes (generated by recombination and independent segregation) rather than gene mutations? ... yes ... I have already made the point that mutations are mostly deleterious and always degrade genetic information ... while recombination, segregation, expression, etc all produce novel traits, using the enormous levels of very sophisticated CSI infused at Creation!!!

Your first premise is flawed and has been dealt with above. Does your definition of "complex specified information" relate to the possible combinations of genes that can exist in an individual? That's equivalent to shaking a handful of Jellybeans, coming up with a particular colour combination and then calling that "complex" and "specified". Or calling the individual Jellybeans "complex" and "specified". This is clearly nonsense. 0 points.

Quote:
7. Do you understand that the emergence of new traits in an offspring does not therefore require changes in any gene sequence from parent to child? ... yes ... because such is the sophistication of the multiple layers of CSI present in living organisms!!!

There is nothing sophisticated about a child inheriting genes for "big nose", genes for "small nose" and having an "intermediate nose". If, as you appear to indicate in the previous answer, the "CSI" describes the phenotype of an organism, then in this case, the child clearly has a new amount of "CSI". If you are using "CSI" to refer to the genetic information, then this is easily refuted by our knowledge of genetics. Or perhaps you use the term "CSI" as and when you see fit, with no consistency? 0 points. Try to focus.

Quote:
8. Do you understand that a random mutation in a specific gene may alter the function of the encoded protein? ... yes ... usually in a 'terminal' direction ... always involving the degradation of CSI!!!

I hope by now that you have googled "nylonase". And then you will see how wrong you are.

It's interesting that you use the term "usually". I can go with the idea that a mutation "usually" causes a negative change, certainly in the field of human genetics. This observation is obviously shaped by a sort of confirmation bias, where we only try to find mutations in humans that have something wrong with them; the mutations that are neutral or of positive effect are under our radar. However, the term "usually" is important, because that means that you accept that "occasionally", the function of a protein is altered in a "non-terminal" fashion. (I assume you are using "terminal" to mean "bad", in which case I use "non-terminal" to mean "neutral" or "good"). This appears to be acceptance that it is possible for a mutation event to result in an advantageous trait. 0.5 points. You're sort of right but you didn't mean to be.

Quote:
9. Do you understand that the altered function of the protein may aid organism survival and be subject to natural selection? ... sometimes it can ... but always involving the degredation of CSI ... which is NOT the direction you want to be going if you are trying to explain how 'Pondkind became Mankind'!!!!

Again, you've acknowledged that sometimes the function of a protein can be altered in a manner that aids organism survival under selection pressures. Excellent. Contrary to your final shouty statement, this is exactly the direction you want to be going in if you are trying to explain how "Pondslime became Mankind". 0.5 points. Good start but lack of realisation of the implications of what you've accepted.

Quote:
10. Do you understand that the altered gene sequence may enable the organism to survive in a place or time when other members of the same species cannot? ... yes it could possibly survive as a 'scrawny' CSI-challenged thing ... only to be replaced by 'fitter' specimens when whatever is causing the selection pressure, abates.

You've undone all your good work in the previous two answers, where you accepted that occasionally, a mutation causes a protein to have a positive functional change, by reverting to the position that altered protein functions are always negative. Please try to be consistent in your answers. - 1 point.

Quote:
11. Do you understand that population resulting from Q10 will all possess the "novel" gene sequence? ... yes, they will be all equally 'scrawny' and CSI-challenged things!!!

See above. 0 points.

Edit: Revised response to Q11. JC - if an individual within a population has a mutation which causes that individual to be "scrawny" (I assume you mean "compromised in their fitness"), how will that mutation spread through the population? If the individual is compromised, they are less likely to reproduce; therefore there is a reduced chance of the novel gene variant being spread through a population. This is the whole principle underlying evolution via natural selection. "Scrawny" individuals do not reproduce and propagate their genes as well as "non-scrawny" individuals.

Quote:
12. Do you understand the process of natural selection to be cumulative? ... it can be ... but sometimes it runs up a 'dead end'!!!

Ah, you've gone back to the acknowledgement that "occasionally", the cumulative effect of natural selection is not always a "dead end". Excellent although I'm now beginning to worry about your lack of consistency. It's almost as if you don't understand what you're saying and sometimes, just by chance, get it right. 1 point.

