The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

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!!!!

I agree. Even if you believe in the tooth fairy it shouldn't matter once you are qualified to do the job you were employed to do and once you do it properly when you get the job. To discriminate against anyone based on whatever ideology, philosophy, or religion they happen to be partisan to will cause more problems than it will solve. If creationism is such a silly idea then why would you fear it? Would you fear someone who actually believed in the tooth fairy if they were also a competent scientist? Einstein was a deist but did that make him a bad scientist? Newton was a Bible believing theist but did that make him a bad scientist? I think the main reason that these people are discriminated against has nothing at all got to do with science, that's just a smoke screen, it has to do with their world view, and if that is what entering the scientific realm has been reduced to then maybe it is better to stay out of it and go free with your own unrestricted scientific endeavors, who knows maybe in time we might actually find something out about the bigger questions in life.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree. Even if you believe in the tooth fairy it shouldn't matter once you are qualified to do the job you were employed to do and once you do it properly when you get the job.

If a dentist teaching young dentists in college decided that the modern theory of dentistry was all a bit mistake (or worse a conspiracy by the toothpaste companies to sell toothpaste) and decided that they were going to teach their own radically new theory of "Toothfairy decay" instead, would you classify that as "doing the job properly"?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If creationism is such a silly idea then why would you fear it? Would you fear someone who actually believed in the tooth fairy if they were also a competent scientist?

Well yes, but you would fear them even more if they were teaching Toothfairy theory to dentists, would you not.

Do you want a lot o dentists who believe tooth decay is caused by a pissed off toothfairy? Is that good for the standards of dental hygine in this country?

No one gives a hoot if some scientists wants to believe in literal creation on their own time. They do care if such a belief is shaping how they consider science and thus how they conduct science

Soul Winner wrote: »

Einstein was a deist but did that make him a bad scientist? Newton was a Bible believing theist but did that make him a bad scientist?

Newton didn't know any better.

There is a difference to being ignorant of scientific understand and choosing to whole heartily reject it when you have been made aware of it, as Creationists do.

You may excuse a dentist 500 years ago believing that tooth decay was caused by tooth fairies, but would you excuse a dentist today of holding that opinion in the face of all modern medical understanding about teeth? I seriously doubt it.

Like it or not a dentist believing in the toothfairy as opposed to modern medical understand of teeth makes them a bad dentist. It makes their work bad and it makes their teaching bad, and would anyone seriously have an objection if a dentist who has rejected modern medical facts about teeth and instead has embraced the position that fairies cause our teeth to fall out had their dentistry licence revoked and/or was removed from a teaching position in a dentistry college?

The idea that this wouldn't happen would be the crazy bit.

A dentist who embraces the "The toothfairy did it" is not simply choosing one competing medical theory over another, they are wholesale rejecting the concept of modern medical science and instead embracing mystical pseudo-science. It would be the very antithesis of what modern dentistry and medicine is.

The same holds for Creationism. Creationism is not another scientific theory. It is a rejecting of science.

And I don't know how anyone can say that rejecting science doesn't make you a bad scientist

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

If a dentist teaching young dentists in college decided that the modern theory of dentistry was all a bit mistake (or worse a conspiracy by the toothpaste companies to sell toothpaste) and decided that they were going to teach their own radically new theory of "Toothfairy decay" instead, would you classify that as "doing the job properly"?



Well yes, but you would fear them even more if they were teaching Toothfairy theory to dentists, would you not.

Do you want a lot o dentists who believe tooth decay is caused by a pissed off toothfairy? Is that good for the standards of dental hygine in this country?

No one gives a hoot if some scientists wants to believe in literal creation on their own time. They do care if such a belief is shaping how they consider science and thus how they conduct science


Newton didn't know any better.

There is a difference to being ignorant of scientific understand and choosing to whole heartily reject it when you have been made aware of it, as Creationists do.

You may excuse a dentist 500 years ago believing that tooth decay was caused by tooth fairies, but would you excuse a dentist today of holding that opinion in the face of all modern medical understanding about teeth? I seriously doubt it.

Like it or not a dentist believing in the toothfairy as opposed to modern medical understand of teeth makes them a bad dentist. It makes their work bad and it makes their teaching bad, and would anyone seriously have an objection if a dentist who has rejected modern medical facts about teeth and instead has embraced the position that fairies cause our teeth to fall out had their dentistry licence revoked and/or was removed from a teaching position in a dentistry college?

The idea that this wouldn't happen would be the crazy bit.

A dentist who embraces the "The toothfairy did it" is not simply choosing one competing medical theory over another, they are wholesale rejecting the concept of modern medical science and instead embracing mystical pseudo-science. It would be the very antithesis of what modern dentistry and medicine is.

The same holds for Creationism. Creationism is not another scientific theory. It is a rejecting of science.

And I don't know how anyone can say that rejecting science doesn't make you a bad scientist

OK let me answer by telling you a story about my daughter's religion teacher. She said that her teacher told her class that the story of Adam and Eve was just a myth and that it was proven as a scientific fact. Now she might be right in her opinion that it is just myth and she might not be, but the principle purpose of her position in that job was to teach religion to her class, not to give her opinion on religion and pass it off as a scientific fact. Based on what you posted above you think that she should be sacked for that. Do you?

I would say that she should have been met with by the principal of the school and told that her job is to teach religion not to win converts to her world view. It would be the same if a creationist who was employed to teach the theory of evolution to a class of students who one day decided to say that Darwin's theory was wrong and that it had be proven as a scientific fact. I would say that that creationist has breached his contract and should be dismissed. But to not employ him for the position in the first place just because he happens to hold creationist views is wrong.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

I leave you to pull up the publications themselves:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

Hmm... you implied that there were examples of creation science that were published in mainstream journals with the omission of only YEC-related conclusions. All I can see here are examples of non-creation science with no YEC conclusions (since it is not being investigated!).

You have shown only yet more scientists who are creationists - which is not in dispute. I am simply saying there is no creation research at the present time. Not only did you say that there is creation research, but that it existed in mainstream journals once YEC interpretations were omitted. Yet again, you can't actually point to an example. Hilarious, and I thank you for yet another diverting wild goose chase, but seriously - where's the science?? :pac:

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK let me answer by telling you a story about my daughter's religion teacher. She said that her teacher told her class that the story of Adam and Eve was just a myth and that it was proven as a scientific fact. Now she might be right in her opinion that it is just myth and she might not be, but the principle purpose of her position in that job was to teach religion to her class, not to give her opinion on religion and pass it off as a scientific fact. Based on what you posted above you think that she should be sacked for that. Do you?

Was it a religion class or a christian religion class ?

And if you mean a literal interpretation of genesis, where we are all supposedly decended from 1 couple 6000 years ago then yes, it has been proven to be a myth.

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.

... Emma, your suggested classification types is inadequate ... it is akin to asking somebody to classify petrol, cars, lorries and gearboxes into 'vehicles' and 'non-vehicles' !!!:D

...anyway, here is my classification of the above items:

... 'non-living' ... Salt Crystal.

... 'living organism' ... bacteria, animal, plant.

... 'infectious agent incapable of self-replication' ... virus, prion.

... 'bio-molecule' ... RNA

J C

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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:.....

...look Creation Scientists are 'big boys' and 'big girls' ... and they cope very nicely with the discriminiation that COULD be directed against them. The ones who are 'out' work in secure employment with various privately funded institutions ... and the ones who are not 'out' keep their heads down and their mouths shut when in the presence of Evolutionists.

The people I would actually most worry about are Christian Theistic Evolutionists ... because they are 'out' in relation to their Theism in regard to science ...
...here is an Atheist who says 'straight up' that science and religion are incompatible ... I think what he really means is that current 'atheist-defined science' and Theism are incompatible!!!!
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/07/27/sam-harris-weighs-in-on-francis-collins/

...and here is a thought-provoking article that ALL Christians should read
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/jerry_coyne_on_francis_collins.html

del88

Hi j_C.
I'm interested to find out your theory on fossils?

J C

equivariant wrote: »

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.

...I am accusing the 'real scientific community' of NOTHING ... I am merely condemning the advocacy on this thread and elsewhere of job discrimination on the basis that somebody is a Creationist ... I have never personally encountered any discrimination ... but then again I don't advertise the fact that I am a Creationist!!!!

Sam Vimes

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

So what you're telling me is that an eye that looks like this cannot possibly have any function:



because it doesn't have all of the components shown here:

liamw

J C wrote: »

... Emma, your suggested classification types is inadequate ... it is akin to asking somebody to classify petrol, cars, lorries and gearboxes into 'vehicles' and 'non-vehicles' !!!:D

...anyway, here is my classification of the above items:

... 'non-living' ... Salt Crystal.

... 'living organism' ... bacteria, animal, plant.

... 'infectious agent incapable of self-replication' ... virus, prion.

... 'bio-molecule' ... RNA

1.= Car
2.= Lorry
3. Gearbox
4. Petrol

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...here is an Atheist who says 'straight up' that science and religion are incompatible ... I think what he really means is that current 'atheist-defined science' and Theism are incompatible!!!!
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/07/27/sam-harris-weighs-in-on-francis-collins/

"Materialist" science put a man on the moon. Religious based "science" drilled holes in people's heads to let evil spirits out

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... 'infectious agent incapable of self-replication' ... virus, prion.

... 'bio-molecule' ... RNA

What about an RNA virus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Was it a religion class or a christian religion class ?

And if you mean a literal interpretation of genesis, where we are all supposedly decended from 1 couple 6000 years ago then yes, it has been proven to be a myth.

It was a religion class. And even if the story was proven to be a myth then that still does not give the teacher the right to teach that in that particular class. That is science intruding into religion. The 6000 year old earth theory was something conjured up by a medieval monk who used the anti-deluvian genealogies from Adam on wards to arrive at a date for the creation of Adam and hence the earth. But if you read the Hebrew (which I'm sure he didn't at that time) you will find that it is impossible to arrive at a date like that because the Hebrew does not distinguish between son, grandson or nephew when relaying the genealogies nor did it intend to give any kind of date. That was not the purpose of the genealogies. So yes you can scientifically prove that it was not 6000 years ago but how can you possibly scientifically prove that a man named Adam did not exist thousands of years ago when it is impossible to arrive at any kind of date for he was supposed have existed? It is not a scientific fact that Adam did not exist so not only was she wrong in saying so, even if she was right scientifically, she had no right teaching that in that class, so she was wrong on both counts.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

So yes you can scientifically prove that it was not 6000 years ago but how can you possibly scientifically prove that a man named Adam did not exist thousands of years ago when it is impossible to arrive at any kind of date for he was supposed have existed? It is not a scientific fact that Adam did not exist so not only was she wrong in saying so, even if she was right scientifically, she had no right teaching that in that class, so she was wrong on both counts.

Adam was supposed to be the first man. We can scientifically prove that we did not all descend from one single homo sapien before which no homo sapien-like organisms existed. Whether his name was Adam or not isn't really the point

We can't prove that no one back then was called Adam but if there was more than one person alive at the time and there were people alive before him, he's not the Adam you're talking about

edit: maybe this was Adam:

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I would say that that creationist has breached his contract and should be dismissed. But to not employ him for the position in the first place just because he happens to hold creationist views is wrong.

If you were interviewing this religion teacher for the position and you asked her opinion on religion and she said she thought that religion was the root cause of all evil the world and that she believed teaching religion was children was morally wrong, would you go "Umm, yup lets put her on the call back list"

I doubt it.

I imagine you would say she is unfit for the job of teaching religion to school children, and wonder why given her views she is even applying for the job in the first place (probably not to further advance the religious education of children).

Creationism is a rejection of scientific and scientific standards. To apply for a job in science while at the same time rejecting science makes it doubtful that you will end up on the call back list.

This is the same of any position.

Applying for a job as a director of a film festival while saying you think movies are the work of the devil and should be banded out right and you aren't going to get the job, no matter how "qualified" your C.V appears to be.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

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

J C wrote: »

...I am accusing the 'real scientific community' of NOTHING ... I am merely condemning the advocacy on this thread and elsewhere of job discrimination on the basis that somebody is a Creationist ... I have never personally encountered any discrimination ... but then again I don't advertise the fact that I am a Creationist!!!!

As usual, self contradiction and outright misrepresentation of what you and other people have said on this thread. You didn't even bother to leave a respectable amount of time before contradicting yourself.

Why do the mods allow you to make accusations like this without presenting any shred of evidence to back them up? If you will not present evidence, then desist from casting slurs against people who do real science.

equivariant

Wicknight wrote: »

If you were interviewing this religion teacher for the position and you asked her opinion on religion and she said she thought that religion was the root cause of all evil the world and that she believed teaching religion was children was morally wrong, would you go "Umm, yup lets put her on the call back list"

I doubt it.

I imagine you would say she is unfit for the job of teaching religion to school children, and wonder why given her views she is even applying for the job in the first place (probably not to further advance the religious education of children).

Creationism is a rejection of scientific and scientific standards. To apply for a job in science while at the same time rejecting science makes it doubtful that you will end up on the call back list.

This is the same of any position.

Applying for a job as a director of a film festival while saying you think movies are the work of the devil and should be banded out right and you aren't going to get the job, no matter how "qualified" your C.V appears to be.

I have to say that I disagree (and I am an atheist who has no time at all for creatioinism as science).

First of all, I see no reason why a school should not hire a religion teacher who is an atheist and believes that religious belief is a bad thing. As long as their knowledge of religion was good enough and they had sufficient teaching ability, then why not? Religion teachers in school are not meant to be preachers or evangelists, they are meant to teach about religion, not necessarily encourage the practise of religion.

My other objection is that science is a broad subject. It is very conceivable that a person can be a fine scientist and yet have creationist beliefs. Newton was an alchemist and indeed viewed this subject as far more important than his work in physics and maths. No one disputes that Newton was an excellent scientist.

My problem is specifically with people who make it explicit that creationism has a direct influence on their scientific work. These people are just guilty of poor scientific work and should be judged on that basis if they apply for scientific jobs.

Sam Vimes

equivariant wrote: »

My problem is specifically with people who make it explicit that creationism has a direct influence on their scientific work. These people are just guilty of poor scientific work and should be judged on that basis if they apply for scientific jobs.

I'd agree with this. I don't care if someone spends their spare time worshipping a cheesecake as long as they leave it at the door when they go to work

token56

J C wrote: »

...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.

Like it or not scientific research is a business. The more attractive applicants would always be chosen and in the field of conventional scientific research the most attractive applicant would of course be a conventional scientist over a creationist one, it is just good business sense.

One of the main problems here is that in creationism, science and religion and mutually inclusive and when one is not chosen because of their creationist scientific principles they automatically see it as an attack on their religion and as discrimination, but its not. The conventional scientific field does not see it like this at all, they think of it purely from a scientific stand point, and that a creationist scientist is less likely to adhere to the scientific principles of conventional science. They are not doing it as an attack on your religion but a decision based on your scientific values, and while you see these as one and the same for the conventional scientific community they are not.

This is why your example of using a Jew in place of creationist is ridiculous, sure if a Jew or Muslim or whoever had the same sort of creationist scientific principles, they would also probably be over looked over a Jew or Muslim or whoever who had conventional scientific principles. Again its because of the scientific view, not the religion as to why they would be overlooked. They are simple a lesser attractive applicant to an employer.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree. Even if you believe in the tooth fairy it shouldn't matter once you are qualified to do the job you were employed to do and once you do it properly when you get the job. To discriminate against anyone based on whatever ideology, philosophy, or religion they happen to be partisan to will cause more problems than it will solve. If creationism is such a silly idea then why would you fear it? Would you fear someone who actually believed in the tooth fairy if they were also a competent scientist? Einstein was a deist but did that make him a bad scientist? Newton was a Bible believing theist but did that make him a bad scientist? I think the main reason that these people are discriminated against has nothing at all got to do with science, that's just a smoke screen, it has to do with their world view, and if that is what entering the scientific realm has been reduced to then maybe it is better to stay out of it and go free with your own unrestricted scientific endeavors, who knows maybe in time we might actually find something out about the bigger questions in life.

Conventional scientist do not fear creationism, there is no smoke screen here at all, this is purely down to science if choosing a job for conventional scientific research. As I have already said, the creationist scientific principles and conventional scientific principles are worlds apart. The fact that Newton or Einstein were in some way religious of course did not make them bad scientists, why? Because they were working within the conventional scientific field and its principles. A creationist scientist however is unlikely to be able to guarantee to this no matter the work involved. Yes they may hold the same conventional scientific qualifications and even though they can insist they will work within the conventional scientific field there will always be a doubt for any potential employer. Hence why it would make good business sense to choose a conventional scientist over them. Again this is not about a persons religious beliefs, it is about the science and business.

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

I have to say that I disagree (and I am an atheist who has no time at all for creatioinism as science).

First of all, I see no reason why a school should not hire a religion teacher who is an atheist and believes that religious belief is a bad thing. As long as their knowledge of religion was good enough and they had sufficient teaching ability, then why not?

But that isn't the example I used.

The teacher not only thinks that religious belief is a bad thing but also thinks that teaching religious belief is a bad thing.

Would you hire a teacher who believes that the actual teaching of the subject she is hired to teach is a bad thing?

equivariant wrote: »

My other objection is that science is a broad subject. It is very conceivable that a person can be a fine scientist and yet have creationist beliefs. Newton was an alchemist and indeed viewed this subject as far more important than his work in physics and maths. No one disputes that Newton was an excellent scientist.

Science barely existed when Newton was working. By modern standards he was a terrible scientist. Newton's excuse is ignorance of future advances in the philosophy of science. Creationists don't have that excuse.

Turtwig

It's very simple : Homoeopath or Qualified Medical Doctor.

Any religious teacher who says something is bullsh1t shouldn't be allowed to teach religion. Yes Adam and Eve is a myth but the school I attended (and the catechism we used) taught us that it wasn't meant to be taken as literally historic fact more a spiritual story explaining in God's creation.:) We were also shown a ancient Native American Indian Creation Myth to show us that poetry was best way to tell storys of wonders or something, I think. It was all a very long time ago.:)

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree. Even if you believe in the tooth fairy it shouldn't matter once you are qualified to do the job you were employed to do and once you do it properly when you get the job.

I agree but if you are a scientist operating under creationist ideas then you are not doing your job properly. Being a creationist is fine as long as you're not a creationist in the lab.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If creationism is such a silly idea then why would you fear it?

Scientists don't fear creationism, they oppose it because of its deliberate dishonesty and ongoing attempts to corrupt science to further its agenda

Soul Winner wrote: »

Would you fear someone who actually believed in the tooth fairy if they were also a competent scientist? Einstein was a deist but did that make him a bad scientist? Newton was a Bible believing theist but did that make him a bad scientist?

No of course not but if someone operated in the lab under the assumption that the tooth fairy existed and designed their experiments around that assumption they would not be competent scientists. Someone can believe whatever they want as long as they acknowledge if their beliefs are not scientific and do not attempt to incorporate them into their scientific work

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think the main reason that these people are discriminated against

They're not

doctoremma

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!!

LMAO.

JC, you will by now have a vague idea of my academic background. Perhaps now it's time you learned about what I research now, indeed the field in which I have just gained a fellowship.

I study the genetic basis of ocular defects. While typing this, I have pulled up a teaching slide I use and it's sitting next to this window. Let me tell you what's on that slide. There are lots of pictures of people who have ocular defects. These cover fairly minor defects like microphthalmia (small eye, usually with no visual defect) to anophthalmia (no eye) and the whole spectrum in between. For example:

aniridia = absent iris
cone dystrophies = loss of cone photoreceptors
aphakia = absent lens
optic nerve hypoplasia = absense of nerve cells from the optic nerve
night blindness (rod dystrophies) = loss of rod photoreceptors

And what do most of these people have in common? Well, they all retain visual acuity. Sure, some people are colourblind, or some can't see in low light conditions, or some can't make out facial features. But they can all see.

The conditions I have outlined above are examples of structural absences. If I were to include conditions caused by the absence of function in a structure that had been built, I could write a textbook.

End of.

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

LMAO.

Precisely. And that is the entire basis of creationism.

You have just shown J C unequivocally that the eye is not irreducibly complex but he will accuse anyone of discrimination if they look down on him for maintaining this defunct idea :rolleyes:

doctoremma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You have just shown J C unequivocally that the eye is not irreducibly complex but he will accuse anyone of discrimination if they look down on him for maintaining this defunct idea :rolleyes:

Well, we'll see if he's prepared to call me a liar

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

Well, we'll see if he's prepared to call me a liar

It'd doubtful he'll do that. Probably he'll just post his thing about functional combinational spaces being infinite etc etc etc again and ignore the fact that he's just restating in a different way the thing that your post has just disproven. Basically he'll say that irreducible complexity is true because irreducible complexity is true and the circle will be complete

doctoremma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

functional combinational space

Ooh, what's one of them? It sounds like it's from an Ikea catalogue

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It'd doubtful he'll do that. Probably he'll just post his thing about functional combinational spaces being infinite etc etc etc again and ignore the fact that he's just restating in a different way the thing that your post has just disproven. Basically he'll say that irreducible complexity is true because irreducible complexity is true and the circle will be complete

What he will say is that all those things are defects due to degredation of the "perfect" genetic code from Eden caused by mutation that can only degrade information

IE he will pull a switch-er-oo and start talking about something different to what is actually being discussed (irreducible complexity)

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

Ooh, what's one of them? It sounds like it's from an Ikea catalogue

I'm afraid not, IKEA doesn't sell made up nonsense. It's the standard circular response: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64157247&postcount=20251

Wicknight wrote: »

What he will say is that all those things are defects due to degredation of the "perfect" genetic code from Eden caused by mutation that can only degrade information

IE he will pull a switch-er-oo and start talking about something different to what is actually being discussed (irreducible complexity)

Oh yeah you're right, that's the one that comes now :pac: