The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

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.

Human growth is a process, from fertilized egg to adulthood. It is stopped by something, and has been observed to have its limits. I'm not informed enough to know if science has identified what it is in the genome that sets the limit - perhaps you can enlighten me - but I assume a similar function limits speciation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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)

Perhaps you could give an example or two, so that I can check it out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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?

It remains to be shown that such new information can be generated - as above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

As above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

But does speciation require this? Will not selection and deletion from the gene pool produce speciation?

For example different species of fish can have vastly different functions, and vastly different sizes of chromosomes. This...and this...[shark and some other type of fish] are both "fish". You happily accept that they can evolve into each other, but again say it magically stops at some point.

Unless the hidden photo was of a different type of shark, that is NOT what I'm saying. No more than I'm saying all mammals have evolved from one another. Quite the reverse. God made many kinds of fish and many kinds of mammals. Each of these kinds speciated - but the kind from which today's shark comes need not be the same as that from which today's cod comes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

They are, however, warmly supported by the entities the Vikings worshipped.

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

If Odin was the true God, the One who held them to account, the same scientists would be giving Odin the same treatment as they give Yahweh today. A rebel heart against the true God is their most powerful motivator against giving creationism a serious thought.

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

That's a logical possibility - but not the actual reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

I admit my poor grasp of the technical detail can lead me to miss something in the evidence produced - but I am not aware that has been the problem. I have not seen evidence that additional information has caused changes that would eventually allow molecules to man evolution. Perhaps you can give an example or two from those I have missed?

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

Yes, I know the truth - but it is good to bear with other's arguments, if it is at all possible to show them their error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

Sounds like Catch-22 to me!

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

They have made scientific predictions that have been proved correct:
http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_predictions
Is that not part of 'testing'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

No, just classifying macro-evolution as religion. The way you classify creationism as religion. But I know your response. Evolution is science, so it cannot be religion; creationism is religion, so it cannot be science. Begging the question.

That wouldn't be censorship, but it would be silly. Though as the Dover trail demonstrates that is exactly what Creationists want to do.

Well, creationists like me would like scientific argument - good and bad - classed as science, not religion. And free to argue itself on the scientific stage.

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

As long as it has so failed, and is not merely contrary to the current scientific consensus. When the current consensus is elevated to sacred dogma, science has become a religion. And that's what has happened regards evolution: a sacred doctrine not to be questioned.

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

Satan-worship can be shown to fail Christian standards, but creationism has not been shown to fail scientific standards.

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

No. But I would other Christians whose views on several doctrines did not match with mine. They might have bad theology, but it would still be theology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

Their case started out in the face of strong opposition from the establishment. But the years have added to the problems for evolution, not creationism. The frauds employed by evolutionists have been exposed, and some 'certainties' have been disproved. All part of real science, of course - but evolution is still presented today with the same certainty, as if such recklessness had never happened before.

Normal scientists move on when this happens.

Some do, some don't. Re-capitulation is still being invoked to support evolution, despite Haekel's fraud being well-known:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_71-75.pdf

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

They have BOTH science and revelation to confirm their beliefs.

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.

Only difference is, evolutionists are holding on to their elaborate argument, despite knowing it has several holes below the waterline.

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.

OK, then let them bring their scientific work before the academies, and let the public see them being refuted. That's all we ask. If the debate is public, we wouldn't mind where it is - journal, convention, schools, whatever.

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.

The analogy is flawed. If children are taught that Satanism is a religion, and Christianity is a religion, one cannot object. If children are taught evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is a scientific theory, one cannot object. Unless of course Satanism is all about mechanics, and creationism is all about faith. Neither is the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

I'm sorry, what I have read in the Dover records showed nothing of the sort. It showed some flaws in the ID guy's detail, and the folly of a judge assessing scientific claims without himself being familiar with the work. As I recall, the judge used extensive sections from the anti-ID people as part of his own reasoning. So he evidently swallowed what one side said was science, and did not make a true scientific judgement himself.

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

I refuse to accept dogma as science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

I'm sure Big Brother will be proud of that defence of censorship. Classic double-speak!

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?

He would be refuted from the Bible, shown to be in error. When evolution can show creationism has no valid criticism of evolutionary theory and no possible weight to its alternative, then it too should be ignored as crack-pot.

Creationists, because of religious reasons, fail to adhere to scientific standards,

No they don't.

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.

That's one possibility. The other is that they question the comfortable world-view and represent a totally unacceptable one. That's why their scientific case cannot be tolerated, much less accepted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

That organisms can change, but not change into entirely different organisms - finches can change over time to other sorts of finches, but never into hawks or geese.

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.

But creationism holds to that limited change. Where is the BIG change required for macro-evolution to be true?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Or ask a creationist biologist how sound creation is?
Find me a creationist biologist who has ever used a Creationist theory to do anything practical and I might.

Again, what evolutionist theory has done anything practical? You have only presented a theory that both creationists and evolutionists accept.

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

I'm sure a distinctively creationist theory can be compared to a distinctively evolutionist one for their practical results. Let's hear your example, then I will see what creationism has.

___________________________________________________________________
Genesis 1:20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

I think that what you are calling progress is actually an increasing dependancy on technology. If there was a collapse of the western social infrastructure then most people would starve or freeze to death because they have forgotten their survival skills such as hunting, making fire, etc. Humans have become more like farm animals whose role is simply to serve authority by paying taxes, eating food from Tesco's and pretending that democracy is working. It would be fair to say that progress is undermining the relationship between man and nature.
You are correct, all progress comes at a price ... probably a price worth paying ... so far.


The choice is submit to the will of God or die. That is not a choice, it's coercion.
We all physically die ... whether we submit to the will of God or not.


