The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Fanny Cradock

A bit of mod business to start. I think that it is only fair not to discuss one member's activities on this thread, especially when JC isn't around to defend himself.

liamw wrote: »

Do you think that God's message was told directly in the original language by God or transcribed by humans from an event or thought sent by God? Or some parts were, and some weren't?

The term often used to describe scripture is God-breathed. If you type this term or the word theopneustos into Google I'm sure you will get a plethora of sites that will go into some detail.

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A bit of mod business to start. I think that it is only fair not to discuss one member's activities on this thread, especially when JC isn't around to defend himself.

Btw, just to clarify that the above does not apply to supposedly factual claims made about evolution or creationism, only to personal comments about individuals. So no more of this, in other words.

liamw

Morbert wrote: »

He has, for example, been corrected on Irreducible Complexity, Complex Specified Information, Geological Dating Techniques, Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Cosmology, Mathematics, and Shannon Information Theory. Every time he is corrected, he spams the board. I really don't see how you can argue with this.

It turns out that Complex Specified Information is really the same argument as Irreducible Complexity.

CSI claims that if you take an existing functional sequence of nucleotides, there are far more non-functional sequences in the combinatorial space. Of course this argument is refuted when you consider that gradual mutations of sequences are selected over generations... i.e. JC strawmans evolution into claiming that the functional sequence just formed from a completely random initial sequence and did not evolve from smaller functional parts - irreducible complexity.

Yep, he basically ignores the ENTIRE premise of evolution and selection.

token56

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even better, why not re-write the creationist posts so that they support evolution? Only delete the bits that are too difficult to purify.

It was a tongue in cheek remark I dont think you should be taking it so serious.

Galvasean

Morbert wrote: »

Have you been reading the thread? Any time JC manages to assemble some sort of coherent objection to evolution, it is thoroughly and extensively refuted with references.

He has, for example, been corrected on Irreducible Complexity, Complex Specified Information, Geological Dating Techniques, Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Cosmology, Mathematics, and Shannon Information Theory. Every time he is corrected, he spams the board. I really don't see how you can argue with this.

I particularly liked the lesson on seed dispersal.

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

It turns out that Complex Specified Information is really the same argument as Irreducible Complexity.

CSI claims that if you take an existing functional sequence of nucleotides, there are far more non-functional sequences in the combinatorial space. Of course this argument is refuted when you consider that gradual mutations of sequences are selected over generations... i.e. JC strawmans evolution into claiming that the functional sequence just formed from a completely random initial sequence and did not evolve from smaller functional parts - irreducible complexity.

Yep, he basically ignores the ENTIRE premise of evolution and selection.

This is true. Pretty much every argument I've seen against the mechanism of evolution either ignores selection entirely and makes out it's totally random, e.g. CSI and irreducible complexity on which it's based, or ignores mutation entirely and makes out that natural selection alone is evolution is , e.g. "selection explains the survival of the fittest, not arrival of the fittest". They dare not consider the two together because then it all starts to make sense.

Sam Vimes

Overheal wrote: »

What was your definition of Reality?

Wolfsbane admits that he has no scientific knowledge. As far as he's concerned reality is whatever the creationists say it is and any evidence provided by anyone to refute a creationist claim is just part of the atheist conspiracy. He doesn't look at the arguments and decide who presented the most convincing case, he just goes with the side who are telling him what he wants to hear.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

He who has ears to hear, let him hear. The rest will perish in their ignorance.

Indeed.

Incidentally, come up with any examples of creation science since we last talked? :pac:

gosplan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Btw, just to clarify that the above does not apply to supposedly factual claims made about evolution or creationism, only to personal comments about individuals. So no more of this, in other words.

Apologies to both JC and the mods.

FWIW, the only way this thread will have any merit is through a structured debate style as someone mentioned. Opening argument, retort etc but it must be in a coherent order.

Otherwise J.C. will continue to claim things like mathematical proof of God, others will claim it's simply wrong and try to point out the flaws but with no-one to adjudicate, there's very little point in keeping the discussion open as it's just a massive waste of time (I know, I know, welcome to boards ).

Essentially, neither side has to accept the validity of any point in this discussion regardless of evidence presented, and for a supposedly 'scientific debate', it holds the same value as an argument on the soccer forum over whether United or Liverpool are the better club. Everyone involved is a fan!

And to further explain my comments about J.C., I think with the level of irrationality shown through some of his posts (I do think it's fair to say that claiming mathematical proof of God is somewhat irrational, particularly when everyone here found it easy to point out some basic flaws in his argument), the only way to join this discussion is his way. And by that I mean.....


Creationism lies on the floor in ruins with no-one left standing to come to it's defence. :eek::eek::eek:

We've heard all the evidence and it simply does not make any sense by any scientific standards. :):D:D:D

We also now have mathematical proof that the Darwinian model is far more likely to have spawned life than a creator:pac::pac::pac:

Sam Vimes

gosplan wrote: »

FWIW, the only way this thread will have any merit is through a structured debate style as someone mentioned. Opening argument, retort etc but it must be in a coherent order.

Agreed. A good few times I've wanted to ask people to stop replying to the thread until J C has answered a point/question that's been put to him. With so many people posting he just has to wait until any questions he can't answer get pushed back a few pages and lost in the noise and he can go on saying that he's "never been proven wrong on any substantive issue". If the thread stopped dead every time he tried to avoid a question it would be a lot harder to claim that.

edit: Not impossible for a creationist but more difficult

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Agreed. A good few times I've wanted to ask people to stop replying to the thread until J C has answered a point/question that's been put to him. With so many people posting he just has to wait until any questions he can't answer get pushed back a few pages and lost in the noise and he can go on saying that he's "never been proven wrong on any substantive issue". If the thread stopped dead every time he tried to avoid a question it would be a lot harder to claim that.

edit: Not impossible for a creationist but more difficult

I don't at all discount the possibility of having some type of formalised debate between two opponents. It could be quite fun, actually! However, such a debate would need to be structured so as to avoid another 20,000 post thread. So this means there would have to be a rigid format and certain constraints agreed upon before the debate begins.

No doubt there are many potential candidates suitable to fight for the evolution corner. The choice becomes more limited with regard to candidates willing to argue for creationism. I can really only think of 2 or 3 people who would fit the bill - JC being the most obvious. But if you guys are willing to select the two participants from amongst yourselves, I will be happy to help negotiate the ground rules and ensure that both parties stick to the them during the debate.

The Mad Hatter

With all due respect to all the others who've spent time and effort here, I'd suggest Morbert and Atomic Horror, with Sam Vimes as a third.

token56

Structured debates definitely sounds like a good idea, but I'm just wondering about how the format actually works. I'm presuming it wouldn't be two candiates from either side chosen to debate for all issues (although as has been mentioned the creationist side is a bit limited for numbers) but rather a topic is chosen, then two suitable teams chosen for it etc? The reason I say this is because the majority of people here who would be supporting evolution etc would not be religous and there would be topics I can see where it would be useful to have religous evolutionists in the discussion also, for example macro evolution or darwins theory being compatible with christianity or something similar.

Morbert

I wouldn't mind taking part in a formal debate, provided the judges were impartial. The ideal adjudicator would probably be a non-scientist Christian who has no current issue with evolution. It would neutralise any accusations of having an atheist/creationist agenda, and they would still be open to arguments for and against evolution.

As for specific topics, I recommend ID and complexity, as that is what this thread normally gravitates towards anyway.

Fanny Cradock

token56 wrote: »

Structured debates definitely sounds like a good idea, but I'm just wondering about how the format actually works. I'm presuming it wouldn't be two candiates from either side chosen to debate for all issues (although as has been mentioned the creationist side is a bit limited for numbers) but rather a topic is chosen, then two suitable teams chosen for it etc? The reason I say this is because the majority of people here who would be supporting evolution etc would not be religous and there would be topics I can see where it would be useful to have religous evolutionists in the discussion also, for example macro evolution or darwins theory being compatible with christianity or something similar.

It would be nice to debate both the science and the scripture. We are, after all, here because of both. But I wonder if there is anybody from amongst the pro-evolutionists - be they atheists or Christians - who is sufficiently well read in both realms to approach the debate holistically? As I see it, the more people we add to the mix the messier it becomes. 1v1 seems like the optimal number of participants.

Morbert wrote: »

I wouldn't mind taking part in a formal debate, provided the judges were impartial. The ideal adjudicator would probably be a non-scientist Christian who has no current issue with evolution. It would neutralise any accusations of having an atheist/creationist agenda, and they would still be open to arguments for and against evolution.

As for specific topics, I recommend ID and complexity, as that is what this thread normally gravitates towards anyway.

Well, in that case both PDN and myself would fit the bill. I believe that PDN isn't necessarily wedded to either evolution or creationism - so in some sense this could be considered the more agnostic position. If you want somebody who accepts evolution then I could fill the roll. There are also a number of regulars who would be suitable for the job of keeping everything on track should it be deemed best to keep this out of the laps of the mods.

Galvasean

Hmm this being the Christianity forum I would like to see at least one Christian debating on the evolution side. It would certainly take the 'Atheists versus Christians' stigma away from proceedings.

liamw

token56 wrote: »

Structured debates definitely sounds like a good idea, but I'm just wondering about how the format actually works. I'm presuming it wouldn't be two candiates from either side chosen to debate for all issues (although as has been mentioned the creationist side is a bit limited for numbers) but rather a topic is chosen, then two suitable teams chosen for it etc? The reason I say this is because the majority of people here who would be supporting evolution etc would not be religous and there would be topics I can see where it would be useful to have religous evolutionists in the discussion also, for example macro evolution or darwins theory being compatible with christianity or something similar.

It should be 1v1. Here are some examples I was thinking of:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewforum.php?f=23

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

Hmm this being the Christianity forum I would like to see at least one Christian debating on the evolution side. It would certainly take the 'Atheists versus Christians' stigma away from proceedings.

Agreed. I would imagine that a theist v theist debate would be best considering the forum. However, I wonder if we have a suitable Christian candidate to argue for evolution. It seems to me that the Christians here who accept evolution aren't all that well versed in the specifics. That isn't an indictment, btw. It just happens to be the way it is amongst the group.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems to me that the Christians here who accept evolution aren't all that well versed in the specifics

The same goes for the ones who don't accept it :pac:

gosplan

Was just taking a look at the first page, way back from 2005:

J.C. wrote:

How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?

So that's pretty much got to be a topic for discussion.

Was also thinking the other day of J.C.'s use of the term 'statistically impossible'.

J.C. wrote:

no statistician will tell you that something with a probability of 10^-130 will ever occur ... because the law of large numbers rules out the chance of it ever occurring!!!!

There's an estimated 40 to 600 million sperm in a single ejaculate and each sperm contains slightly different DNA so putting it at the lower estimate means that a person's existence is a one in 40 million shot. The possible variation of chromosomes in the sperm would make each different outcome similar but not identical - more than a sibling but less than a clone.

So, the probability of an exact person's existence combined with both their parents existences would be 40 million cubed.

If we continued this calculation for a few generations, wouldn't we rather quickly reach the conclusion, according to J.C., that we are all statistical impossibilities?

Sam Vimes

gosplan wrote: »

If we continued this calculation for a few generations, wouldn't we rather quickly reach the conclusion, according to J.C., that we are all statistical impossibilities?

gosplan won't be back. He just disappeared in a puff of logic

Morbert

gosplan wrote: »

Was just taking a look at the first page, way back from 2005:



So that's pretty much got to be a topic for discussion.

Was also thinking the other day of J.C.'s use of the term 'statistically impossible'.



There's an estimated 40 to 600 million sperm in a single ejaculate and each sperm contains slightly different DNA so putting it at the lower estimate means that a person's existence is a one in 40 million shot. The possible variation of chromosomes in the sperm would make each different outcome similar but not identical - more than a sibling but less than a clone.

So, the probability of an exact person's existence combined with both their parents existences would be 40 million cubed.

If we continued this calculation for a few generations, wouldn't we rather quickly reach the conclusion, according to J.C., that we are all statistical impossibilities?

I don't think this would really address the issue. While it is true that, say, the probability of a deck of cards being in a specific order is tiny, the probability of the cards being in 'an order' is 1, as is the probability of 'a person' existing. The same cannot be said for the generation of functioning biological organisms, so the creationist objection would still stand.

The real mistake lies with creationists' underlying assumptions behind the way life develops. Selection is a non-random process, and hence the improbabilities of life randomly emerging are irrelevant to evolution. All these big numbers, in other words, have nothing to do with life.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wolfsbane admits that he has no scientific knowledge. As far as he's concerned reality is whatever the creationists say it is and any evidence provided by anyone to refute a creationist claim is just part of the atheist conspiracy. He doesn't look at the arguments and decide who presented the most convincing case, he just goes with the side who are telling him what he wants to hear.

I have doctrinal grounds to reject evolution, but also logical ones: while I'm not trained in forensics, I can recognise evasive answers, suppression of evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

When I see those, I suspect the case those folk promote.

Added to that, I note the same treatment is sometimes meted out to their fellow-evolutionists, in the cause of defending their pet theories. So I don't believe in their image as dispassionate seekers after truth.

I then see scientists, as well qualified to speak as their evolutionist colleagues, defend the scientific case for creationism.

That is why I'm not impressed by the dismissive claims evolutionists make here.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Indeed.

Incidentally, come up with any examples of creation science since we last talked? :pac:

Since you dismissed all the ones I gave you, why would I bother offering more? Look them up where I told you.

gosplan

Morbert wrote: »

I don't think this would really address the issue. While it is true that, say, the probability of a deck of cards being in a specific order is tiny, the probability of the cards being in 'an order' is 1, as is the probability of 'a person' existing. The same cannot be said for the generation of functioning biological organisms, so the creationist objection would still stand.

Yeah, I figured that might be a problem alright. The odds of a specific person are astronomical but one must emerge regardless. The claim of statistical impossibilities really annoys me though.

liamw

wolfsbane wrote: »

I then see scientists, as well qualified to speak as their evolutionist colleagues, defend the scientific case for creationism.

Any examples for the scientific case for creationism?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have doctrinal grounds to reject evolution, but also logical ones: while I'm not trained in forensics, I can recognise evasive answers, suppression of evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

When I see those, I suspect the case those folk promote.

No you quite clearly can't recognise these things I'm afraid. The mere fact that you cannot see how badly J C is at defending creationism proves this. Everyone can see it, christian and atheist alike. Everyone it seems except you and possibly one other person I can think of who also comes to the thread with the unshakeable belief that evolution is false. Even if creationism is true, J C still has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and spends his time dodging questions, posting stupid cartoons, bible quotes and smilies and repeating the same crap over and over again no matter how many times he's corrected on it. But you somehow can't see this.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I then see scientists, as well qualified to speak as their evolutionist colleagues, defend the scientific case for creationism.

Science is not based on the opinions of scientists, it's based on what can reliably shown to be the case. All these "creation scientists" have to do is submit their work to the peer review process just like every other scientist in the world. But they don't. They prefer to write books and set up websites and force their way through the courts. But then that's because the whole world including for some bizarre reason millions of christians are all involved in a massive conspiracy against christianity isn't it :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

Any examples for the scientific case for creationism?

There's really no point asking wolfsbane for this. He admits himself that he doesn't have the knowledge to make these arguments himself; whatever he posts will undoubtedly be a copypasta from www.answersingenesis.org that someone will waste their time debunking only to be ignored because they're part of the atheist conspiracy.

Overheal

Even if creationism is true, J C still has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and spends his time dodging questions, posting stupid cartoons, bible quotes and smilies and repeating the same crap over and over again no matter how many times he's corrected on it.

This.

Overheal

Anyway I break it down like this, and its why this debate is pointless and I shant be attempting to be sucked into it again.

Creationism demands Faith
Evolution demands Science

And Science by its very methodology strips away faith and supposed things. Its based upon skepticism, which is not unhealthy. That skepticism challenged why the Earth is flat and why we can't put a man on the Moon. The benefit of Faith I'll let someone else answer in their own words.

But PDN put it to me like this:

PDN wrote: »

'Faith', in its biblical sense, means so much more than intellectual assent to a set of propositions. It means trusting Christ and committing your life to His lordship.

It dawned on me then that if Creationism requires Faith and Evolution requires Faithless Scientific Method, we can't even really have this discussion. They are two completely different modes of thought. And a debate requires its own mode of thought, which depending on your choice of Ethos or Logos, can be closer to Faith or Scientific Method; but never quite a bridge between both.

tl;dr - I don't think you will ever establish a medium, at least on this forum, to sanely debate Creationism and Evolution. It would be like trying to get oil to mix with water.