The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

gosplan wrote: »

Yes, freedom of belief is vital. One should be perfectly welcome to believe in God, Adam and Eve, the flat earth, the flood, and that we should be wary of Syria as it's likely the antichrist will appear there(not you ... I know) ... but the point is that this should not be taught in schools.

What do you think should be taught in schools and why? What criteria should the subjects meet in order that they be taught in schools?

gosplan

Soul Winner wrote: »

What do you think should be taught in schools and why? What criteria should the subjects meet in order that they be taught in schools?

Assuming you're talking about Science class, then the scientific theory that best fits the facts.

As regards criteria for being taught - they simply need to be worth knowing. I like the idea of religion class as long as it covers all religions.

Soul Winner

gosplan wrote: »

As regards criteria for being taught - they simply need to be worth knowing. I like the idea of religion class as long as it covers all religions.

Well then it simply boils down to a value judgment if that's the case. What you think is worth knowing and what others think is worth knowing are not necessarily going to be the same thing. If we are to base our criteria on that then we would end up either having to teach everything in schools or nothing at all. How do we make that judgment call though? Some one or some group is going to have the last say on the matter and it just might boil down to being what they value or not. So in the case of religion, if that group is a bunch of atheists then we would end up not even teaching religion because atheist don't value religion because religion teaches about God and they don't believe that such a Being exists so why should they put their shoulders behind that cart? So unless this group has a representative from all walks of life we will never have a fair and balanced set of subjects.

If religion is to be taught in schools then the basic facts about those religions and their respective histories should be taught along with how they differ from one another and why. If some students decide to take a personal step toward one religion or the other then let them go to their local Church or Synagogue or whatever. Its the teachers job to teach what each religion believes, it is not the teachers job to teach their own particular belief system or to even give an opinion on the other religions unless it is asked for by the students.

gosplan wrote: »

Assuming you're talking about Science class, then the scientific theory that best fits the facts.

In science yes I agree with that. But like religion we now have different interpretations of what the facts are and what the best explanations of those facts are, so there might a case whereby a new approach would have to be brokered. As the ID proponents (and indeed some non ID proponents) submit, we should at least teach the controversy. Let people make up their own mind about what way to interpret the so called facts and leave it that. But I believe that the scientific method should proceed as normal i.e. if someone has a theory that can explain a certain thing then let them do the math and the experiments to show that and to submit their research through the proper channels for peer review. I think this is a really good method but it should be fair and balanced too. People should be entitled to use this approach in the case of ID, no obstacles should be put in their way simple because they subscribe to this view. ID (if its not a proven theory) should be accepted like all unproven theories as plausible until proven otherwise by the scientific method. Why ID gets singled out for exclusion in the science lab is a puzzle to me. The only explanation I can think of are unscientific ones, i.e that the obstacle layers don't like the implications of such a theory having validity. But that is not the scientific method either, that is stunting the growth of science in favor of a particular world view and it will eventually destroy science if it goes unchecked by those on the inside who have the ability and resources to do something about and, if necessary, take a hit for it.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

In science yes I agree with that. But like religion we now have different interpretations of what the facts are and what the best explanations of those facts are, so there might a case whereby a new approach would have to be brokered. As the ID proponents (and indeed some non ID proponents) submit, we should at least teach the controversy. Let people make up their own mind about what way to interpret the so called facts and leave it that.

It is good to see the Creationist propaganda is working :rolleyes:

Science is not about interpreting facts. It is about modeling. You either have a model that accurately and consistently predicts observation or you don't. There is very little subjective assessment in that, and that is in fact the point of science.

Needless to say Creationists don't have models that accurately predict observations which is why they are so enthusiastic to redefine science so they don't need them, and why scientists are so pissed off by Creationists for trying to do this at the political level.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why ID gets singled out for exclusion in the science lab is a puzzle to me.

It shouldn't be. It is because it is not science yet Creationist continue to try and push it as such, going so far as to try and redefine what science actually is to try and get it in.

Are you really puzzled as to why scientists would not want agenda driven Creationists redefining science for their own purpose? Really?

No one has a model of this design process, and as such there are no tests you can do on it to see if it is accurate or not. As such it is not science.

Lots of other things aren't science, such as astrology, but astrologists unlike Creationists don't pretend it is and try and get it into science class rooms.

gosplan

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well then it simply boils down to a value judgment if that's the case. What you think is worth knowing and what others think is worth knowing are not necessarily going to be the same thing. If we are to base our criteria on that then we would end up either having to teach everything in schools or nothing at all. How do we make that judgment call though?

It's a difficult call, no doubt but it's pretty much what modern curricula are based upon. Some science, languages, the arts & humanities, some sport.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Some one or some group is going to have the last say on the matter and it just might boil down to being what they value or not. So in the case of religion, if that group is a bunch of atheists then we would end up not even teaching religion because atheist don't value religion because religion teaches about God and they don't believe that such a Being exists so why should they put their shoulders behind that cart? So unless this group has a representative from all walks of life we will never have a fair and balanced set of subjects.

AFAIK, VEC schools here in Ireland teach religion. These are the only non-denominational post primary schools. Atheists may say 'don't teach any religion' but I think this would be ignoring a large part of our history and culture.

Just for the record, I think one could teach religion successfully and correctly without including creationism.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If religion is to be taught in schools then the basic facts about those religions and their respective histories should be taught along with how they differ from one another and why. If some students decide to take a personal step toward one religion or the other then let them go to their local Church or Synagogue or whatever. Its the teachers job to teach what each religion believes, it is not the teachers job to teach their own particular belief system or to even give an opinion on the other religions unless it is asked for by the students.

I could not agree more. IMO you are spot on with this.

Soul Winner wrote: »

In science yes I agree with that. But like religion we now have different interpretations of what the facts are and what the best explanations of those facts are, so there might a case whereby a new approach would have to be brokered. As the ID proponents (and indeed some non ID proponents) submit, we should at least teach the controversy. Let people make up their own mind about what way to interpret the so called facts and leave it that.

Yes but IMO, as long as the only evidence for ID is the gaps in the evolution theory, it shouldn't be addressed in much detail at all.

Sam Vimes

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Assuming you're talking about Science class, then the scientific theory that best fits the facts.

As regards criteria for being taught - they simply need to be worth knowing. I like the idea of religion class as long as it covers all religions.

... do you honestly think that the evolutionist belief that matter spontaneously organised itself into the megabit amounts of Complex tightly Specified Information that is found in the Human Genome, without any intelligent input ... is any better than thinking that sticking a feather in the ground will grow a hen???

The scientific theory that best fits the facts (by a long shot) is that all life was intelligently designed!!!:)

... however the Atheists and their fellow travellers control the education system and the mainstream media ... and they are not about to let go of their stranglehold on the transmission of ideas to the next generation!!!

... and they are quite prepared to use the full force of law to forcibly indoctrinate every child ... and any adult that will listen to them ... with their desperate attempts at denying God ... under the guise of 'science'!!!!:eek::):D

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Assuming you're talking about Science class, then the scientific theory that best fits the facts.

As regards criteria for being taught - they simply need to be worth knowing. I like the idea of religion class as long as it covers all religions.

... so religion class must cover all religions ... but science class can only cover one invalid and totally discredited origins explanation!!!:(:eek:

... and your quote below shows that your definition of 'all religions' excludes Biblical Christianity!!:eek:

wrote:

Just for the record, I think one could teach religion successfully and correctly without including creationism.

... Anything But Jesus Christ ... and His Creation ... seems to be the order of the day for pseudo-liberals like yourself ... and your fellow travellers!!!!:(:eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... freedom is freedom ... everything else is fascism in one of its various manifestations!!!!


Gosplan
Yes, freedom of belief is vital. One should be perfectly welcome to believe in God, Adam and Eve, the flat earth, the flood, and that we should be wary of Syria as it's likely the antichrist will appear there(not you ... I know) ... but the point is that this should not be taught in schools.

... and what should be taught in your Atheistic opinion?
... the nihilistic idea that people come from nothing and are ultimately going nowhere but the grave???