Jam tomorrow.
... and bread and butter today!!!


Agreed but when empirical evidence show a theory to be wrong then the theory should be either modified or abandoned.
I agree ... and that is another reason why large sections of Materialistic Evolutionary Theory should be abandoned

Or to enjoy the fruits.
Forgot to say that ... but you are dead right!!!

Almost the whole of the western population think that it was wrong to murder Iraqi citizens in the 'Gulf War'. Two-million people marched in London against the war. People do not choose, they have decisions foisted upon them.
In large measure ... yes ... but we are free agents ... and we should choose to exercise our freedom more often than many of us do.


I am in total agreement with this. Bigotry in all its forms is ugly.
... and it should be rejected in no uncertain terms, whenever it is encountered ... whether the bigot is a theist ... or an atheist


LOL ... .

.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Human growth is a process, from fertilized egg to adulthood. It is stopped by something, and has been observed to have its limits. I'm not informed enough to know if science has identified what it is in the genome that sets the limit - perhaps you can enlighten me - but I assume a similar function limits speciation.

Growth in humans is stopped by hormones. I'm not sure how a hormone would stop genome mutation? But if it did surely this would be detectable?

What Creationists basically claim is that when a new species evolves this species, because it is at a "kind" wall, will not mutate any more and thus no new species can evolve from this species. There is no evidence this happens nor have Creationists ever put forward a method that would stop this.

It is not on evolutionary biologists to demonstrate this doesn't happen, the claim by Creationists is a positive claim, they claim something magical happens, and thus they have to back this up. In the normal standard theory of evolution there is no reason why this edge species can't also evolve into a new species that would jump the "kind" classification.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perhaps you could give an example or two, so that I can check it out?

Sure, given that this is one of the oldest and most refuted Creationist myths examples are easy to find (if you are prepared to look )

A nice summary with links from New Scientist dealing with new genetic code and new species
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

wolfsbane wrote: »

It remains to be shown that such new information can be generated - as above.

It really doesn't Wolfsbane, there have been countless examples on this thread alone of such examples. It isn't our fault if people just don't pay attention.

AtomicHorror pointed out in 2009 (page 1049), in a conversation you were participating in, how mutation can produce new genetic information.

This is not new, nor is it something that is in dispute. Since the very first time it was mentioned on this thread evidence demonstrating that mutation can produce new genetic code has been presented.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But does speciation require this? Will not selection and deletion from the gene pool produce speciation?

It can but it can't explain observable speciation.

What would help the Creationist cause is if they could demonstrate that all closely related species only have a subset of the genome of the species with the largest chromosome. So then you could plausibly claim that all these other species have simply lost genetic code that shrunk their chromosome.

The problem is that a species that in the Creationist model must have come from the original species will often have genetic information not present in the original species in a place where the

So where did it come from? It didn't come from the original species as it is not present in that species. The original species hasn't lost it since they have something else there instead. Even in the Creationist model it must be possible for mutation to generate new genetic code otherwise you can't explain current life on Earth even if you assume they all evolved super fast from species with larger chromosome counts.

There are countless examples of this, one of which is given in the New Scientist article above with the yeast.

Of course in the scientific model there is no issue with that, we even know how this happens, during the replication phase more copies that are need to duplicate the genome are produced that get stuck on at various places.

It only contradicts the Creationist model where mutation can only remove genetic code.
Unless the hidden photo was of a different type of shark, that is NOT what I'm saying. No more than I'm saying all mammals have evolved from one another. Quite the reverse. God made many kinds of fish and many kinds of mammals. Each of these kinds speciated - but the kind from which today's shark comes need not be the same as that from which today's cod comes.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If Odin was the true God, the One who held them to account, the same scientists would be giving Odin the same treatment as they give Yahweh today. A rebel heart against the true God is their most powerful motivator against giving creationism a serious thought.

So scientists only care about rebelling against your god? They don't care about rebelling against any other god? Doesn't that put them in a bit of a bind? Shouldn't they be worried Zeus is going to kick their ass?

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's a logical possibility - but not the actual reality.

And how would you know that Wolfsbane? How do you know that scientists care about rebelling against your god but not Zeus or Odin?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I admit my poor grasp of the technical detail can lead me to miss something in the evidence produced - but I am not aware that has been the problem. I have not seen evidence that additional information has caused changes that would eventually allow molecules to man evolution. Perhaps you can give an example or two from those I have missed?

Ah a good example of you being disingenuous. This is your "but its still a fly" argument when presented with evidence of a completely new species evolving in a lab setting.

Whether or not you believe this new information can cause molecules to man (given your lack of knowledge of the technical details what actually would this evidence look like, to your mind?) do you agree that you have seen evidence that new information can be generated by mutation?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I know the truth - but it is good to bear with other's arguments, if it is at all possible to show them their error.

If everything I tell you you assume must be wrong even if you don't know why it makes such discussions some what redundant.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sounds like Catch-22 to me!

It shouldn't. There is no evidence that Creationists are censored. They have websites and publications galore. There is evidence that Creationists who don't hold to scientific standards do not have their work certified as holding to scientific standards. They have no right to this if they do not follow these standards, any more than the Irish Electricians Board is censoring me by not saying I'm a qualified electrician if I'm not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They have made scientific predictions that have been proved correct:
http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_predictions
Is that not part of 'testing'?

We have gone over each of those individually on this thread. The only one that actually comes close to being a scientific prediction is the magnetic field one and as was pointed out at the time the bands were so huge on that that it was virtually impossible the prediction wouldn't turn out to be correct, like "predicting" that it will rain some time in the next month.

Again the scientific standards that Creationist fail are not some secret mystery. They are well know and well established. You can, if you are bothered, learn about them yourself.

