The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Have you seen "Dr" Kent Hovind's *ahem* doctoral dissertation?

....a 'strawman' ... and a 'red herring' ... my, my ... you really are outdoing yourself ... even for an Evolutionist!!!!:eek:

Could I gently point out that Kent Hovind ISN"T a Creation Scientist.

All Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists ... and according the Wikipedia :-
Kent Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College from 1972 until 1974 and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.).

Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado which no longer offers this program).

...anyway lads and lassies I hope you all enjoyed your first 'plunge' into the warm welcoming waters of Creation Science!!!!:eek::pac::):D

BTW have ye got any Evolutionist papers that ye would like to have peer-reviewed by a Creation Scientist ... I promise they'll be gentle ... and diplomatic!!!:D:D

chozometroid

JC, will any of your fellow Creation scientists come here and support the cause?

Turtwig

Hi JC,

Pick the evolutionist topic you would like to review and then we'll try find a paper.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Hi JC,

Pick the evolutionist topic you would like to review and then we'll try find a paper.

After 1290487102983471 posts, this thread is still going strong.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I know it's an absolute disgrace that these folks are allowed to have so much influence on public opinion when they are so inherently dishonest. Anti-science is always the same...

*From a post I'm constructing for green issues*

---

In 1991,Western Fuels, The National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute set up a group called the Information Council for the Environment (ICE). The goal of this organisation is outlined as follows:

• Reposition Global Warming as a theory (not fact).
• Target Print and Radio Media for maximum effectiveness.
• Achieve broad participation along the entire electric industry.
• Start small, start well and build on early successes.
• Get the concepts developed and implemented as soon as possible.
• Test market execution in 1991.
• Build national involvement as soon as test market results are in hand.
• Go national in late autumm of 1991 with media program.
• Use a spokeperson from the scientific community.

Strategies used for initial test.

• Find a receptive population and pretest various strategies.
• Use focus group to test the ICE name and creative concepts.
• If successful, go nationwide.
• ICE : Information Council for the Environment.
• ICE: Information Citizens for the Environment.
• ICE: Intelligent Concern for the Environment.
• ICE: Informed Choices for the Environment.
• Broadcast media will directly attack the global warming by relating "irrefutable evidence" to the contrary, delivered by a believable spokesperson.
• The print creative will attack proponents through comparison of global warming to historical or mythical instances of gloom and doom. Each ad will invite the listener/reader to call or write for further information, thus creating a data base
• "How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that does not exist?"
• Carbon Tax.
• Create Illusion of "Debate".

Results from Initial Test.

• Audiences trusted “technical sources” most, activists and government officials in middle, and industry least.
• Scientists are the most credible spokespersons.
• “Information Council on Environment” was best name, because ICE is postioned as technical source.
• Target Audiences Identified.
  • Older, less educated males.
    • Receptive to messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming. For example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence.
  • Younger, lower-income women.
    • Are more receptive to factual information concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be “green” consumers, believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information.
  • Members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues.

The end result was this video.

Perhaps beginning the rubbish pseudo skeptic arguments.

---

It's truly frightening that people don't really care about logic or technical details (most scientific research backs up this claim too:() but instead chose to focus on what they perceive to be other peoples motives and beliefs. I mean, imagine if Global Warming said that we should consume as much chocolate as possible, how many pseudoskeptics do you think there would be? Or if Evolution said there was one man and one woman at the beginning of the human race? The reason I'm bringing this to light is to because I've recently found that while knowing and explaining the science really well is a good thing. The only way to alleviate peoples concerns is to explore the motives and beliefs of the parties involved. Technical detail and logic mean sweet f all. I think it's time we stopped debunking creationist claims and showed Wolfy and JC the methods they use to spread their "science".

...could I gently point out that the debate that is currently ongoing within the scientific community on 'Climate Change' is largely a debate between Evolutionists. Please STOP 'badmouthing' your fellow EVOLUTIONISTS!!!:D

Creation Scientists are largely focussed on OTHER issues!!!:D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Hi JC,

Pick the evolutionist topic you would like to review and then we'll try find a paper.

...possible materialistic mechanisms for the spontaneous development of functional CSI in living organisms perhaps???

J C

chozometroid wrote: »

After 1290487102983471 posts, this thread is still going strong.

...Halleluia brother!!!!!:):D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...possible materialistic mechanisms for the spontaneous development of functional CSI in living organisms perhaps???

