The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

Wolfy,

Creationists don't back up their claims with actual science, they back them up with pseudo science. Furthermore, wolfy, the evolution that you deny as fact is the evolution that I also deny as fact. Quite simply, creationists are denying a pseudo evolution: the very things they say are needed to prove evolution would disprove it.

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

Wait a minute, are you seriously implying that evolution is not in the public spotlight?

No, that creationism is denied the scientific spotlight.

Our efforts have made sure it is in the public spotlight, but that doesn't make the Establishment's discrimination any less wrong.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, that creationism is denied the scientific spotlight.

Our efforts have made sure it is in the public spotlight, but that doesn't make the Establishment's discrimination any less wrong.

Which establishment? Theres no central authority for peer-reviewed papers. You sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, especially capitalising the 'E' on establishment.

The fact is that if there was half as many creation scientists as JC and you suggest, they would approve each others papers in the peer review process and they would get published. I speak as someone was has actually had papers published by anonymous review, theres no danger of people losing their jobs or anything.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Wolfy,

Creationists don't back up their claims with actual science, they back them up with pseudo science. Furthermore, wolfy, the evolution that you deny as fact is the evolution that I also deny as fact. Quite simply, creationists are denying a pseudo evolution: the very things they say are needed to prove evolution would disprove it.

1. Just because you strongly disagree with the scientific argument of creationism doesn't mean it is pseudo-science.

2. I'm not sure what false concept of evolution we have. My understanding of it is the movement from the first replicating cell, through billions of years of change and natural selection, to the present biosphere in all its vast complexity.

Is that a mistaken concept?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, you have a point. There could be a natural process by which an engine-less car gets an engine.

But if I'm depending on the car for transport, I think I would be wiser getting one fitted by the garage. If those of you with insight still need a lift, just let me know.

And once again we come back to the cyclical position of Intelligent Design, the argument that Creationists can't see anything but design because they are religious, thus they conclude everything must be designed, then using this conclusion as evidence that it is designed.

Or as the rest of us call it, utter nonsense :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. Just because you strongly disagree with the scientific argument of creationism doesn't mean it is pseudo-science.

No, the fact that it is pseudo-science makes it pseudo-science.

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

Which establishment? Theres no central authority for peer-reviewed papers. You sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, especially capitalising the 'E' on establishment.

The fact is that if there was half as many creation scientists as JC and you suggest, they would approve each others papers in the peer review process and they would get published. I speak as someone was has actually had papers published by anonymous review, theres no danger of people losing their jobs or anything.

The various academies operate on their world-view, not objective science. It does not matter which evolutionist is asked to review a creationist paper - it is not going to happen.

Even if it is only ID that is presented, the consequences for an actual publication are evident in the Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp

And creationist scientists now do have peer-review facilities, for example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm

http://http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

And once again we come back to the cyclical position of Intelligent Design, the argument that Creationists can't see anything but design because they are religious, thus they conclude everything must be designed, then using this conclusion as evidence that it is designed.

Or as the rest of us call it, utter nonsense :rolleyes:

Good luck with the car. :pac:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

No, the fact that it is pseudo-science makes it pseudo-science.

It would if it were. But not if its just that its opponents say so.

I've pointed out before that deplorable practice exists even in inter-evolutionary disputes.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

The various academies operate on their world-view, not objective science. It does not matter which evolutionist is asked to review a creationist paper - it is not going to happen.

Even if it is only ID that is presented, the consequences for an actual publication are evident in the Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp

And creationist scientists now do have peer-review facilities, for example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm

http://http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

Whether or not they do objective science cannot be determined by you. Peer review is (often not always) anonymous. You have no idea why a certain paper is rejected or not. You are assuming bias but the bias is in fact yours.

Creating your own journals does not count. If its valid biology put it in a biology journal, if its valid astrophysics, put it in an astrophysics journal. JC contends there are secret creationists everywhere. If this were the case some of them would surely by anonymous reviewers? Creationist papers would stand at least half a chance.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would if it were. But not if its just that its opponents say so.

I've pointed out before that deplorable practice exists even in inter-evolutionary disputes.

It is pseudo-science.

The problem is that when ever anyone tries to explain this to you you claim to not know enough about science to understand the arguments and say you will leave it to JC.

Which is obviously a problem since JC peddles more pseudo-science than anyone I've ever come across.

You only accept his position not because you understand and agree with the "science" he is attempting to present but because you both share the same religious outlook.

This goes back to my point about Dawkins and the problem when you blindly follow the position of one person or a group of people (ie Creationists), not because you understand their position to be correct but because you share certain ideological dogma with them.

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. Just because you strongly disagree with the scientific argument of creationism doesn't mean it is pseudo-science.

Quite correct. It being pseudo science has nothing to do with people not agreeing with it, but everything to do with it being, well, pseudo science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. I'm not sure what false concept of evolution we have. My understanding of it is the movement from the first replicating cell, through billions of years of change and natural selection, to the present biosphere in all its vast complexity.

Is that a mistaken concept?

This is where things get difficult, JC, and by extension everyone else reading this thread, has been told hundreds of times that a lot of the claims he makes for evolution are not what is recognised as evolution.

What you have just said above is not what JC, or the creationist movement at large, argues against.

MrP

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The various academies operate on their world-view, not objective science. It does not matter which evolutionist is asked to review a creationist paper - it is not going to happen.

Even if it is only ID that is presented, the consequences for an actual publication are evident in the Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp

And creationist scientists now do have peer-review facilities, for example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm

http://http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

Answers Research Journal is not a scientific journal, they say so themselves.

It is our hope that the online publication of ARJ will encourage Christians with powerful results of the latest creationist research, providing them with new resources for use in their own research and education—and in their witnessing to the truth and authority of God’s Word

and

"'We have a particular viewpoint,' Purdom stated, referring to the ARJ. 'We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth.'"

It is a religious publication, just like AnswersInGenesis itself. In fact you have defended AiG before by saying it is not trying to be a scientific publisher, it is odd then that you would use their journal as evidence of Creationist peer review science

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

Whether or not they do objective science cannot be determined by you. Peer review is (often not always) anonymous. You have no idea why a certain paper is rejected or not. You are assuming bias but the bias is in fact yours.

Creating your own journals does not count. If its valid biology put it in a biology journal, if its valid astrophysics, put it in an astrophysics journal. JC contends there are secret creationists everywhere. If this were the case some of them would surely by anonymous reviewers? Creationist papers would stand at least half a chance.

Once they publish a creationist paper, they will no longer be anonymous. Or are you saying the peer-reviewer is unknown to his fellow-reviewers? That he is able to pass for publication any paper he fancies and no one will be able to challenge him?

Didn't work in the Sternberg case.

Zombrex

This is the "selection" criteria of Answers Research Journal

VIII. Paper Review Process
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?
Remark: The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.

Basically if your "scientific" paper does not provide support for a literal Genesis account they will reject it as part of the review system. Who cares if it is actually true or not, or if it is valid science.

Wolfsbane if you don't understand why such a criteria has been roundly criticized and frankly laughed at by the scientific community watching in some what bemusement at the formation of this journal, you really need to do some of your own research into science and scientific standards.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Answers Research Journal is not a scientific journal, they say so themselves.

It is our hope that the online publication of ARJ will encourage Christians with powerful results of the latest creationist research, providing them with new resources for use in their own research and education—and in their witnessing to the truth and authority of God’s Word

and

"'We have a particular viewpoint,' Purdom stated, referring to the ARJ. 'We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth.'"

It is a religious publication, just like AnswersInGenesis itself. In fact you have defended AiG before by saying it is not trying to be a scientific publisher, it is odd then that you would use their journal as evidence of Creationist peer review science

You again confuse their religious presuppositions with the science they present.

They publish scientific articles - specifically those that support their religious understanding of origins. That doesn't make them any less scientific. It narrows the field, excludes research that has no implications for origins. And specifically material that is excluded from the establishment journals because it presents material contrary to their evolutionary dogma.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the "selection" criteria of Answers Research Journal


Basically if your "scientific" paper does not provide support for a literal Genesis account they will reject it as part of the review system. Who cares if it is actually true or not, or if it is valid science.

Wolfsbane if you don't understand why such a criteria has been roundly criticized and frankly laughed at by the scientific community watching in some what bemusement at the formation of this journal, you really need to do some of your own research into science and scientific standards.

See my previous.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

Once they publish a creationist paper, they will no longer be anonymous. Or are you saying the peer-reviewer is unknown to his fellow-reviewers? That he is able to pass for publication any paper he fancies and no one will be able to challenge him?

Didn't work in the Sternberg case.

Well it depends on the system, but in an anonymous system the name is not given, you are given a unique number. I.e. "I think 2343's paper is well written..." etc. Now I'll admit not all systems are anonymous ones, but the fact that no creationist papers are published are due to their lack of scientific content.

wolfsbane

MrPudding said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
2. I'm not sure what false concept of evolution we have. My understanding of it is the movement from the first replicating cell, through billions of years of change and natural selection, to the present biosphere in all its vast complexity.

Is that a mistaken concept?
This is where things get difficult, JC, and by extension everyone else reading this thread, has been told hundreds of times that a lot of the claims he makes for evolution are not what is recognised as evolution.

What you have just said above is not what JC, or the creationist movement at large, argues against.

MrP

I'm sorry, I see that as exactly what they argue against.

Maybe you are referring to their extension of the argument into abiogenesis? But they argue against the biological process as well.

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

Well it depends on the system, but in an anonymous system the name is not given, you are given a unique number. I.e. "I think 2343's paper is well written..." etc. Now I'll admit not all systems are anonymous ones, but the fact that no creationist papers are published are due to their lack of scientific content.

Ah, I take it you meant the presenter is anonymous, not the reviewer? But that changes nothing - it is the scientific creationist argument that is streng verboten.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, I take it you meant the presenter is anonymous, not the reviewer? But that changes nothing - it is the scientific creationist argument that is streng verboten.

They are both anonymous to each other. So it doesn't matter how wacky the idea is, you will not suffer a reputation loss by endorsing it.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

It is pseudo-science.

The problem is that when ever anyone tries to explain this to you you claim to not know enough about science to understand the arguments and say you will leave it to JC.

Which is obviously a problem since JC peddles more pseudo-science than anyone I've ever come across.

You only accept his position not because you understand and agree with the "science" he is attempting to present but because you both share the same religious outlook.

This goes back to my point about Dawkins and the problem when you blindly follow the position of one person or a group of people (ie Creationists), not because you understand their position to be correct but because you share certain ideological dogma with them.

As I pointed out, my trust is absolute only in God's word. Men, all men, make mistakes and have to revisit their ideas.

I accept JC's science primarily because it accords with the Bible account. But I add to that my character assessment of the scientists I personally know who promote YEC; my own common sense assessment of the scientific argument; and the bias evident in the anti-creationist treatment of creationism.

It all points in one direction. And that is not towards man evolving from the slime.

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

They are both anonymous to each other. So it doesn't matter how wacky the idea is, you will not suffer a reputation loss by endorsing it.

So you, a reviewer for Nature, say, could publish someone's paper that sought to show a creation of the biosphere about 6000 years ago? Without consequences?

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you, a reviewer for Nature, say, could publish someone's paper that sought to show a creation of the biosphere about 6000 years ago? Without consequences?

Nope I could not. There are multiple reviewers for any paper. If a majority think its suitable then it gets on a shortlist. Obviously theres still the editor etc to contend with. If it did come with glowing reviews from the reviewers I don't see why it couldn't get published. But you and me both know it wouldn't get that far, and its not to do with bias, its to do with the fact that you would have to throw out biology, physics, astrophysics and geology to accept that theory.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You again confuse their religious presuppositions with the science they present.

I'm not confusing anything, they are blatantly not a scientific group yet they pretend to be even going so far as setting up a ridiculous "journal".

wolfsbane wrote: »

They publish scientific articles - specifically those that support their religious understanding of origins. That doesn't make them any less scientific.

A scientific journal is not supposed to merely publish scientific papers, it is supposed to review scientific articles and assess their scientific merit.

As you say yourself AiG are a religious organisation.

Assessing papers based on how closely they match the organisations religious position makes them utterly un-scientific.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It narrows the field, excludes research that has no implications for origins.

It excludes papers that do not agree with the religious position AiG have already taken.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I pointed out, my trust is absolute only in God's word. Men, all men, make mistakes and have to revisit their ideas.

Are you not a man?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I accept JC's science primarily because it accords with the Bible account.

Which is a nonsense thing to judge science on.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I add to that my character assessment of the scientists I personally know who promote YEC

Which again is a nonsense thing to judge science on. As you yourself say above "all men" can make mistakes. The personal character of a scientist is utterly irrelevant to whether or not his research is accurate or not

wolfsbane wrote: »

my own common sense assessment of the scientific argument

Again a nonsense thing to judge science on. There are literally thousands of scientific discoveries over the last 100 years that are in conflict with the "common sense" views of lay people who don't even understand the science.


Thanks I guess for clearing up your utterly ignorant view of science. It just makes it even more bizarre though when you proclaim that you some how know something about Creationism being "real" science.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since it was in answer to: Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly ‘has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal’ (p.83). no claim was made that they were making creationist points, only that they were the work of creationists published in reputable scientific journals.

Whose question? AiG's? Certainly not mine, which was for you to present proof for your bold claim that creation science (minus the verboten YEC conclusions) has been published in mainstream journals. LOL @ you trying to move the goalposts now that you can't come up with a single example! You're a terrible liar... which I guess is a good thing! :pac:

wolfsbane wrote: »

But for those that do, maybe this:
Would Scott and Cole have turned up ‘Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer’, by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107:387–403, 1984)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.
It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t ‘explicitly’ wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as ‘an unresolved problem in theoretical biology’ (p.401).

Fantastic example of creation journalism. Where's the science? The actual experiment to test an actual hypothesis with an actual methodology and actual results??

strobe

wolfsbane wrote: »

You again confuse their religious presuppositions with the science they present.

They publish scientific articles - specifically EXCLUSIVELY those that support their religious understanding of origins, (IF ANY OF THE ARTICLES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "ORIGINS"). That doesn't make them any less scientific. It narrows the field, excludes research that has no implications for origins. And specifically material that is excluded from the establishment journals because it presents material contrary to their evolutionary dogma.

FYP?

CiDeRmAn

I really don't know how people can give so much time to debating nonsense such as a scientific basis for creationism, it is the equivalent of asking science to provide a foundation for the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, it is, at it's heart a ridiculous topic.

Outside of the extreme literalist cohorts who adhere to every english word, poorly translated from hebrew/latin script in the bible, no one believes that the bible accounts for the creation of all, the rise of mankind.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
They are like a bird whose nest is threatened, who runs around in circles faking a broken wing in a desperate attempt to distract onlookers so as to protect its nest.

Galvasean
What the heck kind of bird uses that strategy? Can't say I've heard of any birds try that. Got a link? Might be interesting to see.

Many ground-nesting birds such as Plover do so.
See point 3 in the 'Cool Facts' in the following link:-
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Killdeer/lifehistory