Quote:
13. Do you understand that, given time, the phenotype of an organism can change signficantly, as result of a series of small changes? ... yes ... but always within the genetic limits of its inherited CSI ... AKA its 'selection wall'

If we talk about inheritance, it will be limited to the offspring of a particular fertilisation event. When I talk about the phenotype of an organism changing, I (as I'm sure everyone else understands) am referring to the phenotype of a population of organisms. Which will comprise multiple inheritance events which incorporate multiple potential genetic changes. 0 points.

Quote:
14. Do you understand that for a child to have a piece of DNA that neither parents have, it must have been created by a random change during the embryogenic process? ... if it was created at random it is a mutation ... or possibly even a carcinoma 'trigger'!!!

I'm not suggesting it is anything other than a mutation. See previous answer on judging the "goodness" or "badness" of mutations. 0 points.

"Carcinoma trigger"? Are you just shouting random biology phrases now? - 1 point.

Quote:
15. Do you understand the processes of DNA sequencing/analysis whereby even if either parent had the extra piece of DNA hidden in their genome somewhere away from the gene under investigation, it would be detectable? ... yes ... if it was as described by you.

Not just me, hon. I could, with 100 % confidence, get another scientist/you/a street sweeper, to perform the experiment and you'd all get the same result. And you'd get the same result next week. And you'd get the same result with several methods. 0 points.

That'll be a fail then. JC - I don't know how often you argue genetics with people but you really should have at least a working knowledge about what you are discussing. It may be the case that you can get away with using words like "translocation" and "expression" in a non-scientific setting. But I'm another name on the increasingly long list of people here who has more than working knowledge of the processes involved (and all of whom have absolutely brilliant articulation skills) who can try to help you understand where you are going wrong. Maybe you should start reading/listening?

.

J C · 17-01-2010 12:41pm

token56 wrote: »

This is indeed true, however it does depend on the system implemented. There are some systems where marks are awarded for correct answers, no marks are awarded for a wrong answer but negative marks given as a penatly for answers which are not only wrong but are possibly contradictory to the correct answer or something among this line, so it would not necessarily be the case that is marked from -14 to +14, but from 0 to 14 considering negative marks are just a penalty, and if a negative result is obtained it is capped at 0. There are systems as you described but I thought it was the system I described that was being used. Anyway this is probably getting far too pedantic about it all, sorry.

... some of the evolutionists on this thread don't even appear to understand how proper marking systems operate ... never mind how to then implement them fairly on people with whom they disagree.

Could I gently point out that you cannot fairly implement a 'negative' mark on anybody's answer (even if they are a Creationist) ...unless the exam consists of multiple choice answers - and then the 'negative' mark must be proportional to the odds of getting a 'correct' answer by pure chance.

For example, if you have 2 multiple choice answers, the chance of getting a 'correct' answer by pure guesswork is 50:50 so an incorrect answer merits -1 and a correct answer merits +1.

Equally, if you have 3 multiple choice answers, the chance of getting a 'correct' answer by pure guesswork is 0.33 .. so an incorrect answer merits -0.50 and a correct answer merits +1.

For papers with 4 and 5 multiple choice answers, the figures are -0.33 and -0.25 marks for incorrect answers respectively with +1 always being awarded for a correct answer.

Emma did not frame her questions as 'multiple choice' questions and therefore 'negative' marking cannot be fairly used, even if the person being marked is a Creationist. I therefore assume that Emma (being a 'strict but fair marker') used hyphens ... opposite some of her marks!!!:D

The comments by other Evolutionists on Emma's marks, also raises the whole issue of bias in exam marking and whether Evolutionists, in general, are able to 'rise above' their bias against Creationists to mark them fairly in science exams, even on issues that don't touch upon 'origins' issues.

Would an Evolutionist 'fail' a Creationist simply because they are a Creationist ... to prevent them (in the mind of the Evolutionist) 'destroying Evolutionary science' at some later point, if they marked them fairly and the Creationist became a qualified scientist, as a result?

The level of bias and emotional commitment to Evolutionism and the aversion to Creationism, demonstrated on this thread would indicate that this is at least a possiblity.