Evolution topic, not "made up concept by Creationists" topic :rolleyes:

You can't even tell us what CSI is and you want us to explain how it comes about? Ridiculous.

J C

chozometroid wrote: »

JC, will any of your fellow Creation scientists come here and support the cause?

...as there is still less than 300 evolutionists challenging me on this thread I think I can manage on my own ... when I gets to 500 evolutionists ... or if I get tired going round in circles with you guys, I might have to call on them to help me!!!!:):D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Evolution topic, not "made up concept by Creationists" topic :rolleyes:

You can't even tell us what CSI is and you want us to explain how it comes about? Ridiculous.

...surely ye have some explantion/model for how functional information can be generated spontaneously? ... and some papers on this fundamental issue???

chozometroid

J C wrote: »

...as there is still less than 300 evolutionists challenging me on this thread I think I can manage on my own ... when I gets to 500 evolutionists ... or if I get tired going round in circles with you guys, I might have to call on them to help me!!!!:):D

It would be nice to have a fresh perspective, because there has been nothing new here for a while.

DogmaticLefty

This thread is a farce.

Can Fanny Craddock do the decent thing?

Galvasean

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

This thread is a farce.

Can Fanny Craddock do the decent thing?

That idea has been suggested before. However this thread keeps the topic contained to one thread as opposed to spreading throughout the forum.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

Could I gently point out that Kent Hovind ISN"T a Creation Scientist.

So you agree hes a complete idiot and his dissertation wouldn't be fit to use for toilet paper in any real third-level educational institution ?

I am not even talking about the subject, I am talking about his use of the English language.

BTW have ye got any Evolutionist papers that ye would like to have peer-reviewed by a Creation Scientist ... I promise they'll be gentle ... and diplomatic!!!

Take your pick, theres mountains of them.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...could I gently point out that the debate that is currently ongoing within the scientific community on 'Climate Change' is largely a debate between Evolutionists. Please STOP 'badmouthing' your fellow EVOLUTIONISTS!!!:D

Its absolutely amazing just when I thought nothing less intelligent could be said.

Your constant and ignorant labeling of people as 'Evolutionist' or 'creationist' is one of the most ignorant things I have ever experienced.

Scientists are not evolutionists or creationists, scientists are scientists. They are biologists, they are astronomers etc.

Creation Scientists are largely focussed on OTHER issues!!!

Well I don't see how they have the time between going to church and lying through their teeth twisting facts to suit their religious beliefs. What else could they possibly be doing ?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...possible materialistic mechanisms for the spontaneous development of functional CSI in living organisms perhaps???

You ask for a real biological peer reviewed paper and then you sprout creationist nonsense as the topic ? Would it surprise you to learn that real biologists don't write about nonsense in their papers ?:pac::P:confused:

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...surely ye have some explantion/model for how functional information can be generated spontaneously? ... and some papers on this fundamental issue???

How about defending your toilet paper creationist 'papers' against the debunking that we just gave them ?

How about explaining why in the creationist 'paper' I quoted, the writer lied about the distance to the Sun from the Earth ?

How about defending the fact that even if every single thing in that paper was true it makes no case for a god or a 'designer' yet tries to infer it ?

J C

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

This thread is a farce.

Can Fanny Craddock do the decent thing?

...can't stand the heat ... of Creation Science TRUTH ... eh?:D

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

That idea has been suggested before. However this thread keeps the topic contained to one thread as opposed to spreading throughout the forum.

... it's what is known as 'the evil of two lessers' ... from an Evolutionist point of view!!!!:eek::):D

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Its absolutely amazing just when I thought nothing less intelligent could be said.

Your constant and ignorant labeling of people as 'Evolutionist' or 'creationist' is one of the most ignorant things I have ever experienced.

Scientists are not evolutionists or creationists, scientists are scientists. They are biologists, they are astronomers etc.



Well I don't see how they have the time between going to church and lying through their teeth twisting facts to suit their religious beliefs. What else could they possibly be doing ?

... the point that I was making is that debate within science is a healthy thing ...
... both the debate between materialists on the 'climate change' issue and the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists on the 'origins issue' are good examples of healthy debate among scientists!!!!:)

...everybody learns ... science makes progress and society benefits from such exercises.:)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

My contempt for you is firmly based on the evidence which strongly suggests that you are lying regarding your scientific qualifications.

...and I thought we were getting on so welll!!!!:)

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...everybody learns ... science makes progress and society benefits from such exercises.:)

Are you learning?

