The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Natural selection is a process by which random changes take place which are then tested and the ones that turn out to be beneficial go on and the ones that are not beneficial don't. It's basically a big process of trial and error that means complexity can arise without a designer. And it doesn't just apply to biology

Indeed. It's a subset of the broader rule "stable things tend to be stable" which applies to basically everything that sticks around for any significant length of time. Strange that so many people have such difficulty with the concept.

J C

It is quite clear from the emotions expressed over the past few pages that enormous hostility (that can only be ultimately explained spiritually) exists against Saved Christians in general and Creation Scientists in particular.

...of course all this is to be expected ... here is what Jesus said will happen all Saved Christians ... but we have Almighty God as our consolation and our help:-

Joh 15;18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.
22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

It is quite clear from the emotions expressed over the past few pages that enormous hostility (that can only be ultimately explained spiritually) exists against Saved Christians in general and Creation Scientists in particular.

...of course all this is to be expected ... here is what Jesus said will happen all Saved Christians ... but we have Almighty God as our consolation and our help:-

And it has nothing at all to do with your continued dodging of every question put to you :rolleyes:

J C

Let's get a few things straight ... a person must do the job that they are employed to do to the best of their abilities.
Equally, they must be qualified to do the job and they must be the best available person for the job when they are first employed.

However, applying other criteria, such as discriminating on the basis of religion, when deciding on who will get a particular job is ILLEGAL Job Discrimination ... and rightly so.
Equally, 'making things difficult' for people in employment on the basis of their religious viewpoint is ILLEGAL harassment ... and rightly so.

...it's high time that the Materialists on this thread 'got with the programme' and started to behave as members of a pluralist society must behave in regard to employment, if enormous social tensions are not to arise.

Hopefully the 19th Century cry of 'no Irish need apply' will not replaced in the 21st Century by 'no Creationist/Theist need apply'!!!!:eek:

So ladies and gentlemen please desist from advocaing job discrimination on the basis of unfounded self-serving descriptions of what a Creationist/Theist might or might not do within an Evolutionist Research environment.
The reality is that there are many Creationists already working there with no issues arising in relation to either the quantity or the quality of their work.

Creationists should not and do not abuse their positions in evolution research jobs to 'showcase' their Creationist beliefs.
Equally, if you are a Materialist, employed to do a religion-sensitive job (like a religion teacher) you shouldn't abuse your position to 'showcase' your Materialistic beliefs!!!!

When we come together on the Boards.ie it may be a 'no holds barred' debate on the 'origins question' ... but when we meet every day in a job environment let's respect each other for the conventionally qualified professional scientists that we all are !!!:)

Turtwig

Creation Scientist == Homoeopathy Practitioner.
Conventional Scientist ==Medical Doctor.

Hopefully now you can see why a Creation Scientist won't get the job, unless they carry out conventional science.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

Let's get a few things straight ... a person must do the job that they are employed to do to the best of their abilities.
Equally, they must be qualified to do the job and they must be the best available person for the job when they are first employed.

Applying other criteria, especially discriminating on the basis of religion, when deciding on who will get a particular job is ILLEGAL Job Discrimination ... and rightly so.
Equally, 'making things difficult' for people in employment on the basis of their religious viewpoint is ILLEGAL harassment ... and rightly so.

...it's high time that the Materialists on this thread 'got with the programme' and started to behave as members of a pluralist society must behave in regard to employment, if enormous social tensions are not to arise.

Hopefully the 19th Century cry of 'no Irish need apply' will not replaced in the 21st Century by 'no Creationist/Theist need apply'!!!!:eek:

So ladies and gentlemen please desist from advocaing job discrimination on the basis of unfounded self-serving descriptions of what a Creationist might or might not do within an Evolutionist Research environment.
The reality is that there are many Creationists already working there with no issues arising in relation to either the quantity or the quality of their work.

When we come together on the Boards.ie it may be a 'no holds barred' debate on the 'origins question' ... but when we meet every day in a job environment let's respect each other for the conventionally qualified professional scientists that we all are !!!:)

As I keep saying, I don't care what someone is in their private life as long as they keep it in their private life. You can call yourself a creation scientist if you want, you can call yourself the queen of Persia for all I care as long as at work you acknowledge that neither of those titles have any meaning in the scientific community or the real world for that matter and as long as you follow the same rules as everyone else. You don't get to have special rules that allow you to bypass the normal standards of evidence because of your religion and neither do you get to accuse people of discrimination or censorship for not allowing you to do it and rejecting any work from you that does not follow those standards

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And it has nothing at all to do with your continued dodging of every question put to you :rolleyes:

...Your hostility has NOTHING to do with whether I have answered all your questions or not!!!!
... and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that I have 'beaten the proverbial pants off you all' whenever I have had the time to answer your relatively easy questions!!!:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Creation Scientist == Homoeopathy Practitioner.
Conventional Scientist ==Medical Doctor.