There is no conspiracy, Creationists just like you simply believe they have access through theology to the truth of creation and refuse to accept when the science they do doesn't back this up.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, just classifying macro-evolution as religion. The way you classify creationism as religion. But I know your response. Evolution is science, so it cannot be religion; creationism is religion, so it cannot be science. Begging the question.

Creationists tried to get the definition of science changed, as exposed at the Dover trial. Ever wondered why they did that if all their work fits perfectly fine into current scientific standards?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, creationists like me would like scientific argument - good and bad - classed as science, not religion. And free to argue itself on the scientific stage.

Again why try and change scientific standards as they did if they already had a perfectly sound scientific argument?

wolfsbane wrote: »

As long as it has so failed, and is not merely contrary to the current scientific consensus.

It failed. Again Creationists dealt with this by trying to change the definition of science. That should, if you are being genuine, speak volumes to you about the motives of Creationists.

Like you they simply cannot accept they can be wrong about what they believe is revealed truth. So they can't demonstrate it with science, they try and change science itself. Because the last thing they can accept themselves is that their theology is wrong.

I appreciate why that can be difficult, if you believe your eternal salvation rests on something being true. But that isn't the problem of the scientific community.

wolfsbane wrote: »

When the current consensus is elevated to sacred dogma, science has become a religion.

Evolution has been debated and probed since it was first proposed. No one accepts it as sacred dogma. They accept it as a very very well supported scientific theory. That fact that you don't understand why shouldn't confuse you into think biologists don't understand how it is supported.

Again biologists didn't have to re-define science to get evolution to pass the standards. Karl Popper challenged biologists about what he say as the unscientific nature of evolution in the 40s, causing biologists to have to justify based on scientific standards the theory. They did justify this. No religion, no dogma. Just good science.

Evolution passed the test. They didn't have to change science. Creationism has failed the test, and now Creationists are trying to change the definition of science. After all they can't be wrong, can they.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Satan-worship can be shown to fail Christian standards, but creationism has not been shown to fail scientific standards.

Yes it has. You simply ignore this because you like them believe you cannot be wrong.

Creationist are attempting to redefine science precisely because Creationism failed scientific standards.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No. But I would other Christians whose views on several doctrines did not match with mine. They might have bad theology, but it would still be theology.

So you believe that when Creationists attempt to redefine science the rest of science should just bend over and take it? How would you feel about Satanists redefining what "Christianity" was? Would you happly accept that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Their case started out in the face of strong opposition from the establishment. But the years have added to the problems for evolution, not creationism. The frauds employed by evolutionists have been exposed, and some 'certainties' have been disproved. All part of real science, of course - but evolution is still presented today with the same certainty, as if such recklessness had never happened before.

Umm, funny the only group who felt the need to redefine science where the Creationists?

Biologists are happy in the scientific system because they don't care if the theory gets changed updated or even completely disproven. Their eternal salvation isn't rest on it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some do, some don't. Re-capitulation is still being invoked to support evolution, despite Haekel's fraud being well-known:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_71-75.pdf

Not by scientists. Which is odd isn't it if they are only interested in rebelling against the "true God"? Even that article admits that few if any modern biology text books present Haekel's ideas, ideas that were disputed in the scientific system you claim censors conflicting notions and is only interested in presenting an atheist ideal.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They have BOTH science and revelation to confirm their beliefs.

And now all they have to do is redefine science to better match revelation. I think they tried that in the dark ages :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only difference is, evolutionists are holding on to their elaborate argument, despite knowing it has several holes below the waterline.

There are lots of holes in the waterline, that is what keeps biologists in jobs. But no one has ever demonstrated the theory doesn't actually explain what it explains. No one has ever demonstrated it isn't science.

Unlike Creationists real scientists don't fear problems in a theory, because real scientists are interested in finding out accurate information no matter what it is, not confirming a preconviced notion that was "revealed" to them by God.

Creationist can't admit they were wrong because they have tied their salvation up with being right. The best you can come up with is that scientists can't admit they were wrong because for some reason that would mean they can't deny God, though you didn't explain how people were able to deny God for thousands of years before evolution came along, or why it means they couldn't deny Odin or Zeus either. In other words you are grasping at straws to find a reason why biologists would lie about evolution. Creationist on the other hand have the reason jumping out from the front page of Answers in Genesis.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the debate is public, we wouldn't mind where it is - journal, convention, schools, whatever.

The debate has already happened. You lost.

Insisting that scientists continue to debate Creationists ad nausea because they can't admit you were wrong (divine revelation after all) is just annoying, is it any wonder that scientists have just started to ignore you.

Let me ask you this, what is the point of debating you if you have ruled out the possibility that you can be wrong? What motivation would there be to do that given that Creationists by their own admission cannot be convinced by anything of the incorrectness of their position?

It would seem an excersise in futility.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The analogy is flawed. If children are taught that Satanism is a religion, and Christianity is a religion, one cannot object. If children are taught evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is a scientific theory, one cannot object.

No no, shouldn't they be taught in Sunday School that Jesus was a Satanist? If not aren't the Sunday School censoring Satanists?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry, what I have read in the Dover records showed nothing of the sort. It showed some flaws in the ID guy's detail, and the folly of a judge assessing scientific claims without himself being familiar with the work. As I recall, the judge used extensive sections from the anti-ID people as part of his own reasoning. So he evidently swallowed what one side said was science, and did not make a true scientific judgement himself.

I suggest you read the Dover trail againt, perhaps from a non-biased source. The Creationists under oath admitted that they wanted to change the standards of science to get Creationism in. That wasn't the judges conclusion, that is what they actually admitted.

If leading Creationists are saying we have to alter what science means what does that tell you about the scientific nature of Creationism?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I refuse to accept dogma as science.

Funny, don't you believe that Creationism is confirmed by divine revelation?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sure Big Brother will be proud of that defence of censorship. Classic double-speak!

Sunday Schools should teach Jesus was a Satanist, otherwise it is censorship!!!!

wolfsbane wrote: »

No they don't.

You regularly admit to not understanding the scientific standards you claim Creationists don't fail to stand up to. Let me guess, God told you they don't.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's one possibility. The other is that they question the comfortable world-view and represent a totally unacceptable one.

Which in science wins you Nobel prizes. If you can support it by scientific standards.

Your idea of science as a place where over turning conventional ideas gets you censored is contradicted by the entire history of science over the last 150 years. Darwin himself over turned the conventional ideas, as did Einstein and Bohr after him.

You only view science like this because you are desperate searching for a conspiracy to justify why Creationism is ignored, rather than simply facing up to the truth that it is ignored because it fails scientific standards.

Again, you can't be wrong can you, divine revelation and all that jazz.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That organisms can change, but not change into entirely different organisms

Good example of what I'm talking about. Define, scientifically, "entirely different". All organisms are different, this allows you the flexibility to simply change what you mean by "entirely" every time one of us presents you with evidnece contradicting a pervious claim, such as when you aspect for examples of speciation and replied "its still a fly"

wolfsbane wrote: »

But creationism holds to that limited change. Where is the BIG change required for macro-evolution to be true?

The same place its always been, the accumulation of a triillion little changes. Where the mechanism that stops these changes in their tracks that Creationist hold must exist?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, what evolutionist theory has done anything practical? You have only presented a theory that both creationists and evolutionists accept.

That is rather irrelevant. Creationists are forced to accept evolution when they have to. That does nothing to what you asked, which is the practical applications of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is evolutionary theory, whether Creationists accept it or not is irrelevant to that fact.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sure a distinctively creationist theory can be compared to a distinctively evolutionist one for their practical results. Let's hear your example, then I will see what creationism has.

You will have to give me a "distinctively creationist theory" first. It is part of the issue of completely failing scientific standards, Creationist have been able to actually generate a scientific theory because there is no science to help them do this. Creationism is a combination of guesses and criticism of evolution.

For example, give me the scientific theory of where life originated according to Creationism. And no "God did it" isn't a scientific theory.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what dates you are talking about. Nor am I sure where you are talking about. Do you actually have access to religious adherence data, specifically data on religious adherence rates throughout the ages and why people supposedly chose to leave the church? Or is all of this another “just so” story?

The auto da fes were ecclesiastic media publicity stunts which were designed to encourage people to conform to a rigid doctrine. Why employ such a device if there was no problem with adherence?

Not 'just so'; actual history reports auto da fe's as church organised events with large audiences in attendance. They served as a warning against 'thinking outside the box'.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Christianity was never an empire, nor did it have a well trained army to command. You seem to be getting confused between a religion - that is to say a set of beliefs (largely metaphysical) and accompanying principles and doctrines - and theocracy such as a geopolitical movement like Christendom.

It took a long time to gain the power and influence but the church did come to be in command of an army. The armies that took part in the crusades was a Christian army acting in the interest of the RC church promoting, through slaughter, a papal agenda.

True, much of the incidental cruelty on the road to Jerusalem was down to the cruelty of those taking part but the church was willing to accept such barbarism as a price worth paying in order to secure their objective which, in the end, they failed to do.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, book burning has been employed by both secular and religious authorities throughout the ages. Do you have a point?

The point is that book-burning doesn't advance knowledge, it hides it.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

The average Joe Soap was excluded from the age of enlighenment.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are going to have to stop talking about meta-conspiracies and start into the specifics. There is no “coincidence” unless you are looking to crowbar one in.

While your perverse reading of history might lay the cultural and economic deterioration of Europe neatly at the feet of the RCC (another “just so” story, I might add), the fact is that many things happened when the Western half of the the largest superpower that had ever existed finally collapsed after many years of decline.

I have suggested nothing of the sort. What I have said is that the church took advantage of the situation and was able to build up its power to such an extent that it was able to function as a government oranisation.

Scientific investigation demonstrates a lack of faith. To require proof runs completely counter to the basic tenet of Christianity. Faith, not proof, is the key to heaven. This and the fact that it was a crime punishable by death to dispute the 'word of God' did nothing to encourage scientific debate. Certainly not among the masses and certainly not among the masses throughout the 'Edict of Faith' period.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would have thought my point was rather simple. In a world without God there is no possibility to abdicate a responsibility for the human race because there is no such thing as a responsibility for the human race. The closest you can get to such a grand narrative is a subjective notion that only exists in your head.

And again, I say you have that the wrong way round. A world without God makes the human race responsible for itself whereas a world with God allow humans to abdicate responsibility on the basis that a divine plan is in operation and the fate of human-kind is therefore sealed.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How you move from my above point to “God doesn't care” is something I don't understand. Let me be clear: I'm not saying there is no overarching things like truth or good and evil. Indeed, an orthodox understanding of Christianity would suggest there must be. What I'm saying is the same thing I've said multiple times now. You can't have something like a responsibility for the human race in a universe that is indifferent to such things, what you have is a responsibility of your own invention.

Now that's what I call 'just so'. Responsibility and justice are positive survival traits and exist through natural selection.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Happily it seems that you are through contradicting yourself and you have eventually settled on a position. It does leave you with the problem of the Incarnation, which is an act that is certainly suggestive of a God who does care.

You should completely abandon using 'just so' as a device with which to attack an argument.