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...surely ye have some explantion/model for how functional information can be generated spontaneously? ... and some papers on this fundamental issue???

Would this suffice?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.800-recipes-for-life-how-genes-evolve.html?full=true

A couple of decades ago, it was suggested that unique genes could arise from what is called a frameshift mutation.
...
In 2006, Stephen Scherer of the University of Toronto in Canada and his colleagues searched the human genome for new genes that had evolved by duplication followed by frameshift mutations affecting at least part of the original gene. They found 470 examples, suggesting that the process is surprisingly common (Genomics, vol 88, p 690).
...
A team at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland has found evidence that at least six new human genes have arisen from non-coding DNA in the 6 million years or so since humans and chimps diverged.
...
Part of the answer could be the recent discovery that even though at least half of our genome is junk, as much as 90 per cent of it can be accidentally transcribed into RNA on occasion.
...
This means it might not be that uncommon for random bits of junk DNA to get translated into a protein. Since most random proteins will probably be harmful, natural selection will eliminate these DNA sequences, but just occasionally one will strike it lucky,

[/end excerpts from
Recipes for life: How genes evolve
24 November 2008 by Michael Le Page
Magazine issue 2683. ]

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...and I thought we were getting on so welll!!!!:)

Really? That will be why, since you were called on your qualifications, you've studiously avoided engaging with me on any scientific level.* Instead, you choose to mock, contradict and jitterbug crazily away, eyes rolling and inane grins ahoy.

JC, you have failed to persuade anyone that you're a scientist (and I'm not limiting that description to any kind of formal qualification, even just an indication that you have read a few papers or the odd book might be helpful, after all, this seems to be an area of interest to you). Furthermore, I'm not even convinced that:
1. you're an adult
2. in possession of a sane mind.

It is simply impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you - you're like a child who spouts "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" over and over and over.

You are the worst advertisement for creation "science" I have ever seen. And I never thought I'd ever say that sentence.

*Not just from me but from anyone who tries to discuss anything of scientific value.

doctoremma

ISAW wrote: »

Would this suffice?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.800-recipes-for-life-how-genes-evolve.html?full=true

A couple of decades ago, it was suggested that unique genes could arise from what is called a frameshift mutation.
...
In 2006, Stephen Scherer of the University of Toronto in Canada and his colleagues searched the human genome for new genes that had evolved by duplication followed by frameshift mutations affecting at least part of the original gene. They found 470 examples, suggesting that the process is surprisingly common (Genomics, vol 88, p 690).
...
A team at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland has found evidence that at least six new human genes have arisen from non-coding DNA in the 6 million years or so since humans and chimps diverged.
...
Part of the answer could be the recent discovery that even though at least half of our genome is junk, as much as 90 per cent of it can be accidentally transcribed into RNA on occasion.
...
This means it might not be that uncommon for random bits of junk DNA to get translated into a protein. Since most random proteins will probably be harmful, natural selection will eliminate these DNA sequences, but just occasionally one will strike it lucky,

All these are examples of design infused by a Creator.....!!! :P

How can "junk" DNA be junk if it's functional, which means that God dunnit....!!! :P

There are no "accidents" in Creation, except the unfortunately accidental idea that evolutionists have that "pondslime made man"...!!!

Disclaimer: This post in no way represents the views of the poster. If anyone should attempt to claim the opposite, or suggest that the poster is making "a good little creation scientist", the poster cannot be held responsible for her actions.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...possible materialistic mechanisms for the spontaneous development of functional CSI in living organisms perhaps???

Since, as you know perfectly well, CSI is a completely nonsensical notion, there are hardly likely to be any papers on the topic you suggest. You might as well ask for scientific papers on the tooth fairy.

However, seeing as you asked for one, here is a paper debunking the concept of CSI.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

I have repeatedly asked you to answer the criticisms there (at least three previous times on this thread) and you have just ignored the issue. Well, since you asked for a paper to review, you can't really ignore it now, can you?

So lets have your review then

oceanclub

The most irritating thing about JC isn't even the shilling for creationism - it's the whole passive-aggressive cutesy-smiley face thing, while studiously ignoring all arguments.

P.

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

[URL="http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1
Any philosophers out there?

How Do We Know What We Know?

by Lane P. Lester, Ph.D.