... and the advice must therefore continue to be that Creationism is a love that dare not speak it's name - especially in an exam!!!!:eek:

... which will probably make some Evolutionists even more paranoid about Creationists and Creationism than they already are!!!!

Sam Vimes · 17-01-2010 1:04pm

J C wrote: »

I scored a total of 8 points out of 14 possible points or 57% ... which is a 3rd class honour!!!!!!
... which is a very high score for an Evolutionist marking a Creationist ... given the wide 'conceptual gaps' that exist between Evolutionists and Creationists on 'origins' and other biological issues!!:D

But not so good for someone who claims to be both a professional mathematician and a former evolutionary scientist. I would have scored much higher and I'm neither.

J C · 17-01-2010 1:18pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But not so good for someone who claims to be both a professional mathematician and a former evolutionary scientist. I would have scored much higher and I'm neither.

...had I given 'Evolutionist' answers to every question ... I would probably have scored 100% ... but then I don't believe that such 'Evolutionist' answers are correct scientifically ... or logically!!!:D:):eek:

J C · 17-01-2010 1:35pm

doctoremma wrote:

Follow-up question:
JC - what do you view the "purpose" of a gene to be? If a base is altered in a gene but causes no change in the encoded protein, is this a "degradation" of genetic information? Even though there is no functional effect and either state of DNA (before change .v. after change) has exactly the same outcome? In this case, how would one judge which is the "correct" information, given that it could have flipped back and forth lots of times during our genetic history?

...this is evidence of 'pre-packaged' redundancy and stability 'built into' the gene at Creation, to help neutralise the effects of subsequent environmental degradation, such as mutations.:D

equivariant · 17-01-2010 1:43pm

.

J C wrote: »

... some of the evolutionists on this thread don't even appear to understand how proper marking systems operate ... never mind how to then implement them fairly on people with whom they disagree.

Could I gently point out that you cannot fairly implement a 'negative' mark on anybody's answer (even if they are a Creationist) ...unless the exam consists of multiple choice answers - and then the 'negative' mark must be proportional to the odds of getting a 'correct' answer by pure chance.

You can gently point out whatever you want - it's still rubbish. Negative marking can be and is employed by many examiners in many different types of exam. It has nothing to do with whether the exam is an MCQ or not. It is often employed in situations where the examiner wants to discourage the examinee from guessing, if he is not sure about the correct answer.

For example, if you have 2 multiple choice answers, the chance of getting a 'correct' answer by pure guesswork is 50:50 so an incorrect answer merits -1 and a correct answer merits +1.

Equally, if you have 3 multiple choice answers, the chance of getting a 'correct' answer by pure guesswork is 0.33 .. so an incorrect answer merits -0.50 and a correct answer merits +1.

For papers with 4 and 5 multiple choice answers, the figures are -0.33 and -0.25 marks for incorrect answers respectively with +1 always being awarded for a correct answer.

Emma did not frame her questions as 'multiple choice' questions and therefore 'negative' marking cannot be fairly used, even if the person being marked is a Creationist. I therefore assume that Emma (being a 'strict but fair marker') used hyphens ... opposite some of her marks!!!:D

The comments by other Evolutionists on Emma's marks, also raises the whole issue of bias in exam marking and whether Evolutionists, in general, are able to 'rise above' their bias against Creationists to mark them fairly in science exams, even on issues that don't touch upon 'origins' issues.

Would an Evolutionist 'fail' a Creationist simply because they are a Creationist ... to prevent them (in the mind of the Evolutionist) 'destroying Evolutionary science' at some later point, if they marked them fairly and the Creationist became a qualified scientist, as a result?

The level of bias and emotional commitment to Evolutionism and the aversion to Creationism, demonstrated on this thread would indicate that this is at least a possiblity.

... and the advice must therefore continue to be that Creationism is a love that dare not speak it's name - especially in an exam!!!!:eek:

... which will probably make some Evolutionists even more paranoid about Creationists and Creationism than they already are!!!!

It's impossible to be too paranoid about (young earth) creationists - they are delusional after all.

J C · 17-01-2010 1:53pm

equivariant wrote: »

You can gently point out whatever you want - it's still rubbish. Negative marking can and is employed by many examiners in many different types of exam. It has nothing to do with whether the exam is an MCQ or not. It is often employed in situations where the examiner wants to discourage the examinee from guessing, if he is not sure about the correct answer.

...the only place you need to penalise guessing is in MCQs ... in a conventional exam you mark the valid answers with a positive appropriate mark and the invalid answers with a zero (because even if a guess is being used ... it is a student-generated 'educated guess' (unlike MCQs where all of the answers (incuding the correct one) are generated by the examiner)!!!

equivariant wrote: »

It's impossible to be too paranoid about creationists - they are delusional after all.

... more confirmation, if confirmation were needed, that Creationism is a love that dare not speak it's name, almost anywhere!!!!:D

monosharp · 17-01-2010 2:40pm

JC, as boards most predominant creation magician advocate would you kindly tell us what 'kind' this slug belongs to ?

Scientists from the University of South Florida in Tampa have found a green sea slug is able to synthesize chlorophyll like a plant, which makes it the first animal known to be capable of the feat.

http://www.physorg.com/news182501672.html

Its called Elysia chlorotica and the interesting thing about it is that when the slug eats algae once, it assimilates the algaes chloroplasts directly inside its own cells. The slug only needs to eat once and can survive for its entire lifetime by photosynthesis, i.e > It never needs to eat again.

Even more interesting is that;

physorg.com/news182501672.html wrote:

In 2007 scientists, including Pierce and his team, found genes related to photosynthesis in the slugs, and these genes, apparently originally from the algae, were even found in unhatched slugs that had never eaten algae

physorg.com/news182501672.html wrote:

In the latest research Pierce found more algal genes, and some of them were for enzymes required for the chemical process manufacturing chlorophyll

So basically we have a slug which seems to be a relatively few evolutionary steps away from been capable of surviving entirely by photosynthesis.

Whats the creationist explanation for this ? (apart from denial)
What are the implications for creationists (apart from denial) if this slug develops such an ability, i.e the ability to survive entirely using photosynthesis ?

token56 · 17-01-2010 3:02pm

J C wrote: »

... some of the evolutionists on this thread don't even appear to understand how proper marking systems operate ... never mind how to then implement them fairly on people with whom they disagree.

Could I gently point out that you cannot fairly implement a 'negative' mark on anybody's answer (even if they are a Creationist) ...unless the exam consists of multiple choice answers - and then the 'negative' mark must be proportional to the odds of getting a 'correct' answer by pure chance.

For example, if you have 2 multiple choice answers, the chance of getting a 'correct' answer by pure guesswork is 50:50 so an incorrect answer merits -1 and a correct answer merits +1.

Equally, if you have 3 multiple choice answers, the chance of getting a 'correct' answer by pure guesswork is 0.33 .. so an incorrect answer merits -0.50 and a correct answer merits +1.

For papers with 4 and 5 multiple choice answers, the figures are -0.33 and -0.25 marks for incorrect answers respectively with +1 always being awarded for a correct answer.

This is probably the most ridiculous debate to be having on this thread.

First of all, I know how the negative marking scheme works regarding mcq's. Second it was probably wrong of me to use the term "negative marking" as most people do generally related this to mcq's but negative marks are not exclusively used for mcq's. Negative marking can be used where a penalty system is implemented as I believe is the case here.

Lets look at this way, there are a total of 14 marks going for a question or set of questions, the examiner is looking for 14 points in the answer for full marks. For every correct point in the answer 1 mark is awarded, if someone only has 7 of the points required they get 7 marks, etc. Now marks may also be taken away as a penalty, for example when different points being made are inconsistent or contradict each other (which was the case with some of your answers as emma has pointed out), for using terms in the wrong context or not understanding their full meaning (which you also did). Any of these "the student" has demonstrated a lack of understanding in the answers they provided and it is deemed a penalty (mark deducted) is deserved. This is what I believe is the sort of thing that was done here.

Emma did not frame her questions as 'multiple choice' questions and therefore 'negative' marking cannot be fairly used, even if the person being marked is a Creationist. I therefore assume that Emma (being a 'strict but fair marker') used hyphens ... opposite some of her marks!!!:D

Again see above that negative marking is not exclusive to mcq's, and fair schemes can be implemented using negative marks (this is presuming the examiner is fair in their marking).