... if you want to depress yourself with this stuff, go right ahead ... but please stop using the full force of law to indoctrinate our beautiful God-given Christian children with your invalid philosophy!!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Most of the true liberals that I have known have been Saved Christians ... most of the rest are pseudo-liberals ... who only really tolerate those who agree with them!!!!


gosplan
Heresay. You are a single person which is no good for a sample proportion.

... the total intolerance displayed towards Biblical Christianity on this thread objectively proves that there is nobody as illiberal towards the people with whom they disagree, as the 'pseudo-liberals'!!!!

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Atheists may say 'don't teach any religion' but I think this would be ignoring a large part of our history and culture.

... I doubt very much if most Atheists do say this ... it is obviously far better from their point of view, if parents are told that their children are being taught 'religion' ... and the children are then taught practically no orthodox Christian Doctrine !!!

... if the parents were told that no religion would be taught, most of them would take steps to ensure that their children were taught proper Bible-based Christianity!!!!:eek:

... that is why Biblical Christianity is going from strength to strength in America ... where religion is banned in public school ...

... while Mainstream Christianity is imploding in Ireland ... where 'religion' is taught in schools!!!!

J C

... and to help stop Evolutionists making fools of themselves ... here are 12 arguments that Evolutionists shouldn't use (courtesy of AIG) :-


Argument 1 Evolution is a fact
When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.


Argument 2 Only the uneducated reject evolution
Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers (here’s one) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
—and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position.


Argument 3 Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).


Argument 4 Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.


Argument 5 Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). But even if this were true (it’s not), direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs.


Argument 6 It’s here, so it must have evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.


Argument 7 Natural selection is evolution
This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.


Argument 8 Common design means common ancestry
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.


Argument 9 Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes.


Argument 10 Mutations drive evolution
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.


Argument 11 The Scopes trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/monkeying-with-the-media


Argument 12 Science vs. religion
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.

Sam Vimes

Argument 7 Natural selection is evolution
This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.


Argument 10 Mutations drive evolution
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.

LOL
Both of those arguments are absolutely correct. Natural selection cannot produce anything new and it could be said that "virtually every time" mutations come with a cost. But with mutations producing at least some beneficial changes and natural selection selecting them you've got evolution baby. The only people who ever say either that natural selection drives evolution or mutations drive evolution are creationists who deliberately misunderstand evolution. People who haven't decided in advance that it's false because it conflicts with their religious beliefs know that it's driven by mutations and natural selection, ie they realise that argument 7 above is countered by argument 10 and vice versa. I would like to give the AIG crowd the benefit of the doubt and simply describe those two arguments as examples of mind numbing stupidity but I can only assume that they have been corrected on this matter thousands of times and still make those retarded arguments so I am forced to take them for what they are: deliberate dishonesty

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

... the idea that Creation Scientists are assaulting Evolutionists is quite preposterous.
The reality is that Creation Scientists are very much 'keeping their heads down' and staying out of sight!!!
They are conventional working scientists ... who work harmoniously alongside their evolutionist colleagues, often never revealing the Creation Science dimension to their professional lives ... because it is a love that dare not speak it's name!!!!:D:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... this cartoon reminds me of the Nazi propaganda cartoons that showed Jews threatening the Nazis ... just at the time when the Nazis were actually attacking the Jews!!!!:(:(

LOL Godwinned. Just like every other time you've posted in this thread, you lose

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

LOL

Argument 7 Natural selection is evolution
This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.


Argument 10 Mutations drive evolution
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.


Both of those arguments are absolutely correct. Natural selection cannot produce anything new and it could be said that "virtually every time" mutations come with a cost.

... I'm so glad that you have learned not to make a fool of yourself by not using these arguments !!!

... but wait....

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But with mutations producing at least some beneficial changes and natural selection selecting them you've got evolution baby.

... all you have got here is some wishful thinking that is running against both logic and all of the evidence before your eyes!!!!
... so you have gone and made a fool of yourself ... despite my best efforts to save your blushes!!!!!:eek::eek::):D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... I'm so glad that you have learned not to make a fool of yourself by not using these arguments !!!

... but wait....

... all you have got is some wishful thinking that is running against both logic and the evidence before your eyes!!!!
... so you have gone and made a fool of yourself ... despite my best efforts to save your blushes!!!!!:eek::eek::):D

That's right good man. Those two arguments are the equivalent of:

1. A plane can't fly without a pilot
2. Human beings can't fly without a plane
3. Therefore flying is impossible

But whatever you're into

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

LOL Godwinned. Just like every other time you've posted in this thread, you lose

... is that denial ... or WHAT !!!:eek:

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's right good man. Those two arguments are the equivalent of:

1. A plane can't fly without a pilot
2. Human beings can't fly without a plane
3. Therefore flying is impossible

But whatever you're into

... no ... it is the equivalent of:-

1. A plane is CSI-rich ... and it therefore cannot spontaneusly arise without a significant ultimate input of intelligence.

2. A Human Being is CSI-rich ... and they therefore also cannot spontaneusly arise without a significant ultimate input of intelligence.

del88

Here's an interesting video from the richard dawkins...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... no ... it is the equivalent of:-

1. A plane is CSI-rich ... and it therefore cannot spontaneusly arise without a significant ultimate input of intelligence.

2. A Human is CSI-rich ... and it therefore cannot spontaneusly arise without a significant ultimate input of intelligence.

Ah good old CSI, how I've missed it. Ironically the whole concept of CSI could never have arisen if there had been a significant input of intelligence applied during its inception, because anyone with any intelligence whatsoever can see it for the unadulterated crap it is.

J C

del88 wrote: »

Here's an interesting video from the richard dawkins...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

... The recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) in the Giraffe drops into the chest and loops over the heart before going back up to the larynx (voice box) ... is an example of God having the last laugh ... at the Atheists ... who claim that Evolution created the (perfectly designed) chest and the (perfectly designed) heart and then was 'unable' to select 4 centimetre direct route for a nerve to run directly between the vagus and the larynx ... and instead it 'selected' for a 4 metre indirect route !!!
... it works perfectly ... and is an example of a 'luxury' that only an Intelligent Designer could provide!!!!:eek::):cool:

... it's actually a 'signature' of God ... and it is not a 'defect' ... as it works perfectly!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

It is good to see the Creationist propaganda is working :rolleyes:

Science is not about interpreting facts. It is about modeling. You either have a model that accurately and consistently predicts observation or you don't. There is very little subjective assessment in that, and that is in fact the point of science.

Needless to say Creationists don't have models that accurately predict observations which is why they are so enthusiastic to redefine science so they don't need them, and why scientists are so pissed off by Creationists for trying to do this at the political level.

... Creationists have all of the models that work ... when it comes to the origins question ... and the Evolutionists are still scratching their heads as they vainly try to choose between several equally implausible 'flights of fancy' which currently masqerade as materialistic explanations as to how life originated!!!!:D

Wicknight wrote: »

It shouldn't be. It is because it is not science yet Creationist continue to try and push it as such, going so far as to try and redefine what science actually is to try and get it in.

... yes indeed the Materialists have pressed science into the service of the Atheistic agenda by using a self-serving defintion of science that excludes consideration of supernatural explanations.
This means that science becomes totally irrelevant ... or even worse, downright misleading ... if life did indeed arise supernaturally!!!!
... the fact that the Atheists have gotten away with this ruse, in nominally Christian countries, says more about the weak thinking within the Churches in these countries than it does about the smartness of the Atheists themselves!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you really puzzled as to why scientists would not want agenda driven Creationists redefining science for their own purpose? Really?

... the fact that many scientists who are nomoinally Christian have allowed the Atheists to redefine science to their own ends ... would indicate that many scientists wouldn't recognise an agenda driven definition if it jumped up and bit them in an anatomically sensitive zone!!!!:eek::):D

Wicknight wrote: »

Lots of other things aren't science, such as astrology, but astrologists unlike Creationists don't pretend it is and try and get it into science class rooms.

Most Astrologists are 'new age' EVOLUTIONISTS ... while I don't know of a single Astrologer who is a Biblical Creationist!!!:eek::)
... and you are correct that Astrology isn't science not is it claimed to be science by its practitioners ...
... however, Creation Science is a conventional Science that has some of the most eminent conventionally qualified scientists working under it's discipline!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah good old CSI, how I've missed it. Ironically the whole concept of CSI could never have arisen if there had been a significant input of intelligence applied during its inception, because anyone with any intelligence whatsoever can see it for the unadulterated crap it is.

... so what is the 'signature' of intelligent action in your Atheistic opinion?

... or do the atheists believe that intelligent action cannot be determined scientifically???

... if they think that intelligent cause cannot be objectively established ... they must have great qualms of conscience when giving forensic evidence in criminal trials ... or when they spend public money on things like SETI to search for extra-terrestrial 'signatures' of intelligent action ... that they believe cannot be scientifically established!!!!:eek::eek::(

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (RLN) in the Giraffe drops into the chest and loops over the heart before going back up to the larynx (voice box) ... is an example of God having the last laugh ... at the Atheists ... who claim that Evolution created the (perfectly designed) chest and the (perfectly designed) heart and then was 'unable' to select a 4 centimetre direct route for a nerve to run directly between the vagus and the larynx ... and instead it 'selected' for a 4 metre indirect route instead!!!
... it works perfectly ... and is an example of a 'luxury' that only an Intelligent Designer could provide!!!!:eek::):cool:

... it's actually a 'signature' of God ... and it is not a 'defect' ... as it works perfectly well!!!

... and God did it ... because He could!!!!:D

... Evolution didn't do it ... because it couldn't!!!:D

That's your response?

'God did it because he could'

gosplan

J C wrote: »

Creation Science is a conventional Science that has some of the most eminent conventionally qualified scientists working under it's discipline!!!:D

I disagree with this hugely. I have no problem with people having faith but Creationist Scientists have an agenda. Put simply I imagine it's quite hard to be impartial if you already know what you are looking to prove verify etc.

It's like a scientist that works for a tobacco company. Everyone knows what their results/findings/opinion is going to be in the end.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... so what is the 'signature' of intelligent action in your Atheistic opinion?

... or do the atheists believe that intelligent action cannot be determined scientifically???

... if they think that intelligent cause cannot be objectively established ... they must have great qualms of conscience when giving forensic evidence in criminal trials ... or when they spend public money on things like SETI to search for extra-terrestrial 'signatures' of intelligent action ... that they believe cannot be scientifically established!!!!:eek::eek::(

Intelligent action can be intelligently established but it just so happens that the methods that we normally think of as being reliable for determining whether or not there was intelligent action cannot be applied to things that self-replicate imperfectly. Neither forensic evidence nor electrical signals are self-replicating so neither of them can undergo billions of years of mutation selection that can produce a result that appears as if it has been designed, albeit by a very unintelligent "designer".

del88

J C wrote: »

... The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (RLN) in the Giraffe drops into the chest and loops over the heart before going back up to the larynx (voice box) ... is an example of God having the last laugh ... at the Atheists ... who claim that Evolution created the (perfectly designed) chest and the (perfectly designed) heart and then was 'unable' to select a 4 centimetre direct route for a nerve to run directly between the vagus and the larynx ... and instead it 'selected' for a 4 metre indirect route instead!!!
... it works perfectly ... and is an example of a 'luxury' that only an Intelligent Designer could provide!!!!:eek::):cool:

... it's actually a 'signature' of God ... and it is not a 'defect' ... as it works perfectly well!!!

... and God did it ... because He could!!!!:D

... Evolution didn't do it ... because it couldn't!!!:D

Not much of an argument.....if you use that line of argument then there's nothing to discuss...i suppose that all the evidence of evolution is just gods way of having a laugh...he just teasing us......what a kidder.:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... Creationists have all of the models that work ... when it comes to the origins question ... and the Evolutionists are still scratching their heads as they vainly try to choose between several equally implausible 'flights of fancy' which currently masqerade as materialistic explanations as to how life originated!!!!:D

Really? You modelled God? Interesting, would love to see that. :rolleyes:

liamw

J C wrote: »

... The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (RLN) in the Giraffe drops into the chest and loops over the heart before going back up to the larynx (voice box) ... is an example of God having the last laugh ...

I was wondering what garbage you would pull out of your hat for this one. You've outdone yourself... God having a laugh, classic

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

I was wondering what garbage you would pull out of your hat for this one. You've outdone yourself... God having a laugh, classic

He's a joker that god fella