The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

doctoremma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

to pre-empt his answer: because we don't want to live under god's laws so we fool ourselves into thinking he doesn't exist and censor anyone who tries to tell "the truth"

Is that close enough woflsbane?

So basically a conspiracy theory?

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

So basically a conspiracy theory?

Pretty much yeah. Creationists claim that they work just like other scientists trying to publish work etc but that they're censored by the scientific community who are biased against them. It's believable to people like wolfsbane because you never see any creation "scientists" publishing any work so the only explanation must be that their work is being censored because it couldn't be that they're not actually producing any and are just lying about being censored.

doctoremma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Pretty much yeah. Creationists claim that they work just like other scientists trying to publish work etc but that they're censored by the scientific community who are biased against them. It's believable to people like wolfsbane because you never see any creation "scientists" publishing any work so the only explanation must be that their work is being censored because it couldn't be that they're not actually producing any and are just lying about being censored.

At the risk of sounding extremely stupid, what is the output of a creation "scientist"? Do they work on reinterpreting existing scientific data or do they actually do experiments? I'm struggling to grasp this.

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

At the risk of sounding extremely stupid, what is the output of a creation "scientist"? Do they work on reinterpreting existing scientific data or do they actually do experiments? I'm struggling to grasp this.

As far as I can see they make up things that are supposed to be disproofs of evolution because they think that if they do that the bible will win by default. Have a look at www.answersingenesis.org for some grade A BS

liamw

doctoremma wrote: »

At the risk of sounding extremely stupid, what is the output of a creation "scientist"? Do they work on reinterpreting existing scientific data or do they actually do experiments? I'm struggling to grasp this.

It seems to be more about trying to debunk scientific theories. J.C keeps bringing up the irreducible complexity of biochemical cascades (seems like they've left the eye one now), as if showing that showing that science is wrong somewhere automatically means creationism is correct.

He seems to forget about the other numerous disciplines that have their basis in the fact that the universe is more than a few thousand years old.

The whole thing seems typical of religious argument. If science is wrong somewhere or doesn't know the answer yet, therefore God did it. It's just bad logic.

Turtwig

doctoremma wrote: »

At the risk of sounding extremely stupid, what is the output of a creation "scientist"? Do they work on reinterpreting existing scientific data or do they actually do experiments? I'm struggling to grasp this.

Oh, now this I can't resist. DI, does do some science but they're not finding the results they want.

She [Ann Gauger. Biologic Institute, research segment of Discovery Institute.] was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh, now this I can't resist. DI, does do some science but their not finding the results they want.

She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

She's obviously never met J C or she would have know exactly what to say: The CSI for the beneficial information was already in the code but just not being expressed :pac::):D:o:eek::rolleyes:*


*Meaning that she made a load of crazy faces as if she was having a stroke after saying it

doctoremma

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh, now this I can't resist. DI, does do some science but they're not finding the results they want.

D'oh

Have bookmarked the page and will read when I need some light relief.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

simplicity = eeeeeeeeeeeeeee or aaabbbaaabbbaaabbb
non-specified complexity = ashkjwoioncvnfhkzdvndjbvsdkfl;dsvjklkbdsfkvldsk
specified complexity = the argument that Specified Complexity doesn't exist is the nadir of Materialistic denial!!!:D

J C, could you apply the principles of CSI to the below strings and tell me which of them is simplicity, which is non-specified complexity and which is specified complexity and why:


hasdfkõlfasòEd'sdfHafjkăëlsadf'sdfjsd'as
aaabbbaaaaaabbbaaaaaabbbaaa
bbbbbbbttttbbbbaaaaaaabbbbbbbbaaaaaahhhhdddddd
sutydychchiheddiwRwy'nteimlo'ndda
J C is not really a professional mathematician
ézyefla'ădijfaìézyefla'ădijfaì
létrehozásátatudományegyrakáshülyeség
dfhasdfnlskTsGhbCdnéèëEĉhiheddiw

Fanny Cradock

equivariant wrote: »

But if any poster continually and brazenly misleads people (without any censure), what should one do? If I make accusations, they are not without basis in fact. J C has claimed that he is a qualified mathematician. That is a matter of fact. It is also true that he is demonstrably not mathematically competent - he has demonstrated this in many many posts in this thread. With his level of mathematical incompetence there is no way that he could have obtained any degree that would justify his claim to be a qualified mathematician. Bear in mind that a key point of his 'argument' is the suposedly mathematical concept of 'CSI'. If J C withdraws his claim to be a 'qualified mathematician' (or offers some real independent assessment to support it) then I would have to reconsider.

Perhaps you could PM JC for some supporting evidence about his qualifications rather than making public accusations. JC, maybe you would consider offering some evidence to put this to rest.

It's possible that JC is a bad mathematician, or maybe he is qualified but at a lower level, or possibly he's got qualifications coming out his ears and he is presenting some brilliant mathematical proofs that you can't understand. I simply don't know. However, unless you have some inside knowledge about who JC is in real life, I fail to see how you can categorically state that he isn't a mathematician. Therefore it is speculation on your part. Concentrate on the subject at hand and point out flaws when you see them. One can question how a professional mathematician can make such glaring mistakes without accusing someone of lying. The evidence presented will either stand or fall.

Sam Vimes, I figure that you have simply missed my previous two warnings on this matter :rolleyes: See it doesn't happen again.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's possible that JC is a bad mathematician, or maybe he is qualified but at a lower level, or possibly he's got qualifications coming out his ears and he is presenting some brilliant mathematical proofs that you can't understand. I simply don't know. However, unless you have some inside knowledge about who JC is in real life, I fail to see how you can categorically state that he isn't a mathematician. Therefore it is speculation on your part. Concentrate on the subject at hand and point out flaws when you see them. One can question how a professional mathematician can make such glaring mistakes without accusing someone of lying. The evidence presented will either stand or fall.

I have little concern that those engaged in the debate here are able to dismantle JC's arguments. However, to those lurking, perhaps looking to learn something, it might appear very confusing. If JC is making inaccurate and unsupportable mathematical leaps but claiming to be a qualified mathematician, a lurker/learner might be tempted to take what he says as true*. Why would you accept the argument of a biologist over the argument of a mathematician when the subject is maths? JC is trying to evoke an argument from authority when it's apparent that he isn't qualified to do so, either because his maths qualifications are bogus or woefully inadequate. I believe my feelings on the adequacy of his biological training are clear throughout my posts. While many of us may try to also use arguments from authority, there is ample evidence that we are qualified to do so and people are happy to admit when they are not.

If he tried to teach my children any of this, I'd have him sacked for incompetance. I'm aware this is a public forum and isn't necessarily bound by truth but it's quite annoying

*I don't mean to suggest that lurkers cannot independently work through the arguments and make their own mind up.

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

I have little concern that those engaged in the debate here are able to dismantle JC's arguments. However, to those lurking, perhaps looking to learn something, it might appear very confusing. If JC is making inaccurate and unsupportable mathematical leaps but claiming to be a qualified mathematician, a lurker/learner might be tempted to take what he says as true*. Why would you accept the argument of a biologist over the argument of a mathematician when the subject is maths? JC is trying to evoke an argument from authority when it's apparent that he isn't qualified to do so, either because his maths qualifications are bogus or woefully inadequate. I believe my feelings on the adequacy of his biological training are clear throughout my posts. While many of us may try to also use arguments from authority, there is ample evidence that we are qualified to do so and people are happy to admit when they are not.

If he tried to teach my children any of this, I'd have him sacked for incompetance. I'm aware this is a public forum and isn't necessarily bound by truth but it's quite annoying

*I don't mean to suggest that lurkers cannot independently work through the arguments and make their own mind up.

Please understand that I'm trying to remain objective, doctoremma. Therefore, unless we can conclusively say that JC is not what he claims, I see this as a matter of subtle degrees. It is possible to challenge claims to authority based on what is written and without resorting to name calling. In the face of conclusive evidence that JC is lying (as opposed to, say, being a really bad mathematician) I believe that insisting he is a liar clashes with the 6th (and possibly 3rd) rule of the charter.

wolfsbane

equivariant wrote: »

But if any poster continually and brazenly misleads people (without any censure), what should one do? If I make accusations, they are not without basis in fact. J C has claimed that he is a qualified mathematician. That is a matter of fact. It is also true that he is demonstrably not mathematically competent - he has demonstrated this in many many posts in this thread. With his level of mathematical incompetence there is no way that he could have obtained any degree that would justify his claim to be a qualified mathematician. Bear in mind that a key point of his 'argument' is the suposedly mathematical concept of 'CSI'. If J C withdraws his claim to be a 'qualified mathematician' (or offers some real independent assessment to support it) then I would have to reconsider.

Part of the topic at hand is the attempt by many YECs to pass off their beliefs as science. Indeed imo, nothing could be more relevant to the topic at hand. The pseudo science of YEC has been refuted and debunked conclusively on this thread and in many other forums.

So what is a reasonable course of action? To continue to pretend that there is some point of YEC that deserves serious scientific analysis - there is not. On the other, one can address the real issue which is the deception both of themselves and of others that is practised by YECs. This is surely the real issue here.

It seems Christians are (usually) more generous in their treatment of opponents. We regard your scientific arguments as flawed and your philosophical arguments based on them as delusional - but not necessarily wilfully deceptive. Self-delusion is more to be pitied than ordinary deception.

Christians also appreciate the power that is working this self-delusion in you - a power second only to God. So we continue to witness to you and pray for you.

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

I guess that's better than being accused of willfully bullying the religious faction into submission....

Still, if I were a scientist who cared about fame, glory, a place in history and the Nobel of Nobel prizes, what topics do you think I'd be researching?

A cure for cancer - sure, that might do it.
A clean, renewable, cheap energy source - more likely.
Empirical evidence that god exists - I think this would nail it.

So, given that if I could generate data to show god exists and that this would make as famous as Darwin and Newton, why am I not doing it? If a scientist is self-interested, this is an obvious research path, no? You've got to ask - why aren't scientists doing it?

You are not doing it because you don't want God to exist. That was the supreme motivation behind such a rush to embrace evolution - a scientific theory that got rid of the God of the Bible.

No riches or honour would compensate your rebel heart for having to admit He is real.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

to pre-empt his answer: because we don't want to live under god's laws so we fool ourselves into thinking he doesn't exist and censor anyone who tries to tell "the truth"

Is that close enough woflsbane?

Glad to see you have grasped the message.

equivariant

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you could PM JC for some supporting evidence about his qualifications rather than making public accusations. JC, maybe you would consider offering some evidence to put this to rest.

It's possible that JC is a bad mathematician, or maybe he is qualified but at a lower level, or possibly he's got qualifications coming out his ears and he is presenting some brilliant mathematical proofs that you can't understand. I simply don't know. However, unless you have some inside knowledge about who JC is in real life, I fail to see how you can categorically state that he isn't a mathematician. Therefore it is speculation on your part. Concentrate on the subject at hand and point out flaws when you see them. One can question how a professional mathematician can make such glaring mistakes without accusing someone of lying. The evidence presented will either stand or fall.

Sam Vimes, I figure that you have simply missed my previous two warnings on this matter :rolleyes: See it doesn't happen again.

Let me respond with an analogy. If someone claims to be a qualified chef, but is incapable of making toast or boiling an egg (not just in one instance but having repeated and consistent failures to prepare even the simplest meal) would you feel justified in questioning their qualifications as a chef?

If they then went on to claim that Jamie Oliver/Gordon Ramsay/Nigella Lawson/etc had it all wrong and couldn't actually cook at all. Moroever, if that person also claimed that the only reason they themselves weren't a famous chef was because of some vaguely defined conspiracy to keep them out of the chefing world - all this despite the fact that they couldn't boil an egg. Would you feel that this person was being even a little bit dishonest?

The only difference here is that some YECs claim knowledge in technical areas such as biology or information theory. They cannot even boil a methaphorical egg in these disciplines, however, because, most people (quite understandably) are not au fait with the technical details of these areas, they can get away with this deception.

I accept that my accusatory language was strident. However, to go back to my chef analogy, you might imagine that such an imposter would be met with similarly strident language in a discussion of cooking methods.

PS Regarding the issue of pointig out flaws when I see them - I have done that with some of J Cs arguments. Many others have done so much more frequently than I. He tends to ignore these points and respond with bad jokes (in my opinion at least) and smileys, then wait for a while and reapeat exactly the same arguments that have previously been debunked. Is this the behaviour of an honest person? I only ask the question (*not* making an accusation).

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are not doing it because you don't want God to exist.

And you know this how exactly?

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Pretty much yeah. Creationists claim that they work just like other scientists trying to publish work etc but that they're censored by the scientific community who are biased against them. It's believable to people like wolfsbane because you never see any creation "scientists" publishing any work so the only explanation must be that their work is being censored because it couldn't be that they're not actually producing any and are just lying about being censored.

I and all of us can see creationist scientific work at the click of a mouse: the several sites I have often linked to contain a wealth of their semi-technical work and some of their technical material.

They also publish the technical material in their journals, Creation Research Quarterly, for example.

And of course their technical books, like the RATE books.

They only manage to get published in establishment journals if they do not point to YEC conclusions, and just let the readers draw their own conclusions about where the evidence takes them. Or if they are dealing with material that has no creation/evolution connotations - but even then pressure is being exerted to exclude them as scientific heretics.

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

And you know this how exactly?

Human experience. We all start out that way. We all have to be converted - thought for some it is a bigger struggle than for others.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

We all have to be converted - thought for some it is a bigger struggle than for others.

Yeah, some people have more demanding thresholds for what constitutes evidence.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are not doing it because you don't want God to exist. That was the supreme motivation behind such a rush to embrace evolution - a scientific theory that got rid of the God of the Bible.

No riches or honour would compensate your rebel heart for having to admit He is real.

As I said wolfsbane, all I have to do to disprove your god is point at a star. No evolution necessary. When you can give me a non-ridiculous explanation for why I can see stars that are billions of light years away in a universe that's less than 6000 years old you might have a point

Caveat

Do the christians infiltrate the atheist threads as much as vice versa?!

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

I and all of us can see creationist scientific work at the click of a mouse: the several sites I have often linked to contain a wealth of their semi-technical work and some of their technical material.

Anyone with $5.99 can set up a website

wolfsbane wrote: »

They also publish the technical material in their journals, Creation Research Quarterly, for example.

And of course their technical books, like the RATE books.

They only manage to get published in establishment journals if they do not point to YEC conclusions, and just let the readers draw their own conclusions about where the evidence takes them. Or if they are dealing with material that has no creation/evolution connotations - but even then pressure is being exerted to exclude them as scientific heretics.

Would you never think that maybe the reason that they have consistently failed to get their work recognised is that their work is not very good? Even if creationism is true that doesn't necessarily mean that every piece of work done by people promoting the idea is correct or follows rigorous scientific principles

Sam Vimes

Caveat wrote: »

Do the christians infiltrate the atheist threads as much as vice versa?!

This thread is an exception on the christianity forum, in other threads it's much less common. Unfortunately the christians rarely venture into the atheism & agnosticism forum. I wish they would more often so that we could challenge their ideas more freely but the few that start rarely stay long. Of course that's because us atheists are so arrogant, disrespectful and poopy-headed and not at all because they have trouble making their case

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I said wolfsbane, all I have to do to disprove your god is point at a star. No evolution necessary

How does a star disprove my God? I assume you refer to its distance and the time light takes to arrive from it. Certainly, if it was created in its present approximate position the Genesis account is mistaken and the God revealed therein also disproved.

But that assumes something neither you or I believe. Both of us have the stars being part of a universe being stretched out over vast expanses. You estimate it moved from a singularity to its present apparent position in some 13G of our years. I take it to have happened in a short time - in a day. I'm not sure if that entails a singularity or whether formed stars were moved into position from a central point - but the issue is what such faster-than-light movement would do to time. Or maybe better - if lightspeed was constant, what did such movement (the universe expanded in a day) do to time?

As I understand the basic arguments from YEC sources, an Earth at or near the centre of the universe would exist in normal time while the star systems used up billions of years in getting to their objective. That's my non-scientific grasp of the argument. Humphreys and others have argued the science:
http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

https://store.creation.com/uk/product_info.php?sku=10-2-043

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This thread is an exception on the christianity forum, in other threads it's much less common. Unfortunately the christians rarely venture into the atheism & agnosticism forum. I wish they would more often so that we could challenge their ideas more freely but the few that start rarely stay long. Of course that's because us atheists are so arrogant, disrespectful and poopy-headed and not at all because they have trouble making their case

If I ever get more time, I will take you up on the offer.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Anyone with $5.99 can set up a website

Would you never think that maybe the reason that they have consistently failed to get their work recognised is that their work is not very good? Even if creationism is true that doesn't necessarily mean that every piece of work done by people promoting the idea is correct or follows rigorous scientific principles

I did not suggest them having a web-site proved their case. Strange you suggest I did.

Yes, no doubt some of any scientist's material may not make the grade. But I suggest the bile and religious zeal with which creationists are dismissed goes far beyond that.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

How does a star disprove my God? I assume you refer to its distance and the time light takes to arrive from it. Certainly, if it was created in its present approximate position the Genesis account is mistaken and the God revealed therein also disproved.

But that assumes something neither you or I believe. Both of us have the stars being part of a universe being stretched out over vast expanses. You estimate it moved from a singularity to its present apparent position in some 13G of our years. I take it to have happened in a short time - in a day. I'm not sure if that entails a singularity or whether formed stars were moved into position from a central point - but the issue is what such faster-than-light movement would do to time. Or maybe better - if lightspeed was constant, what did such movement (the universe expanded in a day) do to time?

As I understand the basic arguments from YEC sources, an Earth at or near the centre of the universe would exist in normal time while the star systems used up billions of years in getting to their objective. That's my non-scientific grasp of the argument. Humphreys and others have argued the science:
http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

https://store.creation.com/uk/product_info.php?sku=10-2-043

Which is rebutted even by other creationists:
http://www.reasons.org/unraveling-starlight-and-time-0

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which is rebutted even by other creationists:
http://www.reasons.org/unraveling-starlight-and-time-0

Evolutionists and OEC of course dispute YEC material. I could just as well point out Ross and co. rebutt evolutionist arguments.

So what? Each is arguing for their scientific analysis. One expects them to rebut all else.

Fanny Cradock

equivariant wrote: »

Let me respond with an analogy. If someone claims to be a qualified chef, but is incapable of making toast or boiling an egg (not just in one instance but having repeated and consistent failures to prepare even the simplest meal) would you feel justified in questioning their qualifications as a chef?

Yet the whole point of Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares is that as well as uncovering chefs in the waiting, he often encounters qualified chefs who can't turn on an oven let alone cook an egg or run a successful kitchen. They are judged on their ability to cook, and unless you want to be confused for the Ramsay of evolution, I suggest that you lay off the insults.

Before typing up this analogy you should have asked yourself the following.

Question 1: Am I saying anything new?
Question 2: Am I saying anything that Fanny hasn't considered of before?

In both cases the answer is "no".

I humbly suggest that you should concern yourself with presenting the facts and let them speak for themselves, rather than dispensing damaging dispersions about somebody in a claim you can't fully support. (Dose that description happen to remind you about anyone?) Simply put: unlike science I'm not dealing in probabilities here. Either JC is lying or he isn't. And unless you produce JC's CV or something along those lines, I suggest you drop it. In the absence of definative proof I'm not going to allow what amounts to slander to be aired here. This is across the board for Christians and non-Christians alike.

Finally, while you consider inventive ways of pointing out flaws without resorting to name calling, here is another couple of questions to consider before you even think about making a reply to this post.

Question 3: Am I going to change Fanny's opinion on this?
Answer: No.

Question 4: What happens to me when Fanny's grows tired of repeating the same points and releases his pain bombs?
Answer: Pain! (In the virtual sense, of course.)

equivariant wrote: »

PS Regarding the issue of pointig out flaws when I see them - I have done that with some of J Cs arguments. Many others have done so much more frequently than I. He tends to ignore these points and respond with bad jokes (in my opinion at least) and smileys, then wait for a while and reapeat exactly the same arguments that have previously been debunked. Is this the behaviour of an honest person? I only ask the question (*not* making an accusation).

Frustrating, of course, but it's difficult to act against, especially because JC would likely retort that he is answering your questions and it's you who aren't listening. Perhaps it would be best to operate under the principle that if somebody isn't answering your question then maybe you have won. Because I'm not sure I can make somebody reply.