Hopefully now you can see why a Creation Scientist won't get the job, unless they carry out conventional science.

...this is the kind of unfounded sterotyping that I am talking about ... and which every just person should condemn unreservedly!!!

...it is but a frightningly short step to have all Creationists wear a big red 'C' on their clothing ... or perhaps, equally effectively, to have the 'C' placed on their employment record!!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...this is the kind of unfounded sterotyping that I am talking about ... and which every just person should condemn unreservedly!!!

Condemn why? I have been reading this thread since June and I don't think I've ever read a coherent argument from you. Yet alone one that is, at least in the minutest sense, valid.

Sam Vimes

And another thing you don't get to do by the way is ignore a bunch of legitimate questions that are put to you that show that the fundamental principle of creationism is flawed and then say that if someone doesn't want to work with you it's because of religious discrimination. Regardless of religion, I don't want to work with anyone who clings desperately to defunct ideas, ignores anyone who points out the gaping holes in them and accuses them of hostility and discrimination when they get frustrated at these defunct ideas being repeated over and over again.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I keep saying, I don't care what someone is in their private life as long as they keep it in their private life. You can call yourself a creation scientist if you want, you can call yourself the queen of Persia for all I care as long as at work you acknowledge that neither of those titles have any meaning in the scientific community or the real world for that matter and as long as you follow the same rules as everyone else. You don't get to have special rules that allow you to bypass the normal standards of evidence because of your religion and neither do you get to accuse people of discrimination or censorship for not allowing you to do it and rejecting any work from you that does not follow those standards

...people's religion has VALID personal and public expressions.
To expect Theists to NEVER express their opinons publicly on the 'God Question' or the 'Origins Question' while some Materialists loudly proclaim their Atheism (and anti-Theism) from the rooftops is unrealistic to say the least ... and is tantamount to religious suppression or worse!!!!:(

Creation Scientists have their own systems of peer review and an active privately-funded professional research programme ... and they therefore don't need the assistance nor the money of Atheists for their work !!!!

... the reverse may not always be the case!!!!:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Your hostility has NOTHING to do with whether I have answered all your questions or not!!!!
... and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that I have 'beaten the proverbial pants off you all' whenever I have had the time to answer your relatively easy questions!!!:)

Doctoremma has pointed out several conditions of the eye that are caused by missing components. You claim that the eye is irreducibly complex and therefore that none of these people should be able to see but they are able to see. That has proven your claim wrong but you have simply ignored it and declared victory. The only thing that annoys me that you equate ignoring difficult questions with "beating the proverbial pants off us".

Although that is one tactic I suppose. In any "battle", if your position is extremely weak the only way to win is not to fight, which you have done admirably by ignoring doctoremma's demolition of irreducible complexity

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...people's religion has VALID personal and public expressions.
To expect Theists to NEVER express their opinons publicly on the 'God Question' or the 'Origins Question' while some Materialists loudly proclaim their Atheism (and anti-Theism) from the rooftops is unrealistic to say the least ... and is tantamount to religious suppression or worse!!!!:(

I never said they shouldn't profess them publicly, just that they shouldn't interfere with their work

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists have their own systems of peer review and an active privately-funded professional research programme

They do in their arse. They have a lot of money alright but the only actual research I've ever heard of a creationist doing resulted in new functionality evolving right in the creationist's own lab. Creation "scientists" have no interest in finding out the facts. As far as they're concerned they already know the facts and they're only interested in things that support those preconceptions. Basically they fail one of the major requirements of science

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Condemn why? I have been reading this thread since June and I don't think I've ever read a coherent argument from you. Yet alone one that is, at least in the minutest sense, valid.

...you are quite entitled to your opinion of my writings on this thread ...
... but you are legally constrained from acting on any opinions formed (one way or another) if you are an employer!!!!

...and making a spurious distinction between conventionally qualified scientists on the essentially religious question of whether they believe themselves to be glorified Pondslime ... or not ... is discrimination on the basis of religion!!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Doctoremma has pointed out several conditions of the eye that are caused by missing components. You claim that the eye is irreducibly complex and therefore that none of these people should be able to see but they are able to see.

...yes, there are several conditions that disimprove sight ... and many more that cause instant blindness ...

All of this PROVES that the Human Eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sightedness ... and in many cases for sightedness itself!!!!:)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And another thing you don't get to do by the way is ignore a bunch of legitimate questions that are put to you that show that the fundamental principle of creationism is flawed and then say that if someone doesn't want to work with you it's because of religious discrimination. Regardless of religion, I don't want to work with anyone who clings desperately to defunct ideas, ignores anyone who points out the gaping holes in them and accuses them of hostility and discrimination when they get frustrated at these defunct ideas being repeated over and over again.

...many things may annoy you about your work colleagues ... but in a pluralist society, you will just have to put up with them, if they happen to be their religious BELIEFS.

... your colleagues may equally have to put up with you going on about your empathy with Pondslime because you think that it is your long lost 'granny' of the nth degree!!!:D:)

..or some equally implausible notion that you have read about in some evolutionist book!!!

...how do you think this makes a Theist feel???

...trying to suppress the laughter could cause them to develop a hernia!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...you are quite entitled to your opinion of my writings on this thread ...
... but you are legally constrained from acting on any opinions formed (one way or another) if you are an employer!!!!

...and making a spurious distinction between conventionally qualified scientists on the essentially religious question of whether they believe themselves to be glorified Pondslime ... or not ... is discrimination on the basis of religion!!!!

So you can make up any old nonsense you want, accuse legitimate scientists of anything you want, corrupt science in any way you want to further your agenda and no one can do anything to you because you have declared that this attack on science is done in the name of your religion? Nonsense. On this thread you have repeated things that have been proven false hundreds of times, you have falsely accused the scientific community of all manner of wrongdoing, you have misrepresented the work of respectable scientists to pretend that they support you, you have shown that you have little or no grasp of any scientific concepts, mathematics or basic logic and you have shown that you will say anything to further your agenda. You don't just get to wipe the slate clean by calling it your religion. An appeal to religion is not a carte blanche to say whatever the hell you like and have no one point out that you're talking nonsense. That would be an abuse of the law

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...yes, there are several conditions that disimprove sight ... and many more that cause instant blindness ...

All of this PROVES that the Human Eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sightedness ... and in many cases for sightedness itself!!!!:)

What it proves is that your claim that an eye that is missing components cannot have ANY function is demonstrably false. You have now backtracked from saying "the eye is irreducibly complex" which would disprove evolution if it was true to "the eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sight and in many cases for all sight" which disproves nothing. Unless it's irreducibly complex for ALL sight in ALL cases it's not irreducibly complex. You're shifting the goal posts because you've been proven wrong and a few days from now when you think this is forgotten about you'll shift them back.

You're talking nonsense. A child with absolutely no knowledge of evolution could see that you're talking nonsense because you fail at basic logic and that's not protected by any discrimination legislation

Galvasean

Anyway, the human eye does not provide perfect sight. Our vision is quite poor compared to owls and eagles.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you can make up any old nonsense you want, accuse legitimate scientists of anything you want, corrupt science in any way you want to further your agenda and no one can do anything to you because you have declared that this attack on science is done in the name of your religion? Nonsense. On this thread you have repeated things that have been proven false hundreds of times, you have falsely accused the scientific community of all manner of wrongdoing, you have misrepresented the work of respectable scientists to pretend that they support you, you have shown that you have little or no grasp of any scientific concepts, mathematics or basic logic and you have shown that you will say anything to further your agenda. You don't just get to wipe the slate clean by calling it your religion. An appeal to religion is not a carte blanche to say whatever the hell you like and have no one point out that you're talking nonsense. That would be an abuse of the law

...like I have said ... whatever we say on this thread is IRRELEVANT to how we treat each other in a work environment!!!

....the lurkers can decide on who has presented the better case ...

... but one amazing fact is that there are hundreds of ye and only one of me ... and yet ye have lost EVERY round!!!!

...and ye are now resorting to advocating active discrimination on the basis of religion to prop up your unfounded beliefs in the spontaneous powers of Pondslime to 'lift itself up by its own bootstraps' to become Man!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote:

but one amazing fact is that there are hundreds of ye and only one of me

While I find it distasteful to accuse anyone on thread of deliberately not telling the truth, that statement is not true and I'm sure you must know it.
For starters there are not hundreds of people arguing against you. The real figure seems closer to a dozen (consisting of both athiests and Christians).
You are also not alone defending your corner. Wolfsbane is here to help you out.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...like I have said ... whatever we say on this thread is IRRELEVANT to how we treat each other in a work environment!!!

....the lurkers can decide on who has presented the better case ...

... but one amazing fact is that there are hundreds of ye and only one of me ... and yet ye have lost EVERY round!!!!

J C, if I actually took you seriously you'd have given me an ulcer by now. I don't know whether to laugh at how brainwashed you are, despair that a human being can be so deluded or call you a troll when you say things like that

J C wrote: »

...and ye are now resorting to advocating active discrimination on the basis of religion to prop up your unfounded beliefs in the spontaneous powers of Pondslime to 'lift itself up by its own bootstraps' to become Man!!!:D

We've told you hundreds of times that that is a ridiculous straw man of evolution and yet you still put it forward time and time again. Regardless of whether you think you're right or not in this case, if you had corrected someone hundreds of times on their understanding of a scientific theory but they still maintained their mistaken understanding, would you consider it discrimination to fire them for incompetence?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...yes, there are several conditions that disimprove sight ... and many more that cause instant blindness ...

All of this PROVES that the Human Eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sightedness ... and in many cases for sightedness itself!!!!:)

I'm with Galvasean; to assert human sight as "perfect" is entirely subjective. It may be (apparently) perfect for us as we live in our world but it would be far from perfect for, IMO, the vast majority of other animals with whom we share a planet.

Edit: I don't really like what I just said. The interaction between an animal and its niche is more complex than I have suggested.

And if you're even remotely interested, people with aphakia (no lens/es) can respond to UV light. Is that a "disimprove(ment)"?

I have shown you that the eye is not irreducibly complex, using the standard definition of irreducible complexity. To suggest that the definition of irreducible complexity as applies to the eye should therefore be changed to "the eye and perfect vision" is like saying that the definition of a "bag of marbles" only applies when there are 13 marbles in the bag, not 12. I'm sure the more seasoned debaters here have a term for this particular fallacy.

When you talk about a structure being "irreducibly complex", you are forced into the position where you claim to mean the exact structure, as it exists now, for the exact function it performs now. Maybe you don't see the problem with this argument. In which case, you are blind.

Pun intended.

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

To suggest that the definition of irreducible complexity as applies to the eye should therefore be changed to "the eye and perfect vision" is like saying that the definition of a "bag of marbles" only applies when there are 13 marbles in the bag, not 12. I'm sure the more seasoned debaters here have a term for this particular fallacy.

It's an ad hoc hypothesis: www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html

"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s belief or theory"

Or just plain old shifting the goalposts

liamw

J.Cs last few posts and failure to admit he's wrong is reminding me of this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs

Wacker

liamw wrote: »

J.Cs last few posts and failure to admit he's wrong is reminding me of this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs

Anyone else notice that the first few seconds are straight out of Anchorman? Nice touch.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What it proves is that your claim that an eye that is missing components cannot have ANY function is demonstrably false. You have now backtracked from saying "the eye is irreducibly complex" which would disprove evolution if it was true to "the eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sight and in many cases for all sight" which disproves nothing. Unless it's irreducibly complex for ALL sight in ALL cases it's not irreducibly complex. You're shifting the goal posts because you've been proven wrong and a few days from now when you think this is forgotten about you'll shift them back.

You're talking nonsense. A child with absolutely no knowledge of evolution could see that you're talking nonsense because you fail at basic logic and that's not protected by any discrimination legislation

I never understood Irreducible Complexity meant the IC-less-a-crucial-part thing was useless for everything. Perhaps you can point to a quote that shows that?

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

While I find it distasteful to accuse anyone on thread of deliberately not telling the truth, that statement is not true and I'm sure you must know it.
For starters there are not hundreds of people arguing against you. The real figure seems closer to a dozen (consisting of both athiests and Christians).
You are also not alone defending your corner. Wolfsbane is here to help you out.

Wolfsbane cannot argue the scientific merits. At best I can point to dissenting scientific voices and even offer some common sense objections or point out the flaws in logic.

I defend the theology of YEC. JC is alone in debating the science.

strobe

wolfsbane wrote: »

YEC. JC is alone in debating the science.

There is a reason.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

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:

Here's the context:

Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
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.

The bolded bits show Sam's assertion and my reply to it. It dealt with them being published at all.

Now to having a creationist-tending articles published by the establishment journals:
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

This shows what has been done, but I'm not sure how much would escape the evolutionary inquisition today, now that Creationism has made such a big impact. The hornet's nest has been well and truly stirred.