Creation Research Society Quarterly 32(2) 1995

Begins with a natural law hypothesis "knowing something doesn't make it true; it only means that we consider it to be true"

In other words there are true and false things - this hypothesis underlies much of modern science particularly the positivist view expressed by many "skeptics"

I should point out some philosophy shorthand
What is? Ontology
How do we know what it? Epistemology
How can we measure what is?Empiricism
So what? Does it matter to me?Teleology

Lester's epistemology argues : only two ways: personal experience or someone tells us.

"Personal experience" however is thorny since it encompasses objective empirical data (e.g. "Passing electricity through water produces both hydrogen and oxygen" but also subjective ontological construction based on sense data supplied by other people's opinion
e.g. " I have the benefit of seeing my prayers answered." - this is not verified and subjective. This is very much along the lines of inductive reasoning e.g. you witness the sun rising and therefore you expect it to rise every day.

"someone tells us" is presented as fairly much empirically verifiable or objective data. ( There are arguments against whether objectivity in science. I do not deny I make many of them elsewhere on boards but let us stick with the case as presented.)

But then Lester sneaks in " Accepting Christ gives me eternal life." as an empirically verifiable fact! Now it might well be true but it isn't "true" in the same way that "hydrogen is the smallest element" Yes we accept that scientists tell us this but people can actually learn to do an experiment showing Hydrogen that way. No experiment proves God exists or disproves it! This is the difference between belief and scientific fact. (And again, I have stated elsewhere science itself is riddled with belief but that isn't the position taken by Lester).

CAN YOU TRUST YOUR OWN EYES? the following section suggests the question of objective verifiable evidence but again Lester draws on inductive reasoning and

Lester wrote:

The general principle here is that we expect to see the commonplace and not the unusual. Indeed, our senses may even lie to us based on what we expect to be true.

another element here is the perception vs reality concept. Yes you may mistake a helicopter for a UFO but there is something really there! The example given is abut Jesus asking for something and a voice of God speaking from the heavens but some people thinking it was thunder and others angels. Lester makes the point that people heard but misinterpreted the voice as different things. The real point is though that ALL the crowd (that were not deaf that is) heard something!

WHOM DO YOU BELIEVE? Is a section which suggests what a reliable/fair/dependable source is. This is where Lester digs his own grave. first he suggests a false dichotomy

what if two equally knowledgeable people tell you opposite things, what then?
This is a dilemma with which I often have to deal in questions about the creation/evolution controversy.

Now how are we to believe there is a EQUAL BALANCE in scientific literature between evolution and creation? WE could go and look at publications and I think you will find more percent scientific publications on evolution vs. it's deniers then you will find in favour of anthropogenic global warming vs. deniers.
So why should we just accept his opinion/authority? EXACTLY the point he is making which when applied to him creates problems for his position!

And then comes

Sometimes I have to choose on the basis of philosophy rather than science: I choose to believe the Christian rather than the atheist.

Science does NOT do this! Yes I have a bias. If a black man comes to me and says "look these tests show black people are equal to whites" or if a racist comes and says "look this shows whites are superiour" I really want to believe the black guy but not BECAUSE he is black and I will STILL look at the argument presented! AND IF THE RACIST has a better case I will have to accept it! Great scientists do things which go against their personal conviction. for example Kepler was religious zealot and figured he could prove a mathematical shape to the solar System (the "platonic solids" theory). Brache was a drunken dualist but the best per telescope empirical astronomer ever! In spite of not making the measurements himself and in spite of not even liking Brache Kepler TRUSTED the measurements and abandoned his "proof of God " theory.

Seriously now, does something being printed mean that it is more likely to be true?

completely glosses over the concept of "peer review literature"!

SCIENCE - A WAY OF KNOWING begins

...almost all of it [knowledge] will come from being told by someone else

But this again ignores the repeatability and verifiability of science!

it goes on

the modern way of doing science actually started in the 1600s

Instruments, freedom to do so and ways of transmitting knowledge became available 400 years ago but the foundation of science is basically Greek rationality.

most of the founders of modern science believed in a personal God

Most probably still do! so what? Nothing to do with the science being correct!
This could be called "argument from majority". I wonder if most of the people in the world didn't accept what they believe would fundamentalists reject their beliefs?

having relied on induction he then goes on the introduce the Hypo/deductive method. This is only part of and noe way of looking at science but it is valid although there are many possible critiques of it and one could say it isn't an "absolute truth".

He finishes

So while scientists can provide us with valuable information about events that happened a long time ago, they cannot provide us with answers that are as final as those about things taking place today. Because of that uncertainty, we can expect the philosophy of a scientist (Conservative Christian, Liberal Christian, Orthodox Jew, Reformed Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist) to affect the conclusions they'll make. Whom will you believe?

This is misleading because

1. Science CAN REPRODUCE conditions which occurred in the past for example in a particle accelerator re create energy levels only existing in the Early universe.

2. The exact replication of conditions is not necessary to accept the PLAUSABILITY of a theory. For example one might not be able to create life (or predict this weeks lotto) but it is plausable if you had organic chemicals in a flask and emitted a spark of electricity and kept trying every week then life would be created in the flask or you would eventually win the lotto.

3. We CAN expect personal bias to affect opinion and their choise of subject but they CAN'T break the rules and lie cheat or produce false information! Their conclusions must be based on the evidence! As above - for science - it doesn't matter whether they are Christian or atheist as long as they argue rationally based on the available evidence.
some of the best scientists ARE in fact Christians and they argue against Biblical fundamentalism!

ISAW

doctoremma wrote: »

All these are examples of design infused by a Creator.....!!! :P

All you are saying here is "Aha! but all the matter obeyed the laws of physics which were created by God!"

It is just as easy to say "aha ! that person won the lotto because God made that happen"?

I point to something happening randomly and you say god is specifically determining it.
for anythink I point to as a random event not forced on us by god you can say iot is caused by and decided on by God.

If you are going down that road then
Is God specifically causing earthquakes and tsunami?
Did God make Adam eat the forbidden fruit?

How can "junk" DNA be junk if it's functional, which means that God dunnit....!!! :P

In the same way that a brick can be a functional part of a building. Functional in this sense means "capable of bring used for building". We are discussing abiogenesis - the spontaneous creation of life. If you are going to change the topic to the creation of matter and the universe that is a different scientific topic. It would be quite an acceptable philosophy to say that God created or caused the Big Bang but didn't actually cause abiogenesis other than allowing for random events to happen. It is also acceptable to suggest that God later intervened and gave one particular primate a conscience. Noe of these philosophical positions exclude the possibility of random abiogenesis.

There are no "accidents" in Creation, except the unfortunately accidental idea that evolutionists have that "pondslime made man"...!!!

The above scientific publications attest to "accidental" creation of new species.
The evolution hypothesis isn't that slime became man. It is that species can change over time into other species. Becoming man involvs something lese such as values or conscience or even a mind or a spirit. Philosophers of science would differ on whether such things exist in the absence of a body.

But again that is a DIFFERENT TOPIC to the plausability of abiogenesis.

The position is science suggests that if you wait long enough you will win the lotto.
You suggest that when someone wins it is because God made them win.

Your position might well be true but it isn't scientific because we have no way of proving or disproving it!

iUseVi

ISAW wrote: »

All you are saying here is "Aha! but all the matter obeyed the laws of physics which were created by God!"

It is just as easy to say "aha ! that person won the lotto because God made that happen"?

I point to something happening randomly and you say god is specifically determining it.
for anythink I point to as a random event not forced on us by god you can say iot is caused by and decided on by God.

If you are going down that road then
Is God specifically causing earthquakes and tsunami?
Did God make Adam eat the forbidden fruit?



In the same way that a brick can be a functional part of a building. Functional in this sense means "capable of bring used for building". We are discussing abiogenesis - the spontaneous creation of life. If you are going to change the topic to the creation of matter and the universe that is a different scientific topic. It would be quite an acceptable philosophy to say that God created or caused the Big Bang but didn't actually cause abiogenesis other than allowing for random events to happen. It is also acceptable to suggest that God later intervened and gave one particular primate a conscience. Noe of these philosophical positions exclude the possibility of random abiogenesis.



The above scientific publications attest to "accidental" creation of new species.
The evolution hypothesis isn't that slime became man. It is that species can change over time into other species. Becoming man involvs something lese such as values or conscience or even a mind or a spirit. Philosophers of science would differ on whether such things exist in the absence of a body.

But again that is a DIFFERENT TOPIC to the plausability of abiogenesis.

The position is science suggests that if you wait long enough you will win the lotto.
You suggest that when someone wins it is because God made them win.

Your position might well be true but it isn't scientific because we have no way of proving or disproving it!

Dude she was being sarcastic, did you not read the disclaimer? Or any of her other posts. :eek: