The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

... how was this figure of 65 arrived at?

... what are the underlying numbers ... and where/how were they established?

I linked to it before. Thank you for finally showing an interest in the evidence. That figure is from a study called Homicide by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, two psychology professors who have conducted extensive research into evolutionary psychology and evolutionary perspectives on human violence.

They have done a great deal of research into the so-called Cinderella Effect - the phenomenon we're discussing, where stepchildren seem to be at greatly elevated risk of a whole range of abuses, not just being killed. There is a mass of data supporting this effect, with the sources and underlying numbers neatly summarised in this paper (PDF), which shows my original figure of a 65-fold elevation of the mortality risk for step-children may well be on the low side.

It's a complicated area, and there are also studies that indicate, as PDN suggested, that additional factors to evolutionary ones are likely to be involved.

Nonetheless the empirical evidence that children in stepfamilies are at far greater risk than other children is vast and undeniable. There is, for example, compelling evidence that where abusive parents have both step and natural children in the same family they will target the step children far more frequently. Daly and Wilson have described the presence of a step-parent as "the best epidemiological predictor of child abuse yet discovered”.

Forgive the Wikipedia link, but here is a lot more information that I don't have time to summarize for you. There's also this extensive article (PDF) by Daly and Wilson on the subject if you have time to read it.

I must say, J C, your constant referring to yourself - a sample of one, and a self-interested one at that - as though your personal experience and behaviour were the only valid yardstick by which to measure and assess all human experience, is not only highly unscientific but highly unbecoming.

I don't feel inclined to hurt children either, but it's blindingly obvious that a lot of other people do. I can dismiss them as sick and evil or I can try to understand why. I see little possibility of progress in the first approach.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes - without me checking the clip again - the confusion was down to him. But it would be very strange for a YEC to be denying news species of fish arise, so I took him to be referring to macroevolution rather than microevolution. His subsequent comments confirmed that. Pity he confused the issue by using 'speciation' to refer to macroevolution.

The issue is, like a lot of Creationists, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

He is talking from a religious position, not a scientific one. He believes it must be wrong because of theology, not science. Which is why Dawkins tore him to pieces on the biology, and he got more and more nervous debating him.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And I've pointed out that evolutionists and creationists agree that new species of fish are still fish, so it is you who is reading into 'speciation' more than it warrants.

"Fish" is not a formal biological classification (which is probably why Creationists like using such barn yard terms)

It spans not only species but families and even class and phylum.

It would take millions of years of evolution, changing through thousands of species to move out of phylum.

Saying therefore that "it's still just a fish" is displaying a serious lack of understanding of biological evolution.

If someone says they have to witness a phylum change to accept that one species evolves into another species they are clearly a crack pot, and worthy of ignoring.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I assume he knows the evidence that is used to support evolution, just that he thinks it does not. Interpretations differ, the evidence is neutral.

Why would you assume he knows the evidence when he stated "I'm not a biologist" at the start of what he was saying to Dawkins.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some of the interpretations of biologists, physicists and chemists - not the proved science.

You cannot get more supported than Darwinian evolution. It is one of the most supported theories in all of science.

The only people who disagree have a religious agenda, like this guy.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In their own fields, that relate to the claims of the theory of evolution, they are qualified to speak.

As are the millions of other biologists who say evolution is a supported theory.

Except you ignore then, or create fanciful consipiracy theories, because they don't fit your religious agenda.

Which makes you appeal to authority rather silly.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I thought the man in the video did quite well. And his fellow scientists who hold to Creation/ID are not a few weirdos, but many thousands of respected professionals and Christian witnesses.

They are a "few weirdos", that is exactly what they are.

And their ain't thousands of them. Answers in Genesis could barely scrape together 200 and only 30 of them were biologists, and a lot of them are dead. :rolleyes:

This is out of the millions of practicing biologists, let alone practicing scientists. This is out of the dozens of international scientific groups and organisations that have stated there is no longer any doubt in their minds about evolutionary being the explanation for the species of life on Earth, any more than there is doubt over the Earth going around the Sun.

30 "weirdos" (ie religious fanatics) vs the entire working scientific community who use the theory of evolution every day.

You might as well drag on the Flat Earth society, I think they have like 5 weirdos with scientific qualitifications. Is 30 that much better than 5 when compared to millions?

Again the ONLY people who object to this having a religious agenda, like the guy on this video. They object to it for religious grounds, not scientific ones.

Morbert

rockbeer wrote: »

I don't think it, I know it, as should you. As does anyone who bothers to do any actual research. That is exactly how we behave.

Statistically, stepchildren are 65 times more likely to be murdered than children who live with both natural parents.* We all like to think we're immune to genetic imperatives, but the numbers tell us how wrong we are.

As for your other post, a reply is pointless since you've once again elected to avoid addressing my actual point, preferring as usual to make an unrelated (and, needless to say, meaningless) one of your own.

* Daly, M & Wilson, M, Homicide, Aldine, New York 1988

We have not evolved from lions though. Many animals care for the young of others.

As for actual research: Is there any research out there that supports the hypothesis that humans have a genetic urge to kill other people's kids?

rockbeer

Morbert wrote: »

We have not evolved from lions though.

No. Both humans and lions evolved from a common ancestor if you go back far enough.

But we don't need to have evolved from lions in order to demonstrate similar evolved responses that have genetic survival value.

Morbert wrote: »

Many animals care for the young of others.

Indeed, including humans. Behaviour doesn't have to be universal, or even typical, in order to have evolved. It just has to have survival value for the genes of those individuals who exhibit it.

Morbert wrote: »

As for actual research: Is there any research out there that supports the hypothesis that humans have a genetic urge to kill other people's kids?

Check out some of the links in my previous post. There's lots of evidence for the Cinderella effect, and the data generally supports what you would expect to see if evolutionary explanations were accurate. The data is also hard to square with alternative explanations such as social factors. For example, the tendency for parents to favour natural offspring over step-children appears to be strong enough to override trends that are observed in blood families. To quote a specific example in brief, where children are sexually abused in a blood family it is almost invariably the youngest child who is abused. When there is a stepchild, he or she will be usually abused in preference to any younger children.

I know it seems awful to use such dispassionate language about such dreadful events, but in my view unless we face the facts head on we won't even be aware of such trends, let alone attempt to find solutions.

But having said all that, you misunderstand greatly if you think there is a genetic 'urge' to kill other people's kids. Such behaviour is not in any way typical and I'm not trying to present it as such. It would be more accurate to say that whatever inhibitions exist between biological parents and their children against such violent, abusive or neglectful behaviour tend to diminish rapidly as the genetic relationship between the involved parties becomes more distant. People who are not so inclined will not commit these acts no matter the genetic connection. That includes most of us. But those that are so inclined appear to be far more likely to express this behaviour towards the genetically more distant individuals within the family.

Morbert

rockbeer wrote: »

No. Both humans and lions evolved from a common ancestor if you go back far enough.

But we don't need to have evolved from lions in order to demonstrate similar evolved responses that have genetic survival value.

Indeed, including humans. Behaviour doesn't have to be universal, or even typical, in order to have evolved. It just has to have survival value for the genes of those individuals who exhibit it.

Check out some of the links in my previous post. There's lots of evidence for the Cinderella effect, and the data generally supports what you would expect to see if evolutionary explanations were accurate. The data is also hard to square with alternative explanations such as social factors. For example, the tendency for parents to favour natural offspring over step-children appears to be strong enough to override trends that are observed in blood families. To quote a specific example in brief, where children are sexually abused in a blood family it is almost invariably the youngest child who is abused. When there is a stepchild, he or she will be usually abused in preference to any younger children.

I know it seems awful to use such dispassionate language about such dreadful events, but in my view unless we face the facts head on we won't even be aware of such trends, let alone attempt to find solutions.

But having said all that, you misunderstand greatly if you think there is a genetic 'urge' to kill other people's kids. Such behaviour is not in any way typical and I'm not trying to present it as such. It would be more accurate to say that whatever inhibitions exist between biological parents and their children against such violent, abusive or neglectful behaviour tend to diminish rapidly as the genetic relationship between the involved parties becomes more distant. People who are not so inclined will not commit these acts no matter the genetic connection. That includes most of us. But those that are so inclined appear to be far more likely to express this behaviour towards the genetically more distant individuals within the family.

Will have a look through the links soon. So long as you are not claiming there is a genetic urge/imperative to kill other people's kids then I don't have a huge issue.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And I've pointed out that evolutionists and creationists agree that new species of fish are still fish, so it is you who is reading into 'speciation' more than it warrants.
"Fish" is not a formal biological classification (which is probably why Creationists like using such barn yard terms)

It spans not only species but families and even class and phylum.

It would take millions of years of evolution, changing through thousands of species to move out of phylum.

Saying therefore that "it's still just a fish" is displaying a serious lack of understanding of biological evolution.

If someone says they have to witness a phylum change to accept that one species evolves into another species they are clearly a crack pot, and worthy of ignoring.

It is the evolutionists who introduce speciation as proof of their theory. Creationists do not expect anyone to demonstrate macro-evolution in the lab, for the reasons you have stated. But they are entitled to point out in response to the speciation 'proof' that the speciation demonstrated is only of fish-fish, not molecules to fish or anything in between. Speciation is common to both evolution and creation theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Some of the interpretations of biologists, physicists and chemists - not the proved science.
You cannot get more supported than Darwinian evolution. It is one of the most supported theories in all of science.

The only people who disagree have a religious agenda, like this guy.

Supported by evolutionist interpretation, not the science itself. And most non-Christian scientists have an emotional need to reject any theory that threatens their world-view. The God of the Bible is not welcome in man's conscience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In their own fields, that relate to the claims of the theory of evolution, they are qualified to speak.
As are the millions of other biologists who say evolution is a supported theory.

Indeed.

Except you ignore then, or create fanciful consipiracy theories, because they don't fit your religious agenda.

Indeed, I start with my religious truth, but the scientific argument for creation stands on its own strength.

Which makes you appeal to authority rather silly.

I appeal to nothing more than fair-play when I point out both sides are qualified to speak. Evolutionists are the ones who wish to censor the opposition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I thought the man in the video did quite well. And his fellow scientists who hold to Creation/ID are not a few weirdos, but many thousands of respected professionals and Christian witnesses.
They are a "few weirdos", that is exactly what they are.

And their ain't thousands of them. Answers in Genesis could barely scrape together 200 and only 30 of them were biologists, and a lot of them are dead.

The relative numbers are down to the factors we have discussed before:
1. Not all who are creationists are listed there.
2. Non-Christian scientists have strong emotional reasons to reject Creation.
3. Even Christian scientists have to overcome the threat of ridicule and victimization that can follow public acknowledgement of Creationism.

the entire working scientific community who use the theory of evolution every day.

Really? Care to tell me what specific bits of the theory of evolution are in daily use?

___________________________________________________________________
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Supported by evolutionist interpretation, not the science itself. And most non-Christian scientists have an emotional need to reject any theory that threatens their world-view. The God of the Bible is not welcome in man's conscience.

There's so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. But just to make one critical point: even if the evidence for creationism were compelling (which it absolutely isn't), it would say nothing whatsoever about the existence of the god of the bible. But, frankly, it's absurd to suggest that being non-christian inhibits scientists' openness to non-evolutionary theories. It's in fact the other way round. The obvious scientific validity of evolutionary theory has gradually loosened and dismantled christian faith. You are putting the cart before the horse.

This idea that non-christian scientists reject creationism for emotional reasons is pure bunk, and desperate clutching at straws on your part.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appeal to nothing more than fair-play when I point out both sides are qualified to speak. Evolutionists are the ones who wish to censor the opposition.

I don't think evolutionists want to censor anyone from expressing a personal opinion, they just don't want to allow creationist non-science a platform in the scientific world. Your inability to understand this only reflects your failure to understand what science actually is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The relative numbers are down to the factors we have discussed before:
1. Not all who are creationists are listed there.
2. Non-Christian scientists have strong emotional reasons to reject Creation.
3. Even Christian scientists have to overcome the threat of ridicule and victimization that can follow public acknowledgement of Creationism.

Are you really suggesting that there are millions of closet creationists out there, keeping their heads down because they fear ridicule from a handful of misguided evolutionists? They must be a pretty abject lot. If there are that many of them, why don't they just get together and turn the ridicule on their foul oppressors?

Fact is, wolfsbane, even the vast majority of christian scientists know there is nothing to creationism. Everybody who understands and values science accepts that. The only dissenters, as Wicknight keeps pointing out, are those who are determined to pursue a religious agenda at the expense of real science.

The Mad Hatter

Just discovered this little site called Project Steve: there are a greater number of scientists named Steve who accept the theory of evolution than the total number of scientists that Answers in Genesis could find who deny it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

It is the evolutionists who introduce speciation as proof of their theory.

The "proof" of the theory (I assume you are using the laymans version of that term) is the huge number of times the theory accurately predicts observation, as it is with all scientific theories.

Speciation is itself a sub-theory of Darwinian evolution, it isn't used to prove anything.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists do not expect anyone to demonstrate macro-evolution in the lab, for the reasons you have stated. But they are entitled to point out in response to the speciation 'proof' that the speciation demonstrated is only of fish-fish, not molecules to fish or anything in between. Speciation is common to both evolution and creation theory.

"Fish" is just a classification of features, and a poor one at taht.


When a new species emerges that has changed it properties so that it starts to not have the properties of a fish then it has started to become something other than a fish. Fish-to-something is just speciation repeated over billions of years. There is no other missing step or unexplained process here.

On the other hand YEC propose some magic barrier ("kinds") that would stop speciation if such speciation meant that the new species lack the properties necessary to classify it in the previous kind.

This would stop a new species evolving if the new species had properties that didn't match the "kind" classification (something no Creationist has ever been able to define).

If you start with a fish and after 50 million years and hundreds of thousands of species changes you no longer have a species that matches the classification of a fish, what process according to Creationists stops this happening?

Because to biologists all you need to explain it is current theory of speciation, which you claim you already accept.

YEC require some process to stop speciation if such changes in species would result in a jump in "kinds". As yet they have no such process. Doesn't stop them claiming it exists and referring back to the Bible.

And yet Creationists have the nerve to say scientists are making stuff you. Biologists have a theory that explains life on Earth as it is. This theory is very very well supported (by the process I mentioned above)

Creationists say it cannot happen but give no explanation why it can't happen, and when pressed simply refer back to their Bibles.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Supported by evolutionist interpretation, not the science itself.

The theory of Darwinian evolution is supported the same way all science is supported, by matching predictions of their theory against observations.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And most non-Christian scientists have an emotional need to reject any theory that threatens their world-view. The God of the Bible is not welcome in man's conscience.

Nor is the god of the Greeks, or the gods of the Vikings. But when was the last time any Creationist said that scientists are denying the reality of the Viking creationist myth. Of course they wouldn't because they are religious fundamentalists.

Once again Wolfsbane, like all Creationist, you betray your religious motivation here. You think scientists are rejecting your creation myth specifically, not because they are (no creation myth in human history matches the current theory of the origin of the Earth or the origin and development life) but because that is the one you believe in.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed, I start with my religious truth, but the scientific argument for creation stands on its own strength.

How would you know the difference if you have already decided it must be right?

You have admitted many times you don't even really understand the scientific argument for either side, but you side with the Creationist because it matches your "religoius truth"

And yet you have the nerve to say that evolutionary biologists are worried about threats to their world view :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appeal to nothing more than fair-play when I point out both sides are qualified to speak. Evolutionists are the ones who wish to censor the opposition.

No one censors Creationists, they are a multi-million dollar religious movement with millions spend on advertising, websites, and political lobbying.

What scientists correctly point out is that the science is bunk and as such should be ignored.

The ONLY reason you fail to admit that is because of your religious agenda, one you happily admit to.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The relative numbers are down to the factors we have discussed before:
1. Not all who are creationists are listed there.
2. Non-Christian scientists have strong emotional reasons to reject Creation.
3. Even Christian scientists have to overcome the threat of ridicule and victimization that can follow public acknowledgement of Creationism.

Or, the reality.

1. Creationists are a small set of religious fundamentalists working in the area of science who let this religious belief cloud their judgement when it comes to the science and the scientific method.

Saying the true number of Creationists is unknown but then saying there are thousands of them is just silly Wolfsbane.

No list compiled by any of the large Creationist organisations have ever managed to get more than a small handful of Creationists who work in scientific areas, and an even smaller number who work in the area of biology.

The number of biologists who are Creationists is tiny. Absolutely tiny. They exist because every area of science has those who, for what ever reason, get a kick out of disagreeing with the rest of the scientists.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? Care to tell me what specific bits of the theory of evolution are in daily use?

Certainly

Bioinformatics
Epidemiology
Vaccine design
Infectious disease control
Protein folding
Antibiotics study
Bio-engineered waste disposal
Genetic Algorithms
Biopolymer production
Ribotyping

I could go on but I think you get the point. How about instead of listing to Creationist who probably have PhDs in mathematics or theology, you go out and talk to an evolutionary biologist and as them how sound evolution is.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Just discovered this little site called Project Steve: there are a greater number of scientists named Steve who accept the theory of evolution than the total number of scientists that Answers in Genesis could find who deny it.

Clearly they are all denying the reality of Zeus, er, I mean God.

If Answers in Genesis wanted to make an interesting list they should compile a list of biologists who deny evolution but who are not religious fundamentalists. As it stands the lists on AiG and Creation.com simply prove the point, the only people who deny evolution are religious fundamentalists.

Take away them the list of biologists who deny evolution is on pair with scientists who think the world is flat.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Speciation is itself a sub-theory of Darwinian evolution, it isn't used to prove anything.

OK, let me phrase it another way: It is the evolutionists who introduce speciation as a rebuttal of creation. But it is common to both evolution and creation theory.

Because to biologists all you need to explain it is current theory of speciation, which you claim you already accept.

YEC require some process to stop speciation if such changes in species would result in a jump in "kinds". As yet they have no such process.

The process of speciation is all about dealing with the genetic information we have - not generating new information. We can get all kinds of alterations to a fish, but we cannot import the information it needs to become a mammal, no matter how many generations involved. Mutations can't provide the needed new function.
Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The longterm result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.
Gary Parker, Ed.D
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp

But when was the last time any Creationist said that scientists are denying the reality of the Viking creationist myth.

The Viking 'gods' are on the side of the evolutionists. The same force promotes all falsehood:
John 8:43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.

How would you know the difference if you have already decided it must be right?

If I saw the evidence all against me, I would admit the evidence did not support my case at present - and await new research that would show how the evidence had been misinterpreted. No need to make false claims for one to hold to one's revealed knowledge.

No one censors Creationists, they are a multi-million dollar religious movement with millions spend on advertising, websites, and political lobbying.

That's not what we mean by censoring creationism. Of course you permit it to be taught as religion. But not as science. If creationists had control of government and permitted evolution to be taught as religion/philosophy, but not as science - would that be censorship?

You are denying these scientists the right to present their case in the scientific arena. Why the fear? Why not let them present it and then refute it, show them to be religious fools? As often as they present it, refute it. The public will make up their own minds.

But of course you can't allow that. The public must be protected from heresy. And the best of of doing that is to allow your enemy only to present his case as already falsified. Brilliant.

Saying the true number of Creationists is unknown but then saying there are thousands of them is just silly Wolfsbane.

You deny real negative consequences are applied to any scientist who espouses creationism??? Even those evolutionists who suggest tolerance get it in the neck. Would you be careless about going public if your job/prospects were on the line?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Really? Care to tell me what specific bits of the theory of evolution are in daily use?
Certainly

Bioinformatics
Epidemiology
Vaccine design
Infectious disease control
Protein folding
Antibiotics study
Bio-engineered waste disposal
Genetic Algorithms
Biopolymer production
Ribotyping

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant, Tell me how these aspects of scientific practise depend on evolution. For example, what part of Antibiotics study depends on a principle or process not accepted by Creationism?

..go out and talk to an evolutionary biologist and as them how sound evolution is.

Or ask a creationist biologist how sound creation is? :pac:

_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

wolfsbane

rockbeer said:

But just to make one critical point: even if the evidence for creationism were compelling (which it absolutely isn't), it would say nothing whatsoever about the existence of the god of the bible.

On the contrary, it would suggest that a Creator existed, and that the Biblical claim to reveal Him might well be true. That's not what sinful men like to face up to.

The obvious scientific validity of evolutionary theory has gradually loosened and dismantled christian faith.

Its scientific validity is not obvious, but I agree - evolutionary theory has gradually loosened and dismantled christian faith. It is one of, perhaps the most, effective weapons against the Christian faith.

Are you really suggesting that there are millions of closet creationists out there,

Certainly tens of thousands, if extrapolation of known 'closets' is anything to go by, as far as I can see.

keeping their heads down because they fear ridicule from a handful of misguided evolutionists?

Not a handful - THE scientific establishment, those with power to hire and fire.

They must be a pretty abject lot.

Some no doubt should speak up, as their testimony would be helpful. But for many if would be a big sacrifice of career for no good return.

If there are that many of them, why don't they just get together and turn the ridicule on their foul oppressors?

The establishment have the support or acquiescence of most scientists on this matter. It takes a brave evolutionist to speak up for their opponents.

Fact is, wolfsbane, even the vast majority of christian scientists know there is nothing to creationism.

Christians are not immune to cowardice, as the apostle Peter demonstrated on more than one occasion. It is much easier for a Christian scientist to side with the majority.

_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 26:69 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.”
70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying.”
71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
72 But again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the Man!”
73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.”
74 Then he began to curse and swear, saying, “I do not know the Man!”
Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So he went out and wept bitterly.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

OK, let me phrase it another way: It is the evolutionists who introduce speciation as a rebuttal of creation. But it is common to both evolution and creation theory.

Biologists introduce speciation as a way of explaining life on Earth. Which it does.

Creationists then say we accept speciation but then they say speciation is stopped by something at certain points. So far Creationists can't back that claim up.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The process of speciation is all about dealing with the genetic information we have - not generating new information.

Mutation has been shown many many times to be able to generate new genetic code.

This is required to produce new species, since new species are often seperated by number of chromosomes.

The Creationist claim that you can only lose genetic code has been disproven in the lab (a place you say is the only place you will look at evolution science)

wolfsbane wrote: »

We can get all kinds of alterations to a fish, but we cannot import the information it needs to become a mammal, no matter how many generations involved.

Mammals and fish share the same system of DNA. It only takes different arrangements to make a fish or a mammal.

If speciation can produce rearrangements of DNA, and can produce larger chromosomes than previous species, explain to me why given enough time you can't go from fish to mammal simply be rearranging DNA?

What stops this process?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mutations can't provide the needed new function.

There is no evidence that is true. Again you are relying on some magical process to say "Hold on a minute, this new function that has been produced in this new species is a 'mammal' function, not a 'fish' function, therefore we must stop it"

Creationists have never been able to show that such a process exists. Unless you want to invoke God, otherwise you are out of luck.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”).

Speciation requires this as well, and you say you accept that speciation happens.

For example different species of fish can have vastly different functions, and vastly different sizes of chromosomes.

This



and this



are both "fish". You happily accept that they can evolve into each other, but again say it magically stops at some point.

If you accept speciation happens then you accept that a change big enough that if put together in a sequence can go from fish to mammal, exists.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Viking 'gods' are on the side of the evolutionists.

I don't think the "evolutionists" think the world was created when two giants had a battle.

Shockingly few people accuse the scientists of trying to deny the reality of the Viking gods so they can ignore commands from Odin :rolleyes:

You only care about your religious interpretation, but make the mistake of assuming that is what everyone else cares about as well.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I saw the evidence all against me, I would admit the evidence did not support my case at present

I don't believe you. You have been shown so much evidence here on this thread and, while I don't expect you to accept it I would expect you to attempt to accurately represent it. You don't even do that. This to me demonstrates your lack of genuine interest in understanding the evidence.

For example saying mutations cannot produce new "information" is either false if genuinely presented since mutation can and does produce new strings of genetic code, or disingenious if, as Creationists often do, one falls back on an ever changing notion of the word "information" as soon as evolutionary biologists demonstrate that one version of the claim is false.

Either way both demonstrate a lack of genuine interest in understanding the science, and allowing the possibility that it might convince you of something.

But why would you bother, right? After all you know the truth.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's not what we mean by censoring creationism. Of course you permit it to be taught as religion. But not as science.

Holding to scientific standards is not censorship. That is a misuse of the term to be sensationalist.

You have been told how Creationism and ID fail scientific standards (nothing to test). You ignore this, and continue to claim censorship

Again this makes your claim above of genuine open mindness to this topic ring hollow.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If creationists had control of government and permitted evolution to be taught as religion/philosophy, but not as science - would that be censorship?

You are basically asking if Creationists allowed science to be taught as religion but not science would that be censorship.

The only way Creationists could do this is to change what science means. That wouldn't be censorship, but it would be silly. Though as the Dover trail demonstrates that is exactly what Creationists want to do.

It is perfectly within the right of scientists to refuse to entertain an idea that has failed scientific standards.

Just as it is perfectly within the right of a church to refuse to teach Satan worshipping because it has failed Christian standards.

Would you entertain the Satan worshippers saying they are being censored because Christians won't teach their ideas?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are denying these scientists the right to present their case in the scientific arena. Why the fear?

Where have you been for the last 150 years? They presented their case to the scientific arena, their case fell short.

Normal scientists move on when this happens. But because Creationists are religious fundamentalists they can't move on because the belief that their ideas are true is not scientific but theological.

So they keep presenting the case over and over and over, and refusing to accept that it has failed scientifically.

Eventually, unsurprisingly, the rest of science started ignoring them and telling them to go away, just as I imagine Christians would with Satanists (or Muslims, or Buddists) who keep coming back day after day telling the Christians that Jesus was a Satanist.

The "fear" now as you put it is that because Creationists failed with the scientific community they are attempting to bypass the entire scientific process entirely, and force government to teach their theories.

Using my analogy, it would be like if Satanists couldn't get the major churches to admit that Jesus was a Satanist so instead they tried to get school R.E classes to teach this instead by loading the school boards with Satanists.

I'm pretty sure Christians would be up in arms at the suggestion that children were taught in school that Christians believe Jesus worshipped Satan, just as Scientists are up in arms at the idea that children are taught in school that Creationism is real science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why not let them present it and then refute it, show them to be religious fools?

That has already happened Wolfsbane. 99.99% of scientists think Creationists are religious fools. Trials like Dover have shown what they are, and that they fail scientific standards. Creationism has failed every single time they have tried to demonstrate they are following real science.

The only people who refuse to accept this are the Creationists themselves. You refuse to accept this because you are a Creationist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You deny real negative consequences are applied to any scientist who espouses creationism???

No, I deny they are censored. They aren't censored. They are ignored. Because they are spouting scientific nonsense.

What would happen to a Christian pastor who one day decided Jesus was a Satan worshiper? Would he be elected Dean of a Christian university? Or perhaps given a church to run?

Or would he be ignored as a crack pot?

Creationists, because of religious reasons, fail to adhere to scientific standards, they are therefore ignored by the scientific establishment. They are not promoted to important positions, or given important roles because they have chosen, again for religious reasons, to go in a direction opposite to science and scientific standards.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant, Tell me how these aspects of scientific practise depend on evolution. For example, what part of Antibiotics study depends on a principle or process not accepted by Creationism?

I don't know what process is or isn't accepted by Creationism since they just make it up as they go.

I do know that the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution is used all the time in antibiotic study, and is used to predict the evolution of bacteria and how antibodies can be produced.

If neo-Darwinian evolution is wrong this couldn't happen.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Or ask a creationist biologist how sound creation is? :pac:

Find me a creationist biologist who has ever used a Creationist theory to do anything practical and I might.

But since such a person doesn't exist that might be hard.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Just discovered this little site called Project Steve: there are a greater number of scientists named Steve who accept the theory of evolution than the total number of scientists that Answers in Genesis could find who deny it.

Which (of the many) 'theories of evolution' would that be??
... there are probably as many varieties of the 'theory of evolution' as there are 'Steves' on that site.
... indeed every Creationist called 'Steve' could also be classed as 'evolutionists' ... if you include those who accept NS of existing created genetic diversity within Kinds as 'evolutionists'!!!

In any event, the truth is not a popularity contest ... it comes down to hard facts ... and in the case of 'Origins' the hard fact is that CFSI cannot be spontaneously produced ... it is mathematically impossible because the non-functional to functional combinatorial space ratio is effectively infinite ... and thus the probability of producing even one specific functional biomolecule using non-intelligently directed processes is effectively zero!!!

Isn't it ironic that the hard facts are all on the Creation Science side of the issue ... while the Materialists have built their case on the vain imaginings of men!!!!:):eek:

Morbert

J C wrote: »

Which (of the many) 'theories of evolution would that be??
... there are probably as many varieties of the 'theory of evolution' as there are 'Steves' on that site.
... indeed every Creationist called 'Steve' could also be classed as 'evolutionists' ... if you include those who accept NS of existing created genetic diversity within Kinds as 'evolutionists'!!!

In any event, the truth is not a popularity contest ... it comes down to hard facts ... and in the case of 'Origins' the hard fact is that CFSI cannot be spontaneously produced ... it is mathematically impossible because the non-functional to functional combinatorial space ratio is effectively infinite ... and thus the probability of producing even one specific functional biomolecule using non-intelligently directed processes is effectively zero!!!

Isn't it ironic that the hard facts are all on the Creation Science side of the issue ... while the Materialists have built their case on the vain imaginings of men!!!!:):eek:

None of this is true, for obvious reasons.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

None of this is true, for obvious reasons.

For obvious reasons my statements are all true.

... and it is indeed quite ironic that the supposedly 'hard-headed' Materialists are the ones believing in fairy-tales ... while the theistic Creation Scientists are the ones with hard mathematical proof for their scientific theories!!!

Morbert

J C wrote: »

For obvious reasons my statements are all true.

No they aren't.

... and it is indeed quite ironic that the supposedly 'hard-headed' Materialists are the ones believing in fairy-tales ... while the theistic Creation Scientists are the ones with hard mathematical proof for their scientific theories!!!

That isn't true, for obvious reasons.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

That isn't true, for obvious reasons.

The existence of Genetic CFSI says you're wrong!!!

... and all your 'handwaving' isn't convincing anybody ... including yourself!!!:)

Morbert

J C wrote: »

The existence of CFSI says you're wrong!!!

... and all your 'handwaving' isn't convincing anybody ... including yourself!!!:)

That isn't true, for obvious reasons.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

That isn't true, for obvious reasons.

The existence of Genetic CFSI says you're wrong!!!

... and all your 'handwaving' isn't convincing anybody ... including yourself!!!:)

Morbert

J C wrote: »

The existence of Genetic CFSI says you're wrong!!!

... and all your 'handwaving' isn't convincing anybody ... including yourself!!!:)

Again, that isn't true, for obvious reasons.

The Mad Hatter

Bit of an echo in here.

Bit of an echo in here.

Lantus

Both sides are probably right.

The world was created by a more advanced being that did it through an incredibly complex organic program that took years to develop and evolve into what we know now.) But there is no intervention or predermination in what was created. It was through the spirit of free will and self determination. More powerful forces than just being magicked into existence.

So behind it all a really clever mind but the drama plays out with a mind of it's own. After all, with ultimate power over life and death and time whats to stop you tinkering at every junction? If your going to go to the bother of creating all the chess pieces makes sense to move them around right? But really inelligent life wouldn't do it like that.

The fact that I am the product of several millions of years of expression that managed to surface through the bodys we inhabit now doesn't make me any less inclined to either question that world or believe I am part of something bigger.

J C

Lantus wrote: »

Both sides are probably right.

The world was created by a more advanced being that did it through an incredibly complex organic program that took years to develop and evolve into what we know now.) But there is no intervention or predermination in what was created. It was through the spirit of free will and self determination. More powerful forces than just being magicked into existence.

So behind it all a really clever mind but the drama plays out with a mind of it's own. After all, with ultimate power over life and death and time whats to stop you tinkering at every junction? If your going to go to the bother of creating all the chess pieces makes sense to move them around right? But really inelligent life wouldn't do it like that.

The fact that I am the product of several millions of years of expression that managed to surface through the bodys we inhabit now doesn't make me any less inclined to either question that world or believe I am part of something bigger.

Unfortunately, both sides cannot be right ... they are mutually exclusive beliefs ... either God exists and Created all life ... or He doesn't exist and everthing originated spontaneously by (unknown) materialistic means.

The evidence unambiguously indicates Direct Creation by an inordinate Intelligence ... whether you call this Intelligence God ... or not ... is up to you ...
... but believing that it all happened spontaneously by purely materialistic forces ranks somewhere with a belief in the 'sugar tooth fairy'.:)

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Bit of an echo in here.

Bit of an echo in here.

... CFSI ... CFSI ... CFSI ... CFSI ...:D

Lantus

J C wrote: »

Unfortunately, both sides cannot be right ... they are mutually exclusive beliefs ... either God exists and Created all life ... or He doesn't exist and everthing originated spontaneously by (unknown) materialistic means.

The evidence unambiguously indicates Direct Creation by an inordinate Intelligence ... whether you call this Intelligence God ... or not ... is up to you ...
... but believing that it all happened spontaneously by purely materialistic forces ranks somewhere with a belief in the 'sugar tooth fairy'.:)

Of course they can?!? Saying it's either black or white shows a lack of imagination. It's not far fetched to say that an intelligent being created all of the building blocks of life in terms of just setting certain wheels in motion and then let them get on with it over billions of years without further interference. The end result may well of been unknown or in fact not even guaranteed. Makes it all very exciting. So evolution is highly viable (and even sensible) alongside any belief someone may wish to have with an intelligence behind it all.

J C

Dades (as he locked the Taking the Place of Religion - Daniel Dennett - Dublin Thread over in the A & A Forum.) wrote:

Dan Dennett has been and gone so we can at least close this burgeoning nightmare.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056074370&page=5

Three quick points:-
1. It seems that the guys over on the A & A can "give it" ... but they can't "take it "...
... they allow 'church bashing' threads to run and run, over on the A & A ... while they shut down this thread, after just a few pages, when I started to ask searching questions about their own Faith !!!

2. The real nightmare isn't my (lone) defense of the Christian Faith on that thread ... it is the fate awaiting all of the un-Saved ... if they don't achieve Salvation ... and give up the unfounded idea that God doesn't exist.

3. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it seems that rumours of the Atheist take-over of the Christian Faith (implied by the thread's title) are greatly exaggerated ... just like all of the other Materialistic Evolutionist claims about being able to explain away God ... and take His place!!!:eek:

J C

Lantus wrote: »

Of course they can?!? Saying it's either black or white shows a lack of imagination. It's not far fetched to say that an intelligent being created all of the building blocks of life in terms of just setting certain wheels in motion and then let them get on with it over billions of years without further interference. The end result may well of been unknown or in fact not even guaranteed. Makes it all very exciting. So evolution is highly viable (and even sensible) alongside any belief someone may wish to have with an intelligence behind it all.

Your 'theory' is yet another variation on the unfounded Materialistic Evolutionist idea ... with some 'bells and whistles' added onto it for the religiously minded!!!:eek:

I came across this recently ... and I thought of you!!!

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1
The majority today pour scorn on the idea that God created the universe in 6 x 24 hour days. Their problem lies in the fact that they drag God down to their human level, and they fail to grasp the fact that the greatness of God transcends even their loftiest thoughts.
One Christian from a previous generation had a good understanding of God’s awesome majesty, and when considering the six days of creation, he asked, “I wonder why He took so long?”
God is greater that you could EVER, EVER imagine!

With love ... and compassion.:)

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056074370&page=5

Three quick points:-
1. It seems that the guys over on the A & A can "give it" ... but they can't "take it "...
... they allow 'church bashing' threads to run and run, over on the A & A ... while they shut down this thread, after just a few pages, when I started to ask searching questions about their own Faith !!!

No discussion of how other forums are run, please.

J C

According to leading Humanist, Prof Daniel C Dennett, (who visited Ireland recently) it looks like some Atheists are about to organise their own 'churches' ... and he also claims that many of the existing nominal Christian Churches have effectively become ceased witnessing to God and have become 'agnostic' on many fundamental issues that have historically divided Christians from Atheists!!!!
... here is a fascinating video that shows some 'cutting edge' Atheist thinking on how an eventual possible 'merger' between Atheists and 'liberal' Christianity might come about ... with weekly Humanist/Theist 'meetings' in former Christian Churches ... and Evolution one of the core Articles of Faith, no doubt!!!

Prof Dennett claims that some Humanists have even produced their own 'Secular Gospel Music' ... and he played a sample of it to the audience ... with some of the Atheists present joining in the 'halleluia chorus'!!!!:eek:

... you just couldn't make this stuff up!!!:eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tGpMcFF7U