The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I've said several times before, if science appeared to contradict the Bible, the creationist would have to admit that.

Er, no actually they don't

The Answers in Genesis statement of faith-

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

If you start from the position that the interpretation of the Bible has to be correct (which you do by the way, so this should not be hard for you to understand) then anything that contradicts this must be incorrect, such as evolution or the big bang or plate tectonics etc etc

All scientific theories have holes in them, that is the nature of science. But if you are convinced that a theory must by definition be wrong then you will focus all your attention on these holes and ignore all the parts that work very well.

Which is exactly what Creationist do, because you believe that you already have the absolute truth.

So are you saying we should ignore all scientists who subscribe to the Answers in Genesis statement of faith, since by subscribing to this article of faith they are saying that nothing natural can convince them that scripture is wrong? Which is most of them if AiG is to be believed.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as to ridicule (although you have to wonder at some of the more comical characters like Kent Hovind).

However, having followed the evo vs. creo discussion on a site more dedicated to that purpose (evcforum.net) - a site involving far more detailed and rigorous analysis of the evidences/arguments by folk far more equipped to debate it than usually seen on discussion forums, sees the creo side woefully - and I mean woefully, lacking. This across the full spectrum of evo-science: biological, geological, genetic, cosmological.

I don't believe in the evo tale. Nor do I have a problem suffering the offence of the cross. It's just that the creation side don't seem to be able to hold their own when it comes to tackling the evolutionist side head on.

I would ask you a link to the site so I could look for myself but that would only serve to empirically confirm your statement and we don't want to go worshipping at the alter of empiricism :pac:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Catch 22.

It isn't a Catch 22. Do science to scientific standards or don't

What you shouldn't do is fail to do the science and then complain that the scientific establishment are not taking you seriously.

Again if I walked into a Bible meeting and then started berating all of you on how the Bible doesn't say Jesus was resurrected, would you listen to me? I doubt it. The very first statement should clue you in to the fact that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

You wouldn't you think "Man, this guy has a really valid point on what the Bible says"

In science the onus is on the scientist to support, scientifically, his work, not on the rest of the scientific community to humor him, particularly when he is claiming something that contradicts very well supported theories.

Creationism is ideological motivated. The Answers in Genesis mission statement should be evidence enough of that as if evidence was needed.

Give me one good reason why the scientific establishment should humor Creationists when this is crystal clear and when they can't come up with the goods from a scientific point of view?

Like I said there are plenty of religious outlets for them to publish in.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

My post to Overheal:
You are making the same mistake as several others here: confusing the faith presupposition of creationist individuals and organisations with the scientific arguments they use in service of that faith.

As I've said several times before, if science appeared to contradict the Bible, the creationist would have to admit that. They would say that they have no contrary explanation at present, but look for one in confidence of their faith position. They would not deny the appearance of contradiction.

So faith and scientific method can co-exist.

Like I've already said anyone, scientist or otherwise, who subscribes to the AiG statement of faith (which is a lot of Creationists) is faced with science that contradicts their religious beliefs they are required, by the statement of faith, to hold their religious beliefs and reject the science.

Which is what Creationists do. They reject what they call "evolution science" (ie everything from biological evolution to astrophysics) without being able to actually explain why. Oh we can't assume rate of decay blah, maybe light was faster blah.

Any old excuse that you can think of in order to reject the science and hold on to the scripture. Which is exactly what the AiG Statement of Faith requires them to do.

Some times they don't even bother explaining why they reject the science, the just say it must be wrong.

You yourself do this all the time. By your own admission you don't understand astrophysics, yet you refuse to accept the the current theories of the Earth and the solar system are accurate, despite millions of scientists using them every day.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

You yourself do this all the time. By your own admission you don't understand astrophysics, yet you refuse to accept the the current theories of the Earth and the solar system are accurate, despite millions of scientists using them every day.

And there is an important distinction to make between simply saying these theories are accurate and actually using them. If these theories were wrong, to pick two random examples, our vaccines would be useless and our satellites would fall out of the sky. These theories are not wrong, they have been demonstrated to be accurate and the only people who can't see that are those who approach them with the absolutely unshakeable assumption that they must be wrong because their religious beliefs depend on them being wrong

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your accusation that JC doesn't know what he is talking about is the same dismissive nonsense evolutionists use against other evolutionists who challenge their pet ideas. Your pet idea has an enormous emotional pull on your judgement, so you need to think again about just how impartial is your judgement.

Evidence?

Has he repeated himself? Yes, many times. For the thread is massive and you guys have made the same arguments again and again. He has corrected you, but you still post the same material. (See how your accusation works both ways?)

Evidence?

When creationist scientists do submit their openly creationist material to the establishment for peer review it is rejected as not conforming to their view of what science says. Only when they can hide their creationist credentials (and leave it to implication to present the creationist findings) do they get published.

Evidence?

Conspiracy? Yes, there is a conspiracy to prevent any challenge to evolution. Why are so many involved? Because most are not aware that the establishment dogma is not as solid as they have been assured, and those who do know are aware of the career damage they face if they give any credence to the scientific opposition.

Evidence?

The establishment elite and their atheist zealot supporters are the real culprits, not the mass of ordinary scientists. Sad to say that many Christians also refuse to speak up, and some even ridicule their creationist brothers, rather than suffer the offence of the cross.

Evidence?


Of course, I don't expect you to present any evidence. I expect you to do what you did to me before: Ignore my post and, some time in the future, repost your accusations.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as to ridicule (although you have to wonder at some of the more comical characters like Kent Hovind).

However, having followed the evo vs. creo discussion on a site more dedicated to that purpose (evcforum.net) - a site involving far more detailed and rigorous analysis of the evidences/arguments by folk far more equipped to debate it than usually seen on discussion forums, sees the creo side woefully - and I mean woefully, lacking. This across the full spectrum of evo-science: biological, geological, genetic, cosmological.

I don't believe in the evo tale. Nor do I have a problem suffering the offence of the cross. It's just that the creation side don't seem to be able to hold their own when it comes to tackling the evolutionist side head on.

It seems to be off-line at the moment. Does it include creationists who have had their debates recorded? I've listened to/viewed some and the creationist did at least as well as the evolutionists. Of course there are many sorts of creationist, some Old Earthers for example. Evolutionists know that:
Curiously, Dawkins says that he refuses to debate creationists simply because it gives them prestige. Yet, he has gone ahead and debated some ‘creationists’ while insisting that he would not debate creationists. Since he insists that he will not debate creationists even while debating some, he is obviously picking and choosing those he considers to be easy targets or those who he knows will not effectively counter his evolutionism.

Here's the response competent creationists get to requests for public debate:
http://creation.com/global-atheists-reject-debate-challenge

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Darwin's theory won't allow it? Really?

Please expand on that one because at the moment it sounds like ill informed nonsense.

Darwin's theory was a rebuttal of the view held by William Paley. That if one finds a watch on a beach then one is not inclined to think that it is like finding a stone. Somebody designed it. Darwin set out to prove that in relation to biological organisms Paley's theory fails and he set about trying to show that complexity in species starts out very simple and gets more complex through adaptation as time goes by and that what we see today as a carefully designed watch is nothing of the sort. That's why Darwin's theory does not allow for a designer. Am I wrong?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Darwin's theory was a rebuttal of the view held by William Paley. That if one finds a watch on a beach then one is not inclined to think that it is like finding a stone. Somebody designed it. Darwin set out to prove that in relation to biological organisms Paley's theory fails and he set about trying to show that complexity in species starts out very simple and gets more complex through adaptation

No he did not. Darwin was quite happy with Paley's argument until he started properly looking at the natural world (such as on his trip on the Beagle) and realized that divine creation didn't explain it. He didn't try and prove it was wrong, he knew it was wrong because it didn't explain things.

Darwin set about trying to explain why species closely related seemed to have adapted to their different environments and came up with Darwinian evolution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's why Darwin's theory does not allow for a designer.

Explain to me where it does not "allow" for a designer? It doesn't require a designer, if that is what you mean?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I've already said anyone, scientist or otherwise, who subscribes to the AiG statement of faith (which is a lot of Creationists) is faced with science that contradicts their religious beliefs they are required, by the statement of faith, to hold their religious beliefs and reject the science.

Which is what Creationists do. They reject what they call "evolution science" (ie everything from biological evolution to astrophysics) without being able to actually explain why. Oh we can't assume rate of decay blah, maybe light was faster blah.

Any old excuse that you can think of in order to reject the science and hold on to the scripture. Which is exactly what the AiG Statement of Faith requires them to do.

Some times they don't even bother explaining why they reject the science, the just say it must be wrong.

You yourself do this all the time. By your own admission you don't understand astrophysics, yet you refuse to accept the the current theories of the Earth and the solar system are accurate, despite millions of scientists using them every day.

Creationists and evolutionists agree on most of science. It is the forensic aspect that produces the disagreement. Dating based on assumed uniformity in rates of decay or deposition is forensic, not operational.

The scientific reasons why evolution cannot have brought life from the most basic self-replicating cell to the present biosphere has been presented and argued in detail. So don't pretend otherwise. You might not like the argument, but it is there. Such misrepresentation is an indication of a panic defence.

And, certainly, we do not have an explanation for every observation. Neither do the evolutionists.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And there is an important distinction to make between simply saying these theories are accurate and actually using them. If these theories were wrong, to pick two random examples, our vaccines would be useless and our satellites would fall out of the sky. These theories are not wrong, they have been demonstrated to be accurate and the only people who can't see that are those who approach them with the absolutely unshakeable assumption that they must be wrong because their religious beliefs depend on them being wrong

You seem unable to understand that the physics used to keep satellites in orbit says nothing about how long the earth has been here. Or that the biology that derives vaccines says nothing about where the viruses originated. Those conclusions depend on extrapolations and assumptions, not on observed facts.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seem unable to understand that the physics used to keep satellites in orbit says nothing about how long the earth has been here.

There aren't different kinds of physics. And to pick one example our electronics require the laws of physics to be constant, including the speed of light. But if the speed of light is constant then it should be impossible to see stars that are billions of light years way, unless the universe is billions of years old.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Or that the biology that derives vaccines says nothing about where the viruses originated. Those conclusions depend on extrapolations and assumptions, not on observed facts.

You know that evolutionary theory forms the basis of the development of vaccines right? and that evolution is why we keep needing to produce new ones?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists and evolutionists agree on most of science.

Define "most of science". Where I'm sitting Creationists reject a large proportion of the major scientific groupings, physics chemistry and biology.

Creationists reject, ad hoc, any theory or evidence they believe contradicts Biblical scripture. They also spend a great deal of time lying about what are the current standards of modern scientific theories in order to make them seem less supported than they really are. That is hardly something pro-science groups would do.

A good example is ....

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dating based on assumed uniformity in rates of decay or deposition is forensic, not operational.

Uniformity is not assumed.

We can see from light from stars that the decay rate is the same 150,000 years ago as it is now.

Ah you say the light from distance stars aren't actually distant, it wasn't 150,000 years go, the light is speeding up.

Ok, so why doesn't the decay rate changed?

The light is either a snapshot of 150,000 years ago or it is snap shoot of 6,000 years ago. Either way the decay rate of the elements are the same now.

SN1987a Light Curves, P. Whitelock et al., in Proceedings of the Tenth Santa Cruz Workshop in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Springer- Verlag, 1991.

The only thing left is to propose that while the snapshot of the light from the decaying element was travelling it some how changed to end up exactly as the decay rate is now. Something there is zero support for and which is contradicted by the measurements of different stars of different ages and distances.

Or the Oklo natural reactor. If the decay rate was different millions of years ago (or just thousands of years ago if the reactor is only 6,000 years ago) then why do the projections of uniform decay rate match the observation of the material around the reactor, yet speeding up decay rates don't?

At which point I bring you back to your argument that if Creationists where confronted with science that contradicted them they would concede. Which of course they don't because this contradicts their religious beliefs that CANNOT BE WRONG. Instead they bury themselves in any slight issue or problem they can find and refuse to ignore all the other supporting evidence.

For example Creationists argue Oklo is actually a result of really strong lightening that happened after the Flood hitting this spot thousands of times. Evidence for this? Not a bit. But if you HAVE to show something is wrong it is as good as anything else.

http://www.examiner.com/x-35826-Creationism-Examiner~y2010m7d8-The-Oklo-natural-reactor

If a Creationist tells you that there is no evidence for uniform decay rates and that scientists just guess/assume this to be true in the past, then this Creationist is either uniformed or lying. Either way you should ignore them.

Just to be clear I'm not saying you are lying. No offense but I think you simply repeat back what ever you seen on the first Creationist site you Google after you type in the search words of what ever we are discussing. But the people who tell you this crap are lying.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The scientific reasons why evolution cannot have brought life from the most basic self-replicating cell to the present biosphere has been presented and argued in detail. So don't pretend otherwise.

What has been presented, over and over, is lies about what evolution says.

For example a favorite of Creationists is the claim that the random formation of a protein is too improbably to have happened by evolution.

That is a lie because evolution doesn't claim proteins formed randomly, and as such this is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

If a Creationist tells you that evolution says proteins randomly formed they are either uniformed or lying. Either way you should ignore them.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Your accusation that JC doesn't know what he is talking about is the same dismissive nonsense evolutionists use against other evolutionists who challenge their pet ideas. Your pet idea has an enormous emotional pull on your judgement, so you need to think again about just how impartial is your judgement.
Evidence?

I've posted the inter-evolutionist spats here before. Look for them if you're really interested. I don't have time.

Quote:
Has he repeated himself? Yes, many times. For the thread is massive and you guys have made the same arguments again and again. He has corrected you, but you still post the same material. (See how your accusation works both ways?)
Evidence?

Just review the posts of the evolutionists here and you'll see many of the same arguments made repeatedly.

Quote:
When creationist scientists do submit their openly creationist material to the establishment for peer review it is rejected as not conforming to their view of what science says. Only when they can hide their creationist credentials (and leave it to implication to present the creationist findings) do they get published.
Evidence?

I've given it before. Check my posts - or better still, do a search on AiG or CMI on peer-review.

Quote:
Conspiracy? Yes, there is a conspiracy to prevent any challenge to evolution. Why are so many involved? Because most are not aware that the establishment dogma is not as solid as they have been assured, and those who do know are aware of the career damage they face if they give any credence to the scientific opposition.
Evidence?

Again, check my posts or visit the creationist sites. But within the last week or so I posted one that high-lighted the career demise of evolutionist scientists who questioned establishment dogma. I asked which of the dating techniques these evolutionists used were wrong - but I got no reply.

Quote:
The establishment elite and their atheist zealot supporters are the real culprits, not the mass of ordinary scientists. Sad to say that many Christians also refuse to speak up, and some even ridicule their creationist brothers, rather than suffer the offence of the cross.
Evidence?

Read this thread. Check out the theistic evolutionist sites.

Of course, I don't expect you to present any evidence. I expect you to do what you did to me before: Ignore my post and, some time in the future, repost your accusations.

I didn't see anything of value in it - but now that you highlight the bit about references, I say So What? When we give references to articles that refute you claims, you dismiss them as non-science - despite being scientifically argued by scientists qualified to speak. References prove nothing.

Don't waste our time. Admit the arguments are there but you don't agree with them. Pretending all we do is sloganise is blatantly untrue.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Evolution is not a pet theory. It is incredibly obvious that it is not a pet theory.

I never said that Evolution was a pet theory

Morbert wrote: »

Richard Dawkins does not concede this. It is incredibly obvious that he does not concede this.

From Screaming-Penguin.com

"The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that's proof enough that it is designed." Richard Dawkins more here

Morbert wrote: »

Where do you get this stuff from?

Here 'The God Particle' by Leon Lederman - Nobel Prize in Physics

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You seem unable to understand that the physics used to keep satellites in orbit says nothing about how long the earth has been here.
There aren't different kinds of physics. And to pick one example our electronics require the laws of physics to be constant, including the speed of light. But if the speed of light is constant then it should be impossible to see stars that are billions of light years way, unless the universe is billions of years old.

Or maybe not. For example:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_1/j20_1_16-18.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Or that the biology that derives vaccines says nothing about where the viruses originated. Those conclusions depend on extrapolations and assumptions, not on observed facts.
You know that evolutionary theory forms the basis of the development if vaccines right? and that evolution is why we keep needing to produce new ones?

You know rightly that you are performing a sleight of hand, assuming the change a bacteria or virus is observed to undergo proves all life originated in the simplest self-replicating organism and changed over billions of years into the present biosphere. Creationists and evolutionists observe changes in bacteria and viruses. Only evolutionists fantasize that all life came from the slime.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Morbert said:
I've posted the inter-evolutionist spats here before. Look for them if you're really interested. I don't have time.


Just review the posts of the evolutionists here and you'll see many of the same arguments made repeatedly.

I've given it before. Check my posts - or better still, do a search on AiG or CMI on peer-review.

Read this thread. Check out the theistic evolutionist sites.

If you don't have time to back up a claim then perhaps you should not make it. I have asked for evidence and you have not presented it.

Again, check my posts or visit the creationist sites. But within the last week or so I posted one that high-lighted the career demise of evolutionist scientists who questioned establishment dogma. I asked which of the dating techniques these evolutionists used were wrong - but I got no reply.

There is no dogma so that accusation makes no sense from the beginning. Please link be to the post requesting dating techniques (I cannot find it) and I will answer your question.

I didn't see anything of value in it - but now that you highlight the bit about references, I say So What? When we give references to articles that refute you claims, you dismiss them as non-science - despite being scientifically argued by scientists qualified to speak.

Evidence?

References prove nothing.

If you do not have references for you claims then how do we know research has been carried out?

Don't waste our time. Admit the arguments are there but you don't agree with them. Pretending all we do is sloganise is blatantly untrue.

I did not say that was all you do. I admitted that there is the occasional objection to evolution that is coherent, but that responses to that objection are ignored.


Here's what we'll do to illustrate my point Wolfsbane: I am in the field of physics, so pick your favourite AIG argument based on physics (i.e. Cosmology, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc.) and we will carefully discuss it. You can present your references and I can present mine, and together we will see what I mean.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said that Evolution was a pet theory

Ok, if that is the case then fine. So long as we both accept that evolution is not a pet theory.

"The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that's proof enough that it is designed." Richard Dawkins more here

Where does he say it is an illusion because Darwinian evolution won't allow it? That is the claim I was referring to.

Here 'The God Particle' by Leon Lederman - Nobel Prize in Physics

I can't find any reference to an example of 'a Theorist'. What page/paragraph?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

Or maybe not. For example:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_1/j20_1_16-18.pdf

I keep telling you I no longer read the lies on creationist websites. If you cant understand, present and argue these arguments yourself don't bother posting them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You know rightly that you are performing a sleight of hand, assuming the change a bacteria or virus is observed to undergo proves all life originated in the simplest self-replicating organism and changed over billions of years into the present biosphere. Creationists and evolutionists observe changes in bacteria and viruses. Only evolutionists fantasize that all life came from the slime.

Um, no I'm not. If creationist arguments about irreducible complexity and CSI etc etc etc are true then things like that should not be observed. They are observed so when pushed creationists say they accept what they call micro evolution. But because their position is totally inconsistent they then go back to making arguments that would make micro evolution just as impossible as macro evolution. J C's argument about non functional permutations etc would not just prevent jumps from one species to another, it says that nothing functional whatsoever can come about without intelligent guidance. It would prevent the type of evolution we see all the time and that ceeationists accept just as much as it would the "muck to man atheist conspiracy" type. But of course when this is pointed out he just responds with some smilies, a bible quote and a declaration that I'm deluded

There are not two types of evolution, one of which is observed all the time and the other of which is a statistically impossible athesit conspiracy, there is just what creationists call micro evolution stretched over a long period of time.

lmaopml

There are holes in the standard model as much as there are holes in the theory of evolution! They just represent the most likely models...I think the problem occurs when one insists those holes should be filled in with another theory, belief or philosophy, be it 'design' or 'creationism', or indeed, lack thereof...and approaches it from that particular stance.

As it stands, science examines the natural world and the 'method' itself is very much self correcting and every theory has many critics who are actually non-religious..., but eager to see flaws and understand. There's nothing greater than overturning a commonly held theory, such as the standard model, and throwing more light on natural phenomena. The holy grail of which is to marry quantum and cosmological observations...

I think there is just a 'definition' barrier and an 'ownership' barrier with science. It's really very exciting, and one can be of 'faith' at the same time as appreciating how much we have learned along the way...

Well, I think so anyways...

Bus77II

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

Or maybe not. For example:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_1/j20_1_16-18.pdf

Ahh Wolfsbane. I'm coming into the faith. But have you any idea how much it pains me seein ya go to foreigners for your p's & q's:(

Overheal

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seem unable to understand that the physics used to keep satellites in orbit says nothing about how long the earth has been here. Or that the biology that derives vaccines says nothing about where the viruses originated. Those conclusions depend on extrapolations and assumptions, not on observed facts.

If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked a long time ago

Or that the biology that derives vaccines says nothing about where the viruses originated.

I'll have to consult with a biologist but i am almost positive you are wholly incorrect about this point.

Sam Vimes

Overheal wrote: »

If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked a long time ago

Isn't that from stargate? :pac:

Overheal wrote: »

I'll have to consult with a biologist but i am almost positive you are wholly incorrect about this point.

Not much point tbh. If the biologist contradicts the creationist position he'll just be dismissed as part of the atheist conspiracy

Overheal

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Isn't that from stargate? :pac:

My point being that you dont need to observe everything something does to know what caused it to enter that observed state and what state it is likely to be in next. observation is a key factor, but not the end all. To say that we cant read written history before 6000 BC etc. means we weren't here - I just don't buy it. Nevermind that that particular assertion seems to ignore paleontology, which is yet more observation. Dinosaurs never wrote a word; and yet we know they were here.

Galvasean

Overheal wrote: »

My point being that you dont need to observe everything something does to know what caused it to enter that observed state and what state it is likely to be in next. observation is a key factor, but not the end all. To say that we cant read written history before 6000 BC etc. means we weren't here - I just don't buy it. Nevermind that that particular assertion seems to ignore paleontology, which is yet more observation. Dinosaurs never wrote a word; and yet we know they were here.

Happens all the time

Overheal

Yep. And so you have Creationist that ignore scientifically presented data and you have Evolutionists that ignore the Bible. Really though, I fail to see them as being in the same league of ignorances.

wolfsbane

Overheal wrote: »

My point being that you dont need to observe everything something does to know what caused it to enter that observed state and what state it is likely to be in next. observation is a key factor, but not the end all. To say that we cant read written history before 6000 BC etc. means we weren't here - I just don't buy it. Nevermind that that particular assertion seems to ignore paleontology, which is yet more observation. Dinosaurs never wrote a word; and yet we know they were here.

No one is saying what is unobserved doesn't exist. Just that our conclusions about it are interpretative: observing a bacteria change over several generations allows us to confidently say bacteria can change over several generations. We can even test the mechanisms.

But if we extrapolate that change to say all life arose from the simplest self-replicating organism by the same means - that is story-telling. The story may be right or wrong, partly or in whole - but it is nowhere on the same level as our conclusions about the bacteria.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

wolfsbane

Bus77II said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Or maybe not. For example:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j...20_1_16-18.pdf
Ahh Wolfsbane. I'm coming into the faith. But have you any idea how much it pains me seein ya go to foreigners for your p's & q's

Science is sans frontier.
Magueijo is a leading physicist and
lecturer at Imperial College London,
having gained a Ph.D. at Cambridge,
and was for a time a Royal Society
research fellow.

I do assume he is a respected scientist speaking in his field of expertise.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Or maybe not. For example:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j...20_1_16-18.pdf
I keep telling you I no longer read the lies on creationist websites. If you cant understand, present and argue these arguments yourself don't bother posting them.

I'm not here to cater to your wants, only your needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You know rightly that you are performing a sleight of hand, assuming the change a bacteria or virus is observed to undergo proves all life originated in the simplest self-replicating organism and changed over billions of years into the present biosphere. Creationists and evolutionists observe changes in bacteria and viruses. Only evolutionists fantasize that all life came from the slime.
Um, no I'm not. If creationist arguments about irreducible complexity and CSI etc etc etc are true then things like that should not be observed. They are observed so when pushed creationists say they accept what they call micro evolution.

Rubbish. Microevolution depends on a mass of pre-existent information, information that is then acted upon and selected, resulting in a modified organism. Macroevolution depends on minimal initial information being increased over billions of years.

But because their position is totally inconsistent they then go back to making arguments that would make micro evolution just as impossible as macro evolution. J C's argument about non functional permutations etc would not just prevent jumps from one species to another, it says that nothing functional whatsoever can come about without intelligent guidance. It would prevent the type of evolution we see all the time and that ceeationists accept just as much as it would the "muck to man atheist conspiracy" type. But of course when this is pointed out he just responds with some smilies, a bible quote and a declaration that I'm deluded

As above - the 'evolution' we observe occurs from existing information being selected. We have an explanation for where the information came from; you claim it arose bit by bit - but without the observational proof.

There are not two types of evolution, one of which is observed all the time and the other of which is a statistically impossible athesit conspiracy, there is just what creationists call micro evolution stretched over a long period of time.

Evolution has not been observed to have been stretched out. That is your interpretation of the evidence, not the proof. If you just saw that it was a surmise that might be right or wrong, that would advance the debate.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I've posted the inter-evolutionist spats here before. Look for them if you're really interested. I don't have time.

Just review the posts of the evolutionists here and you'll see many of the same arguments made repeatedly.

I've given it before. Check my posts - or better still, do a search on AiG or CMI on peer-review.

Read this thread. Check out the theistic evolutionist sites.
If you don't have time to back up a claim then perhaps you should not make it. I have asked for evidence and you have not presented it.

I have presented it before, and I'm not here to waste my time hunting through posts for those who have already read and casually dismissed them. If you want them, look for yourself.

Quote:
Again, check my posts or visit the creationist sites. But within the last week or so I posted one that high-lighted the career demise of evolutionist scientists who questioned establishment dogma. I asked which of the dating techniques these evolutionists used were wrong - but I got no reply.
There is no dogma so that accusation makes no sense from the beginning. Please link be to the post requesting dating techniques (I cannot find it) and I will answer your question.

Glad to hear it:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66699570&postcount=22716

Quote:
I didn't see anything of value in it - but now that you highlight the bit about references, I say So What? When we give references to articles that refute you claims, you dismiss them as non-science - despite being scientifically argued by scientists qualified to speak.
Evidence?

As above, check the posts for yourself. You read them like all who follow this thread.

Quote:
References prove nothing.
If you do not have references for you claims then how do we know research has been carried out?

I said References prove nothing, not references are unnecessary. Giving references to works that support your claim is helpful, but not proof you are right - as your treatment of the creationist works I linked to shows.

Quote:
Don't waste our time. Admit the arguments are there but you don't agree with them. Pretending all we do is sloganise is blatantly untrue.
I did not say that was all you do. I admitted that there is the occasional objection to evolution that is coherent, but that responses to that objection are ignored.

Not in the literature I have read. Argument and counter-argument flows on for some time.

Here's what we'll do to illustrate my point Wolfsbane: I am in the field of physics, so pick your favourite AIG argument based on physics (i.e. Cosmology, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc.) and we will carefully discuss it. You can present your references and I can present mine, and together we will see what I mean.

I'm a non-scientist, so I'll only be able to follow the logic to any extent. This struck me as one interesting subject:
A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,