I hope we can put an end to this silly marking debate soon anyway.

The comments by other Evolutionists on Emma's marks, also raises the whole issue of bias in exam marking and whether Evolutionists, in general, are able to 'rise above' their bias against Creationists to mark them fairly in science exams, even on issues that don't touch upon 'origins' issues.

Would an Evolutionist 'fail' a Creationist simply because they are a Creationist ... to prevent them (in the mind of the Evolutionist) 'destroying Evolutionary science' at some later point, if they marked them fairly and the Creationist became a qualified scientist, as a result?

The level of bias and emotional commitment to Evolutionism and the aversion to Creationism, demonstrated on this thread would indicate that this is at least a possiblity.

... and the advice must therefore continue to be that Creationism is a love that dare not speak it's name - especially in an exam!!!!:eek:

... which will probably make some Evolutionists even more paranoid about Creationists and Creationism than they already are!!!!

This is an interesting point, would it be possible for an examiner, lets say who is not a creationist, to be fair in marking for example a science exam of a creationist "student". Well normally in an exam students study a particular curriculum, and a test is set based on that curriculum. So if a student answers with something that is not on the curriculum and is in direct conflict with the answer expected (even though according to the students believes it is correct) then it is only fair to not award marks for the answer. This is because the student knows what is expected and it is their own choice to put down something which is according to their believes but contradictory to what is expected.

The "exam" here is different because there was never any standard set of what was expected. People are only marking according to what they expected and what they think is correct. You could ask a similar list of questions, someone could answer them as an evolutionist and you mark it as a creationist and of course they probably wouldn't get full marks because this is down to a difference in "believes" (although I hate using that word when it concerns science), rather than a difference between curriculum and expected answer.

doctoremma · 17-01-2010 3:32pm

monosharp wrote: »

http://www.physorg.com/news182501672.html

Monosharp, I caught this on the news last week. Absolutely fascinating and yet another nail in the coffin for those arguing against naturally increasing complexity...

doctoremma · 17-01-2010 3:39pm

My marking scheme was of the least sophisticated kind - positive marks for a correct answer, points deducted when previous correct answers were contradicted. I may have also included some negative marks where answers were directly contradicted by a mass of scientific evidence although I'm not sure I was overly consistent throughout this.

For lurkers, please be assured (in case I am identifiable in real life at any point) that I do not mark my student's exams/essays without a specific criterium in front of me

JC - according to my marks, you finished with 0 points.

Fanny Cradock · 17-01-2010 5:30pm

I haven't read the book myself, but I though some people might be interested in reading Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. Possibly to be taken with a pinch of salt (controversy sells after all), but it might contain some interesting thoughts for people on both sides.

J C · 17-01-2010 6:12pm

doctoremma wrote: »

My marking scheme was of the least sophisticated kind - positive marks for a correct answer, points deducted when previous correct answers were contradicted. I may have also included some negative marks where answers were directly contradicted by a mass of scientific evidence although I'm not sure I was overly consistent throughout this.

For lurkers, please be assured (in case I am identifiable in real life at any point) that I do not mark my student's exams/essays without a specific criterium in front of me

JC - according to my marks, you finished with 0 points.

...this proves that Creation Science and Evolution are incompatible.
Due to the dominance of Evolutionism in conventional scientific institutions, Creationist students shouldn't reveal their interest in Creation Science ... and they should regurgitate the 'baloney' that the Evolutionists 'feed' them in order to obtain their scientific qualifications!!!

... to paraphrase the well known song about schooling ... 'flowers are red and green leaves are green ... we are all gloriified Pondslime ... and there is no need to see the world any other way than the way that Evolutionists say it always should be seen'!!!!
...and if you don't do so - you will get ZERO marks ... and spend the rest of your life on the dole ... or in a 'dead end' job !!!!

... in the meantime, Creation Scientists from the highest levels of conventional science, pursue their research and peer-review of both Creation Science and Evolutionst science papers ... the best of both worlds, you might say ... for the best scientists in the World.:):D

J C · 17-01-2010 6:46pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I haven't read the book myself, but I though some people might be interested in reading Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. Possibly to be taken with a pinch of salt (controversy sells after all), but it might contain some interesting thoughts for people on both sides.

... I would highly recommend it as an objective assessment of the 'state of play' with ID currently.

I disagreed with some of his conclusions ... but overall it is a 'mind expanding' book for Evolutionists and Creationists!!!

This review provides a brief but accurate acount of the book:-
"Reading Bradley Monton's book, Seeking God in Science; an Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, was a fascinating, thought-provoking experience. A professor of the philosophy of science, Monton's goal is to help people get past the usual objections that prevent them for considering the arguments and evidence for intelligent design, such as, "ID isn't science;" or "ID is just a God-of-the-gaps argument." Once he clears the path, Monton then considers some of the arguments for intelligent design. He concludes that they might have some strength, but not enough to persuade him that Atheism isn't more likely to be true. I recommend it highly for ID proponents and critics alike. There's much you'll like and dislike, regardless of which side of the debate you're on."

...however, if I had to recommend one book on the ID issue, I would recommend "How to be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not)"
http://www.amazon.com/How-Intellectually-Fulfilled-Atheist-Not/dp/1933859849/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t... here is a good review of this book which is both 'a nail in the coffin' ... and 'an open grave' for evolution :-

"How to be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not) is an excellent readable review of the many lethal problems with the theory of abiogenesis and the evolution of the first cell. We have come a long way since Stanley Miller's research and what seemed plausible then has been shown by science research since then to be impossible. The authors cover all aspects of the abiogenesis theory from the oxygen problem (free oxygen is a major problem for abiogenesis and good evidence now exists that free oxygen existed on the early earth) to the enormous leap from simple organic molecules to a so-called simple cell. This excellent work documents that the very first link required for naturalistic evolution to work is missing. Some, such as S. J. Gould, claim that evolution refers only to evolution from the single cell stage to humans, a definition that attempts to avoid the serious problems with the first step. If molecules to cell evolution cannot be explained by naturalistic means and, one then appeals to intelligent design, the battle is lost by the evolutionists.":eek::)

Sam Vimes · 17-01-2010 6:48pm

J C wrote: »

...this proves that Creation Science and Evolution are incompatible.
Due to the dominance of Evolutionism in conventional scientific institutions, Creationist students shouldn't reveal their interest in Creation Science ... and they should regurgitate the 'baloney' that the Evolutionists 'feed' them in order to obtain their scientific qualifications!!!

... to paraphrase the well known song about schooling ... 'flowers are red and green leaves are green ... we are all gloriified Pondslime ... and there is no need to see the world any other way than the way than Evolutionists say it always should be seen'!!!!
...and if you don't do so - you will get ZERO marks ... and spend the rest of your life on the dole ... or in a 'dead end' job !!!!

... in the meantime, Creation Scientists from the highest levels of conventional science, pursue their research and peer-review of both Creation Science and Evolutionst science papers ... the best of both worlds, you might say ... for the best scientists in the World.:):D

You're so right. It's the same with advocates of the stork theory of reproduction. They also have to keep their ideas to themselves in the scientific community or they will be ridiculed. And this is of course all the scientific community's fault and not at all because the ideas being ridiculed are ridiculous

wolfsbane · 17-01-2010 7:02pm

You'll love this:
Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=1

Some great quotes too from those justifying discrimination against Creationist scientists, eg:
That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”

J C · 17-01-2010 7:06pm

doctoremma wrote: »

Monosha:):Drp, I caught this on the news last week. Absolutely fascinating and yet another nail in the coffin for those arguing against naturally increasing complexity...

...so what!!!
...an intelligently designed slug that photosynthesises using sequestered intelligently designed chlorphyll genes!!!

...from an evolutionist point of view, if all creatures are descended from green pondslime ... we should ALL have green skin!!!:eek:
...why would any creature 'lose' such a useful trait (which would be the ultimate in self-sufficiency)!!!:):D

On the other hand, if each kind was independently created by a Common Designer ... such commonalities should be expected ... but they should not necessarily be widespread!!!!:D

J C · 17-01-2010 7:38pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

You'll love this:
Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=1

Some great quotes too from those justifying discrimination against Creationist scientists, eg:
That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”

...another interesting quote:-
"Scientists “ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science,” he said. “That’s what Ph.D. stands for.”
PhD doesn't stand for Philosopher of Science ... but is instead Doctor of Philosophy ... and it CERTAINLY doesn't stand for 'Evolutionist at Work'!!!

... the 'thought police' are knocking on the doors ... and most of the 'Liberal Christians' are asleep!!!!

Presumably the ultimate solution, if a PhD becomes a Saved Christian after s/he qualifies ... is to rescind their degrees and their doctorate!!!!

...so whatever you do ... say NOTHING when you talk about YOU KNOW WHAT ... because if YOU KNOW WHO is listenting ... YOU KNOW WHAT you'll get ... and it won't be a degree in Biology ... or a PhD !!!!!:(:eek:

wolfsbane · 17-01-2010 7:58pm

Excelsior wrote: »

NT Wright, perhaps the world's leading Biblical scholar, on Genesis 1-3

N.T Wright is unreliable on more than just Genesis. He has flirted with the New Perspective on Paul error as well.

As to his views on Genesis, they are not based on Genesis but on the modern consensus of science. He makes assertions as to what Genesis means, but fails to follow through with any credible explanation as to why Christ and the apostles appear to treat Genesis as the historical narrative it appears to be.

I've followed up a few TE theologians, and they all seem keen to avoid answering specifics about this and about where real history begins in the Bible and 'parable' leaves off. Indeed, one ventured to say, I am willing to grant that Job and Jonah are Bronze age works of fiction but not the rest of the Old Testament. For him Genesis One is not a chronoligical histroical account but rather a schematic ahistorical account expressing the FACT of God as creator in terms of 3000 year old cosmology and bits of the rest of the OT are fiction and some is history.

I think the blogger who follows on in your link has a key point:
I think the conversation needs to be broadened to include a discussion regarding why NT authors such as Paul and Christ, for example Matt 19:4, also refer to Adam and Eve as literal historical characters. This is because regarding Gen 1-11 as non-literal and non-historical has implications for an evangelical understanding of the NT.

The big problem TE has to explain is suffering and death being described as 'very good'. Paul appears to say they are results of the Fall, not a very good and necessary mechanism to bring mankind on the scene.

There is no difference between what happened in Haiti last week and what is supposed to have happened thousands/millions of times in evolutionary history. This is the way God created it to be, if TE is true.

J C · 17-01-2010 7:59pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're so right. It's the same with advocates of the stork theory of reproduction. They also have to keep their ideas to themselves in the scientific community or they will be ridiculed. And this is of course all the scientific community's fault and not at all because the ideas being ridiculed are ridiculous

... Evolution is the ultimate 'Stork Theory of Reproduction' ... something that nobody has ever seen and with no basis in logic or science ...
... but nonetheless a nice 'fairy tale' with which to entertain particularly young children (ideally under about 5 years of age) ... and little use for anything else!!!!:eek::):D

token56 · 17-01-2010 8:45pm

J C wrote: »

...this proves that Creation Science and Evolution are incompatible.
Due to the dominance of Evolutionism in conventional scientific institutions, Creationist students shouldn't reveal their interest in Creation Science ... and they should regurgitate the 'baloney' that the Evolutionists 'feed' them in order to obtain their scientific qualifications!!!

... to paraphrase the well known song about schooling ... 'flowers are red and green leaves are green ... we are all gloriified Pondslime ... and there is no need to see the world any other way than the way than Evolutionists say it always should be seen'!!!!
...and if you don't do so - you will get ZERO marks ... and spend the rest of your life on the dole ... or in a 'dead end' job !!!!

One of the main reasons the two are incompatible is because of the way they differ in making and evaluating scientific claims. Should a creationist student want to make a claim based on creationist science in a convential scientific institution, they are more than welcome to and I'm sure most scientists would like them to, however their claim will have to undergo the same rigors as any other claim that is made.

Convential scientists are not afraid of people questioning their ideas, or concepts currently accepted (if no one ever questioned what was currently accepted we would never progress) so long as they can provide similar evidence that follows the scientific method and is of a similar standard to that already presented. Unfortunately this is where the problem starts, creationist scientists dont do this. This is mostly because claims that are made by creationist scientists are incompatible with the scientific method used by the wider scientific community. Because of this creation and convential science will never be compatable. I'd also like to point out that I'm not just talking evolution here, but geology, astrology, whatever.

... in the meantime, Creation Scientists from the highest levels of conventional science, pursue their research and peer-review of both Creation Science and Evolutionst science papers ... the best of both worlds, you might say ... for the best scientists in the World.:):D

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, that creation scientists pursue research under scrutany of both worlds, but evolutionist scientists don't? Again conventionial science is open to peer-review by anyone. If anyone can provide some further insight, or evidence which supports or detracts from the claim, it is all welcomed, but again this is evidence has to meet the level of questioning as the science it is questioning. Creationist scientist are more than welcome to provide the evidence but it is when their evidence is put under the same level of questioning it fails.

I would also argue when you say creation science pursues research under peer review of both worlds. Creation science has the problem that questioning is limited. One must always take the bible as being true. You are therefore taking something as fact, such as the great flood, and only looking for evidence which might support it. Should something propose evidence that doesn't support it, it will be ignored or disputed by the simple fact that bible says it is wrong. This is not true science because you are always limited in the amount of questioning you can do and what you can and cannot question. It is these boundaries that are your greatest problem. Conventional science has no limit on what can and cannot be questioned, this is another reason the two could never be compatible. Conventional science could start with the hypothesis "if there was a great flood then, ..." and test this claim and also the hypothesis "if there was no great flood then, ..." and this could also be tested. Creation science only looks at the one.

J C wrote: »

...from an evolutionist point of view, if all creatures are descended from pondslime ... we should ALL have green skin!!!:eek:
...why would any creature 'lose' such a useful trait (which would be the ultimate in self-sufficiency!!!:):D

By saying this you are again really displaying your lacking of understanding of evolution and what evolutionists claim, but this has been shown time and time again in this thread. Could you please point me to some evidence where evolutionists make a claim as bold as this?

J C · 17-01-2010 8:48pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

You'll love this:
Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=1

Some great quotes too from those justifying discrimination against Creationist scientists, eg:
That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”

... now where did I last hear such a defense for such discrimination????

J C · 17-01-2010 9:09pm

token56 wrote: »

One of the main reasons the two are incompatible is because of the way they differ in making and evaluating scientific claims. Should a creationist student want to make a claim based on creationist science in a convential scientific institution, they are more than welcome to and I'm sure most scientists would like them to, however their claim will have to undergo the same rigors as any other claim that is made.

... that SHOULD be the way that academic and religious freedom SHOULD operate ... but once the awarding of a degree is based on somebody's religious views being examined before awarding it ... such high-minded pretentions have been effectively abandoned!!!!:eek:

token56 wrote: »

Convential scientists are not afraid of people questioning their ideas, or concepts currently accepted (if no one ever questioned what was currently accepted we would never progress) so long as they can provide similar evidence that follows the scientific method and is of a similar standard to that already presented. Unfortunately this is where the problem starts, creationist scientists dont do this. This is mostly because claims that are made by creationist scientists are incompatible with the scientific method used by the wider scientific community. Because of this creation and convential science will never be compatable. I'd also like to point out that I'm not just talking evolution here, but geology, astrology, whatever.

... that SHOULD be the way that academic freedom SHOULD operate ... but once a self-serving Materialistic definition of science is used ... such high-minded pretentions have been effectively abandoned!!!!:eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...from an evolutionist point of view, if all creatures are descended from pondslime ... we should ALL have green skin!!!
...why would any creature 'lose' such a useful trait (which would be the ultimate in self-sufficiency!!!

token56
By saying this you are again really displaying your lacking of understanding of evolution and what evolutionists claim, but this has been shown time and time again in this thread. Could you please point me to some evidence where evolutionists make a claim as bold as this?

...my hypothesis is the logical follow-on from the idea that green photsynthesising 'Pondslime became Man' ... but because the lack of green skin on nearly ALL animals decimates the idea that 'Pondslime became Man' it is, of course something upon which Evolutionists don't wish to focus!!!:eek:

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments