The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

liamw

J C wrote: »

Evolutionism has turned to naked discrimination and persecution to try and 'muzzle' its nemesis (Creation Scientists)...
Evolutionism does this to temporarily 'shore up its crumbling fascade' while its tacticians try desperately to find a viable materialistic alternative to the current hopelessly inadequate Darwinian explanation for the arrival of the fittest!!!.

This has to be by far the most ridiculous conspirancy theory I've ever heard. So this is how you justify the acceptance of evolution over creationism in the scientific community? So who exactly is responsible for setting up all the evidence and who is controlling it all?

JC, what lengths won't you go to reconcile your little fairytale.. oh dear

equivariant

J C wrote: »

Functionality is an established cause and effect.

...I think that I'm going to have to charge for these Creation Science tutorials!!!:eek::)

This is pathetic. What you have proposed is not a definition of *anything*. It is meaningless gobbledygook. It is not a useful definition in that it can mean anything that you want it to.

"Functionality is an established cause and effect." - that means nothing at all. If you do start charging you will be following in a long standing creationist tradition of charlatanism.

Of course you have yet again refused to state the level of your mathematical training (I suspect it is minimal). Having a degree with a few basic mathematical courses in it does *not* make you a qualified mathematician.

Also you have yet again refused to answer the comprehensive deconstruction of "CSI" in http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

Basically you have stuck your fingers in your ears and kept shouting "CSI does exist, CSI does exist, CSI does exist, ...."

It doesn't - it is complete rubbish. Not only is the concept rubbish, but you have not even given an accurate representation of Dembski's 'work'. So your posts on CSI have two layers of nonsense in them - your own brand on top of Dembski's nonsense.

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

...GO ON ... tell us who did it????

...or was it just a spontaneous coming-together of random electrons on the Boards.ie ???

It was me I did admit to it under that other handle but the post never made it to Boards due to the banning. It was meant as a joke, not to offend anyone, so apologies if it did. The reason for all the Chuck Norrisisms in the other forum was to try and get enough posts so I could create a sig with the imposters handle. Hey J C you know I love you

monosharp

Hey JC, are you going to answer or ignore my question ?

Can you solve this equation ?

{x,y:E N|x < 3 ^ y < x ● (x,y)}

Fanny Cradock

Be careful, SW! Dual accounts are a big no, no.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Hey JC, are you going to answer or ignore my question ?

Can you solve this equation ?

{x,y:E N|x < 3 ^ y < x ● (x,y)}

If you want to ask questions of JC regarding Creationism then that is fine.

Posing random mathematrical problems stops now. I hope that is understood. End of discussion.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...EVERY biochemical process known to science is irreducibly complex ... and even minor changes causes them to COMPLETELY lose functionality!!!!!

Now we're getting somewhere. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Or is it yet another baseless declaration?

Is the human eye irreducibly complex, ie is it impossible for an eye to have any function if it doesn't have all of the components of our eye?

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Be careful, SW! Dual accounts are a big no, no.

I thought that was only if it was to get around a ban?

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I thought that was only if it was to get around a ban?

Do you want to admit anything to me, Sam :pac:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_whatis#faq_bie_faq_whatis_siterules

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you want to admit anything to me, Sam :pac:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_whatis#faq_bie_faq_whatis_siterules

NEVER!!!!!! :pac:

Right so

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

It was me I did admit to it under that other handle but the post never made it to Boards due to the banning. It was meant as a joke, not to offend anyone, so apologies if it did. The reason for all the Chuck Norrisisms in the other forum was to try and get enough posts so I could create a sig with the imposters handle. Hey J C you know I love you

Bit late now, but you do know that nobody tends to notice the difference between underscores and spaces online vbulletin forum usernames?
E.g
Malty T
Malty_T

Why didn't you reg as J_C, instead of J__C? We mightn't even have caught the illusion then.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Bit late now, but you do know that nobody tends to notice the difference between underscores and spaces online vbulletin forum usernames?
E.g
Malty T
Malty_T

Why didn't you reg as J_C, instead of J__C? We mightn't even have caught the illusion then.

J_C's already taken:http://boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=252992

doctoremma

Where do posters perceive the line between "non-living" and "living" entities? Does this perceived line present a particular problem for creationists, who require some kind of special intervention to make the leap across such a boundary? Do we stick to biological definitions such as "respiration" and "stimulus response"? Do we subconsciously factor in concepts such as "purpose" and "consciousness"?

If you were to rank the following in order of "non-living" to "living", how would it look?

bacteria, salt crystal, animal, plant, virus, RNA, prion

For me, everything is chemistry and I find it impossible to draw a line between "non-living" and "living". It's all down to the arrangement of the atoms involved.

Soul Winner

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Be careful, SW! Dual accounts are a big no, no.

GULP!!! :eek: Apologies again.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

GULP!!! :eek: Apologies again.

Consider your knuckles rapped. Do it again and we set the sister on you.

token56

PDN wrote: »

Consider your knuckles rapped. Do it again and we set the sister on you.

You never know, he might enjoy that type of thing.:p

J C

token56 wrote: »

This is not about whether or not creation science is valid, or that creationists think evolution is wrong. You are trying to muddle the point being discussed by throwing in statements which are not relevant at all. The point is that creationists are discriminated against by the conventional scientific community.

The conventional scientific field has a particular set of rules and rigors associated with what is acceptable within the discipline. This is very different from the creationist scientific field. If a creationist is to work in a conventional scientific job they have to work withing these rules and rigors (Do you honestly think a creationist scientist could do this no matter the task at hand?). If they can agree to this then why is it even necessary to bring up that one is a creationist. When does it become part of the discussion? I dont think it would be something that comes up at an interview, have you ever been asked this directly before? Do you want to bring it up purely to test what would happen if your peers knew, "oh by the way I'm a creationist is that a problem"? In a professional environment, personal believes etc rarely come up unless, someone purposely brings them, here there is no real reason to bring it up. Or unless it becomes a problem with them being able to fullfil their duties, this may be the case here depending on how true to their word they are about being able to work within the confines of conventional science. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't be bringing it up, but that it should never come up professionally if the conditions stated are accepted and adhered to. Again I ask why would it come up?

Now lets say you had been working somewhere for a while and people start talking about religion over lunch or something, you mention you are a creationist, is this automatically going to get you fired if you have been working perfectly fine thus far. I certainly doubt it and it would probably be illegal to do so, maybe you can provide me an example where such a case has happened. Are your peers now going to have less respect for you because of this, probably but who knows, it wont matter if you continue to do the proper work.

If it somehow came up before a job had been awarded that one of the applicants was a creation scientist is it discrimination to pick a non creationist over them if both have the same conventional scientific degrees purely because they are a creation scientist, well not at all really. Its a job, the employer is looking for whoever appears to them to be best suited for the post. There is an inherent risk in employing a creationist scientist in a conventional scientific post even if they insist it wont be a problem. So of course the employer would go for the less risky option if all other aspects are equal, its not fair but its not discrimination. This is just the world of business I'm afraid. I'm sorry to disappoint you JC but there is not a scientific wide consiparcy against creationists as much as you would like to believe it.

...there certainly is ABSOLUTE discrimination and severe HOSTILITY towards Creationists (who are eminemtly conventionally qualified) amongst the Evolutonist community!!!!

If you doubt me let me change one word in one of your sentences above ... "If it somehow came up before a job had been awarded that one of the applicants was a Jew is it discrimination to pick a non-Jew over them if both have the same conventional scientific degrees purely because they are a Jew, well not at all really":eek::eek:

....like I have said Creation Science is a love that dare not speak it's name!!!!

...and THAT is why I know many top class Creation Scientists in jobs at the very pinnacle of Conventional Science ... but you guys don't know any!!!!:eek:

... Creation Scientists are the latter-day 'Jews' of the 21st Century ... and interestingly some of the very best are also ACTUAL Jews.

J C

liamw wrote: »

This has to be by far the most ridiculous conspirancy theory I've ever heard. So this is how you justify the acceptance of evolution over creationism in the scientific community? So who exactly is responsible for setting up all the evidence and who is controlling it all?

...this isn't a (secret) conspiracy ... it is (open) naked and unapologetic discrimination and professional hostility against conventionally qualified colleagues ... whose only 'crime' is that they believe that 'Pondslime could NEVER spontaneously become Man' ... a belief that is incidentally shared by MOST Christians (and not only Young Earth Creationists).
The Materialists have used 'anti-discrimination' laws to get into controlling positions across academia ... and now that they think they have the 'upper hand' they now brazenly ignore the very 'anti-discrimination' laws that got them into the controlling positions that they now enjoy!!!!!

...some brazen cheek!!!!:(:eek:

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

I would like to see a single example of creation science (minus the forbidden YEC conclusions) in an 'establishment' journal. Can you provide one, or is this just wishful thinking, or maybe even a guess? :pac:

Here's a start for you. I leave you to pull up the publications themselves:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

But JC posted a link to Ernst Chain just after your post. I assume you accept Chain as a scientist.

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

It was me I did admit to it under that other handle but the post never made it to Boards due to the banning. It was meant as a joke, not to offend anyone, so apologies if it did. The reason for all the Chuck Norrisisms in the other forum was to try and get enough posts so I could create a sig with the imposters handle. Hey J C you know I love you

...and I love you too!!!:)

...now that I think about it ... it's a pity they removed your registration as J__C ... you could have 'stood in' for me on the Boards everytime that I go on holidays!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Or is it yet another baseless declaration?

Is the human eye irreducibly complex, ie is it impossible for an eye to have any function if it doesn't have all of the components of our eye?

...in a word YES ... it is impossible for an eye to have any (vision) function if it doesn't have all of the components of our eye!!!

...I suppose you could 'wink' ... but if nobody else had a sight cascade ... then winking would also be a waste of time!!!:D

Ghost Buster

[QUOTE=J C;64212206]...in a word YES!!!

...although I suppose you could 'wink' ... although if nobody else had a sight cascade ... then winking would also be a waste of time!!![/QUOTE]
So you admit it is a baseless declaration. Result?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Where do posters perceive the line between "non-living" and "living" entities? Does this perceived line present a particular problem for creationists, who require some kind of special intervention to make the leap across such a boundary? Do we stick to biological definitions such as "respiration" and "stimulus response"? Do we subconsciously factor in concepts such as "purpose" and "consciousness"?

If you were to rank the following in order of "non-living" to "living", how would it look?

bacteria, salt crystal, animal, plant, virus, RNA, prion

For me, everything is chemistry and I find it impossible to draw a line between "non-living" and "living". It's all down to the arrangement of the atoms involved.

...just as well you are not a Medical Doctor then !!!!

liamw

doctoremma wrote: »

For me, everything is chemistry and I find it impossible to draw a line between "non-living" and "living". It's all down to the arrangement of the atoms involved.

I'm really glad you said that because I am by no means an expert on the topic, but I was really wondering what defines non-living and living as seperate entities. How does abiogenesis define it?

liamw

J C wrote: »

...this isn't a (secret) conspiracy ... it is (open) naked and unapologetic discrimination and professional hostility against conventionally qualified colleagues ... whose only 'crime' is that they believe that 'Pondslime could NEVER spontaneously become Man' ... a belief that is incidentally shared by MOST Christians (and not only Young Earth Creationists).
The Materialists have used 'anti-discrimination' laws to get into controlling positions across academia ... and now that they think they have the 'upper hand' they now brazenly ignore the very 'anti-discrimination' laws that got them into the controlling positions that they now enjoy!!!!!

...some brazen cheek!!!!:(:eek:

Did you ever consider that YEC is rejected in the scientific community becuase it has been thoroughly refuted and shown to be nonsense, stands against mountains of evidence in multiple scientific disciplines, and there is zero scientific evidence to back it up?

J C

liamw wrote: »

Did you ever consider that YEC is rejected in the scientific community becuase it has been thoroughly refuted and shown to be nonsense, stands against mountains of evidence in multiple scientific disciplines, and there is zero scientific evidence to back it up?

...the point is that this discrimination amounts to discrimination on the basis of Religion.

I agree that any Creationist (just anybody else) who doesn't do his/her job properly shouldn't be promoted and if they continue to not work properly disciplinary action should be taken.

However, this is not what the postings on this thread are saying. They are saying that Creationists shouldn't be employed in conventional science simply BECAUSE they are Creationists ... and that is completely unacceptable.

What actually amazes me, on a Christian Thread, is that NOBODY, except me is condemning the advocacy of such blatant discrimination.

...and BTW I would equally condemn the advocacy of discrimination against Evolutionists within conventional publicly-funded science institutions!!!!

liamw

J C wrote: »

...the point is that this discrimination amounts to discrimination on the basis of Religion.

I agree that any Creationist (just anybody else) who doesn't do his/her job properly shouldn't be promoted and if they continue to not work properly disciplinary action should be taken.

However, this is not what the postings on this thread are saying. They are saying that Creationists shouldn't be employed in conventional science simply BECAUSE they are Creationists ... and that is completely unacceptable.

What actually amazes me, on a Christian Thread, is that NOBODY, except me is condemning the advocacy of such blatant discrimination.

...and BTW I would equally condemn the advocacy of discrimination against Evolutionists within conventional publicly-funded science institutions!!!!

It's not discrimination! It's about investing money for scientific research effectively. Creationism isn't even science, it doesn't adhere to the scientific method, collapses under any sort of scientific scrutiny, and as such should not be entertained anymore.

Would you say the theory of storks delivering babies should be given credence in the scientific community? Should research grants be pushed towards it?

Ghost Buster

J C wrote: »

...in a word YES ... it is impossible for an eye to have any (vision) function if it doesn't have all of the components of our eye!!!

...I suppose you could 'wink' ... but if nobody else had a sight cascade ... then winking would also be a waste of time!!!:D

J C wrote: »

...the point is that this discrimination amounts to discrimination on the basis of Religion.

I agree that any Creationist (just anybody else) who doesn't do his/her job properly shouldn't be promoted and if they continue to not work properly disciplinary action should be taken.

However, this is not what the postings on this thread are saying. They are saying that Creationists shouldn't be employed in conventional science simply BECAUSE they are Creationists ... and that is completely unacceptable.

What actually amazes me, on a Christian Thread, is that NOBODY, except me is condemning the advocacy of such blatant discrimination.

...and BTW I would equally condemn the advocacy of discrimination against Evolutionists within conventional publicly-funded science institutions!!!!

Hi. Ive bolded the relevant bits as I have not a clue how the multi quote thingy works!!!
This is nothing to do with religion and you are being intentionally emotive and provocative to garner some support from the rational Christians on this forum I feel.
Creationist shoud not be employed as scientists any more than Flat Earth advocates should be employed as geographers, cartologists or cruise ship captains (Though Ryan Air would possibly employ them)
Perhaps you should consider how far off the mark your discrimination claims are and weigh that up against how little support you are receiving here ....:P:mad::rolleyes:.....;):D:D;):rolleyes:..................:P:confused:.:eek::rolleyes:.....

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's a start for you. I leave you to pull up the publications themselves:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

But JC posted a link to Ernst Chain just after your post. I assume you accept Chain as a scientist.

Wolfsbane, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, not an idiotic website.

equivariant

I see that it is OK for the creationist posters on this thread to make completely baseless and unsubstantiated claims. It is OK to accuse reputable scientific institutions of widespread discriminatory behaviour as long as you are a creationist. Of course if someone were to accuse J C of maliciously misleading people in order to further his particular religious agenda, that would be completely against the charter because they WOULD HAVE NO EVIDENCE for that claim. However it is perfectly acceptable to accuse the real scientific community of all sorts of skullduggery without presenting A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

Let me be clear, I am completely against discriminatory hiring practises that use criteria that have nothing to do with the position at hand. Thus if a person applies for a job in University physics department and their creationist views have no impact on the quality of their research or teaching, that persons creationist views should not weigh against them.
I have been involved in several University hiring committees and can say that without exception that was true. None of these committees would have paid the slightest bit of attention to whether or not the candidates were creationists

However, if a creationist applies for a job where their creationist views would influence the validity of their scientific work, then it is not discrimination to have that count against them - it is merely counting poor quality scientific work against someone. It should count against them in just the same way as if the person had published badly written and incorrect papers.