Incarnation is not a problem, it's a story.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I never said it invalidated such concepts. Please read what I said. The point is that they are subjective concepts and you categorically stated that humans have a responsibility to seek truth. This can not be the case given your most recent admission. Either there are imperatives to this world or the “abdication of responsibility” that you speak of is an abstract and subjective idea that has no fundamental truth to it. So which is it?

That's double talk. A world imperative would be an objective fact. The world and the universe are indifferent to things such as responsibility and justice but if mankind were then there could be no civilisation.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There seems to be a notion amongst some people that people like Copernicus made their efforts despite the best efforts of the church. The assumption is that these men of science somehow emerged out of the darkness of generational ignorance with their various theories fully formed. The fact is that men like Copernicus – who was matriculated at a number of universities, all of which happened to be Christian – happened to be standing on the shoulders of those who came before. So everybody from John Philoponus to Willaim of Ocham.

Coprnicus was banded a heretic because he scientifically showed that the earth and humanity were not the centre of the universe which disagreed with holy scripture. Gallileo was placed under house-arrest for the rest of his life because he agreed with Copernicus. Do you deny this?

Science challenges religion and as I have said previously, the RCC is a political organisation and would have recognised the usefulness of science in a military context but they did not want such knowledge to be in the public domain especially where that might undermine faith. If it could be shown that the Bible is nothing more than a compilation of 'just so' stories then the game would be up, the wealth would stop pouring in and we would all be Muslims or atheists.

And anyway, why was Adam forbidden from eating the apple? According to the Bible, it would appear that God specifically doesn't want mankind to know the secrets of the universe.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Coprnicus was banded a heretic because he scientifically showed that the earth and humanity were not the centre of the universe which disagreed with holy scripture. Gallileo was placed under house-arrest for the rest of his life because he agreed with Copernicus. Do you deny this?

I would. Copernicus's views did not contradict the Bible at all, they contradicted geocentricism. Geocentricism was an Aristotelian and Ptolemaic view point, it is not biblical, it held sway as the dominant concept for centuries, the leading voices in the church world at the time just bought into it because geocentricism supported their particular Biblical interpretation. Just like the Roman Catholic church endorses the theory of evolution today. But I challenge you to produce one verse of scripture that specifically supports geocentricism. When you can do this then you can rightly make the charge that Copernicus' view contradicted the Bible.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Coprnicus was banded a heretic because Science challenges religion and as I have said previously, the RCC is a political organisation and would have recognised the usefulness of science in a military context but they did not want such knowledge to be in the public domain especially where that might undermine faith. If it could be shown that the Bible is nothing more than a compilation of 'just so' stories then the game would be up, the wealth would stop pouring in and we would all be Muslims or atheists.

Science doesn't challenge religion. Certain scientific findings challenge certain religiously held positions, but those religiously held positions are not necessarily supported by the Bible, they just appear that way because a particular interpretation of the text is given as a de-facto interpretation. Plus some scientific findings can also have one or more interpretations depending on which world viewpoint you happen side with. Some people look at certain fossils and see transitional forms others see a unique and distinct species. Who's interpretation is right?

himnextdoor wrote: »

And anyway, why was Adam forbidden from eating the apple? According to the Bible, it would appear that God specifically doesn't want mankind to know the secrets of the universe.

You need to re-read the Bible. It was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God forbade them from partaking of not the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of the secrets of the universe.

Copernicus (and Galileo for that matter) were both theists, they believed in God. The idea that the findings of Copernicus destroyed was the idea that we are special in the universe. But a lot of current scientific findings would go a long way to refute that idea. Our type of planet and our type of Sun, our position in our Galaxy all point to the fact that not only is our planet finely tune for life but it is also finely positioned for scientific discovery. For instance, if our solar system was closer to the centre of our Galaxy then we would not have the vantage point we now enjoy in order to explore the universe. So if God created it all then our position in the universe shows that He is not against us making scientific discoveries, quite the contrary actually.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But a lot of current scientific findings would go a long way to refute that idea. Our type of planet and our type of Sun, our position in our Galaxy all point to the fact that not only is our planet finely tune for life but it is also finely positioned for scientific discovery.

No it doesn't

http://news.discovery.com/space/milky-way-stuffed-with-50-billion-alien-worlds.html

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

Not 'just so'; actual history reports auto da fe's as church organised events with large audiences in attendance. They served as a warning against 'thinking outside the box'.

No, they didn't. The auto-da-fe's were primarily directed against Jews. It was nothing to do with punishing people for thinking outside the box, and everything to do with expressing a very nasty streak of anti-semitism and xenophoboia.

It took a long time to gain the power and influence but the church did come to be in command of an army. The armies that took part in the crusades was a Christian army acting in the interest of the RC church promoting, through slaughter, a papal agenda.

One of the primary factors behind the Crusades was the huge number of barons that were roaming through Christendom making nuisances of themselves and basically banjaxing the economic system of the day. The Crusades in the Middle East, rather than fulfilling any papal agenda, were more a way of getting rid of the barons. Still horrendous events, of course, but much more complex than a simple papal attempt at a land grab.

Scientific investigation demonstrates a lack of faith. To require proof runs completely counter to the basic tenet of Christianity. Faith, not proof, is the key to heaven.

Your ignorance of history, impressive as it is, is exceeded by your ignorance of Christian doctrine. You appear to totally misunderstand what Christian faith is.

Coprnicus was banded a heretic because he scientifically showed that the earth and humanity were not the centre of the universe which disagreed with holy scripture. Gallileo was placed under house-arrest for the rest of his life because he agreed with Copernicus. Do you deny this?

Copernicus and Galileo were Christians (in Copernicus' case a clergyman) who, quite rightly, believed that their theories were consistent with Scripture. Their theories were resisted, as Soul Winner has rightly pointed out, because they disagreed with the scientific orthodoxy of the day which was Aristotleian geocentrism.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

No it doesn't

http://news.discovery.com/space/milky-way-stuffed-with-50-billion-alien-worlds.html

Put the amount of exoplanets that orbit in the habitable zone along side the amount that don't and the difference is astronomical. These planets have to orbit the right kind of star. Our Sun is the perfect type. These exoplanets have to be the right mass, have the right notational period with the right type of axial tilt. Earth has this because it just so happens to have the right size moon orbiting it. The moon keeps it steady if you like. How many exoplanets would have this type on system in place along with all the other stuff at the same time?

Our moon was key to validating Einstein's theory of general relativity. Had we had a bigger or smaller moon or had our present moon been nearer or further away from earth than it actually is then we could not have perfect solar eclipses. Perfect solar eclipses not only teach us about what goes on in stars by observing the corona but it also showed us that gravity can bend light which was what Einstein predicted. This was verified by a solar eclipse because stars that we knew were behind the Sub we perfectly visible during the eclipse verifying Einstein's theory by cosmic experiment that if we had a different type of moon we would never have found out, meaning that we would not know what we now know about stars and hence the nature of the universe.

Like I said our planet and place in the cosmos is not only fined tuned for supporting life but its close to perfect for cosmic observation. Our solar system lies between the arms of our spiral galaxy meaning that we can see the cosmos much clearer than if we were located in one of the arms which are made of up a lot of dust that would hinder out view of things. So if God did create everything then its pretty clear He has no problem with us finding out all there is to find about the universe we live in. Earth couldn't be better placed, and mankind couldn't have come along a better time to observe it either. A few millions years either side of the present and we would have either not survived with other species of animals or the environmental conditions then, or galaxies would be much further away than where they are now that we would have missed a lot of stuff including perfect solar eclipses. Soon enough the moon will be too far away from the earth to produce a perfect solar eclipse. We came along a just the right time to observer them.

There's loads of other things about the earth that all point to it being perfect for discovery but too much detail to go into here. I recommend reading The Privileged Planet by Richards and Gonzalez or having a look at the vids on Youtube the first of which is below:

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

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Put the amount of exoplanets that orbit in the habitable zone along side the amount that don't and the difference is astronomical.

It is. But it is still difficult to claim that the Earth is special if there are 500 million others in this galaxy alone (there are billions of galaxies)

Soul Winner wrote: »

How many exoplanets would have this type on system in place along with all the other stuff at the same time?

Quite a lot I would imagine if there are really 500 million billion planets in habitable zones in the universe.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Our moon was key to validating Einstein's theory of general relativity. Had we had a bigger or smaller moon or had our present moon been nearer or further away from earth than it actually is then we could not have perfect solar eclipses.

Einstein's theory is validated by lots of things, not least geo-stationary satellites.

If you are implying God made the moon so we could validate a scientific theory I would imagine there are simpler ways he could have done this.

Consider all the things we don't have or that hinder us.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I said our planet and place in the cosmos is not only fined tuned for supporting life but its close to perfect for cosmic observation.

Our planet is far from perfect for cosmic observation. That is why new discoveries in cosmic observation are achieved by satellites that we have launched into space, some of which have to travel far from the Earth to achieve the observations they require, such as the probe currently studying the Sun that is sitting in a gravity dead zone millions of miles from the Earth.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Our solar system lies between the arms of our spiral galaxy meaning that we can see the cosmos much clearer than if we were located in one of the arms which are made of up a lot of dust that would hinder out view of things.

The solar system lies on the Orion–Cygnus arm of the galaxy, which is a minor spiral arm. We are also sitting smack bang in the middle of Local Bubble, an area of hot dust that we have been traveling through for the last ten million years, and currently passing through the Local Interstellar Cloud, which is even hotter and we entered 45,000 years ago.

I imagine though if I say why didn't God put us some where else you will simply say who am I to judge what God did or didn't do.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There's loads of other things about the earth that all point to it being perfect for discovery but too much detail to go into here. I recommend reading The Privileged Planet by Richards and Gonzalez or having a look at the vids on Youtube the first of which is below:

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

If it is based on the faulty logic you are presenting here I'll pass

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

It is. But it is still difficult to claim that the Earth is special if there are 500 million others in this galaxy alone (there are billions of galaxies)

Quite a lot I would imagine if there are really 500 million billion planets in habitable zones in the universe.

But do these 500 million also have the other feateures I mentioned as well?

Wicknight wrote: »

Einstein's theory is validated by lots of things, not least geo-stationary satellites.

But without the verification that light is affected by gravity the drive to launch such satellites would not have been there. This discovery was made by accident it seems yet it was very important for driving the science forward in that area. Weren't we lucky that the moon just happened to by just the right distance from the earth in order to produce such an effect?

Wicknight wrote: »

If you are implying God made the moon so we could validate a scientific theory I would imagine there are simpler ways he could have done this.

I never said that God made the moon for that purpose though did I? It has other uses not least of which is stabilizing the earth's axial tilt which is also very important for supporting advance life forms.

Wicknight wrote: »

Consider all the things we don't have or that hinder us.

Our planet is far from perfect for cosmic observation. That is why new discoveries in cosmic observation are achieved by satellites that we have launched into space, some of which have to travel far from the Earth to achieve the observations they require, such as the probe currently studying the Sun that is sitting in a gravity dead zone millions of miles from the Earth.

That would still put them in the galactic Goldilocks zone though.

Wicknight wrote: »

The solar system lies on the Orion–Cygnus arm of the galaxy, which is a minor spiral arm. We are also sitting smack bang in the middle of Local Bubble, an area of hot dust that we have been traveling through for the last ten million years, and currently passing through the Local Interstellar Cloud, which is even hotter and we entered 45,000 years ago.

Yes but any further out and the solar system would not have formed at all. There are trade offs, I never said it was perfect I said close to perfect.

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine though if I say why didn't God put us some where else you will simply say who am I to judge what God did or didn't do.

No I wouldn't. It is a valid question, to which I might reply that had He put us somewhere else then we would have lost out on other factors, again trade offs.

Wicknight wrote: »

If it is based on the faulty logic you are presenting here I'll pass

Go on, how could it hurt?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But do these 500 million also have the other feateures I mentioned as well?

Statistically I would find it difficult to imagine that some of them didn't.

They also though probably have stuff Earth doesn't have, and if they have intelligent life on them I wonder if that life looks at what they have and we don't as being more important than the things you listed.

For example, imagine that instead of a moon we had a worm hole sitting a few hundred thousand miles away from us. We would no doubt go That must have been put there to allow us easy travel to other parts of the universe The idea that you might have a moon instead would probably seem laughable to such alien life.

We only pick these things as having significance because we have them. There are plenty of things we don't have that could have made life on Earth harsher or much easier.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But without the verification that light is affected by gravity the drive to launch such satellites would not have been there.

It is possible to verify the warping effects of space time on light without requiring a solar eclipse. That was just one of the easier ways of doing it, but the idea that without that we couldn't confirm General Relativity is nonsense.

Soul Winner wrote: »

This discovery was made by accident it seems yet it was very important for driving the science forward in that area. Weren't we lucky that the moon just happened to by just the right distance from the earth in order to produce such an effect?

No more lucky than anything else. If it wasn't it could have been used for lots of other scientific verification that we can't use our moon for now.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said that God made the moon for that purpose though did I? It has other uses not least of which is stabilizing the earth's axial tilt which is also very important for supporting advance life forms.

It also causes tectonic activity, kill thousands each year. Do you think that was God's purpose as well?

Soul Winner wrote: »

That would still put them in the galactic Goldilocks zone though.

It doesn't make them a perfect observatory though, which was your original claim

Does that mean you no longer believe in God?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but any further out and the solar system would not have formed at all. There are trade offs, I never said it was perfect I said close to perfect.

That isn't true, there are billions of stars further out than the Sun.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No I wouldn't. It is a valid question, to which I might reply that had He put us somewhere else then we would have lost out on other factors, again trade offs.

It is illogical to suppose that an omnipotent being has to make trade offs.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Go on, how could it hurt?

Oh I'm sure you'll find a way :pac:

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Statistically I would find it difficult to imagine that some of them didn't.

Well 500 million out of hundreds of billions doesn't sound that much really. What percentage of these do you think orbit the right kind of star? Have the right mass and size? Have a stable orbit? Etc etc..

Wicknight wrote: »

They also though probably have stuff Earth doesn't have, and if they have intelligent life on them I wonder if that life looks at what they have and we don't as being more important than the things you listed.

Who knows? Maybe they do and maybe the don't. We won't know until we know. All we know now is that earth type planets orbiting our Sun type stars is very rare indeed and thats without going into all the other factors that also make the earth a very special place indeed.

Wicknight wrote: »

For example, imagine that instead of a moon we had a worm hole sitting a few hundred thousand miles away from us. We would no doubt go That must have been put there to allow us easy travel to other parts of the universe The idea that you might have a moon instead would probably seem laughable to such alien life.

Possibly but wouldn't a worm hole that close have more detrimental effects on our solar system than beneficial ones?

Wicknight wrote: »

We only pick these things as having significance because we have them. There are plenty of things we don't have that could have made life on Earth harsher or much easier.

Like what for instance? But even if you could rattle off a few things that doesn't mean that our current setup is not ideal for what a Creator had in mind for it.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is possible to verify the warping effects of space time on light without requiring a solar eclipse. That was just one of the easier ways of doing it, but the idea that without that we couldn't confirm General Relativity is nonsense.

You're right but that was not what I said and you know it. I didn't say that we would never verify Einstein's theory without solar eclipses [EDIT: I did actually say never so my bad and apologies], I said that we were able to do it by accident because of solar eclipses. Do you know how many places in the solar system can actually have perfect solar eclipses? One, earth! And that is due to the fact that our right sized moon just happens to be the right distance away from the earth at this present scientific juncture in human history.

Wicknight wrote: »

No more lucky than anything else. If it wasn't it could have been used for lots of other scientific verification that we can't use our moon for now.

Like?

Wicknight wrote: »

It also causes tectonic activity, kill thousands each year. Do you think that was God's purpose as well?

I never actual said that the moon and all the stuff I referenced was purposed by God. My argument was to say that if it was God who created it all then He has nothing against us discovering the universe through observation as we appear to be more or less perfectly positioned to do. I was countering the charge that another poster made about God being against humans finding out the secrets of the universe. If He exists then that is obviously false and that poster has not come back and counter argued his point. Its just you with your usual straw-man counter arguments that are trying to that.

If the moon causes tectonic activity that results in thousands of deaths every year then who is going to hold God to account for that? Is that supposed to be an argument that God doesn't exist because if He did then He wouldn't have done it that way?

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't make them a perfect observatory though, which was your original claim

Wrong, read back over the posts, I said more or less perfect or as close to perfect as one can get given the trade offs involved. In order to have as close to perfect observatory you also need to fact in as close to perfect place were observers can survive. Putting them in the most perfect place in the universe for observing alone would obliterate life as we know it, so trade offs are necessary.

Wicknight wrote: »

Does that mean you no longer believe in God?

What has that got to do with anything?

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't true, there are billions of stars further out than the Sun.

Yes but are they like our Sun? And if there are then do they have earth-like planets orbiting them within their habitable zones? Can G-Type stars in the main sequence (like our sun) form in that part of the galaxy? Are there enough heavy elements there for earth type planets to subsequently form and orbit them? Again trade offs are required in order to have the best possible planet that can both support life and be the best observatory it can be for us observers.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is illogical to suppose that an omnipotent being has to make trade offs.

Why is that? As an omnipotent Being wouldn't He be free to choose what type of Universe He wants to create? I'm not advocating all this to somehow try to prove that God did, I'm simply making the point that if He did do it then He is not against humans finding our the secrets of the universe,If he was then He would not have placed us in such a beneficial place in the cosmos in which to do so.

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh I'm sure you'll find a way :pac:

A little pain and injury to the pride is good sometimes and certain truths do have a tendency to hurt our egos, but it will be worth it in the end to endure such things. :pac:

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well 500 million out of hundreds of billions doesn't sound that much really.

Well it is 500 million in our galaxy. And there an estimated 80 billion galaxies in the visible universe. And the visible universe may only be 13% of the actual universe. So realistically, assuming uniformity, you are looking at 500 million X 80 billion X 8.3

Which is a lot

But even if it was just 500 million that is still a huge number if all you are looking for is a planet with a moon to cause tides, given now nearly all the planets in the solar system have moons (moons are very common).

Soul Winner wrote: »

What percentage of these do you think orbit the right kind of star? Have the right mass and size? Have a stable orbit? Etc etc..

100%

The number of planets is 50 billion. The 500 million are the goldilocks planets (or approx 1%).

Soul Winner wrote: »

All we know now is that earth type planets orbiting our Sun type stars is very rare indeed and thats without going into all the other factors that also make the earth a very special place indeed.

Which makes it rather odd to suppose they are the reason the universe exists, doesn't it?

Why would God make the universe and then "fine tune" it to get life to appear. That seems rather unlikely proposal.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Possibly but wouldn't a worm hole that close have more detrimental effects on our solar system than beneficial ones?

Who knows. My point is that you are just randomly picking things we have that provide some sort of benefit, ignoring the things we have that provide the opposite, and then supposing something must have put them there for us.

There is no reason to suppose that. Any appeal to a creator runs into all the problems of if he meant to do that why did he also do this. You have no answer to those questions other than to suppose we don't know the reason.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like what for instance? But even if you could rattle off a few things that doesn't mean that our current setup is not ideal for what a Creator had in mind for it.

Which you have no idea what that is. So why suppose a creator at all?

Introduce a creator to explain the positive things, and then introduce an unknown plan to explain away the negative things is rather silly. Remove the creator entirely and you end up with a much simpler explanation.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're right but that was not what I said and you know it. I didn't say that we would never verify Einstein's theory without solar eclipses, I said that we were able to do it by accident because of solar eclipses. Do you know how many places in the solar system can actually have perfect solar eclipses? One, earth! And that is due to the fact that our right sized moon just happens to be the right distance away from the earth at this present scientific juncture in human history.

You hit the nail on the head with the just happens. Would you like me to list the things that we would have seen if we had evolved a few million years either side of where we are now?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like?

Well for a start it would have been a lot easier to get to it. Do you imagine God wanted to make it harder for us to get to the moon? I suspect not.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never actual said that the moon and all the stuff I referenced was purposed by God. My argument was to say that if it was God who created it all then He has nothing against us discovering the universe through observation as we appear to be more or less perfectly positioned to do.

Odd he chose personal revelation then as his way of communicating with us when he was planning on us eventually learning science ... :pac:

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the moon causes tectonic activity that results in thousands of deaths every year then who is going to hold God to account for that? Is that supposed to be an argument that God doesn't exist because if He did then He wouldn't have done it that way?

It is an argument that you only attribute the positive and ignore the negative. If God planned all this then he planned the thousands of deaths a year as well. But theists get a lot more nervous about the idea that God would plan bad things.

Again the simplest explanation is the easiest, it doesn't require the convoluted explanations for why God would plan these things

Soul Winner wrote: »

Wrong again, read back over the posts, I said more or less perfect or as close to perfect as one can get given the trade offs involved.

It doesn't make it more or less perfect. We are in the middle of a 6000 degree dust cloud, the only thing protecting us is the suns magnetic field. We will be in here for thousands of years.

What are the "trade offs" that require that we end up here as opposed to 30 light years over there (which is just down the road in universe length)

Soul Winner wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything?

Isn't this all supposed to demonstrate the glory of God? Surely the opposite is then true?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but are they like our Sun? And if there are then do they have earth-like planets orbiting them within their habitable zones?

Answered above

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why is that? As an omnipotent Being wouldn't He be free to choose what type of Universe He wants to create?

Exactly. So why would he be making trade offs?

Soul Winner wrote: »

A little pain and injury to the pride is good sometimes and certain truths do have a tendency to hurt our egos, but it will be worth it in the end to endure such things. :pac:

If you say so.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

I would. Copernicus's views did not contradict the Bible at all, they contradicted geocentricism. Geocentricism was an Aristotelian and Ptolemaic view point, it is not biblical, it held sway as the dominant concept for centuries, the leading voices in the church world at the time just bought into it because geocentricism supported their particular Biblical interpretation. Just like the Roman Catholic church endorses the theory of evolution today. But I challenge you to produce one verse of scripture that specifically supports geocentricism. When you can do this then you can rightly make the charge that Copernicus' view contradicted the Bible.

From http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html

"

First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For your [Reverence] has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited." (Emphasis by me.)

Psalm 104:5 [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

On the face of it, heliocentrism does appear to contradict some parts of the Bible.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Science doesn't challenge religion. Certain scientific findings challenge certain religiously held positions, but those religiously held positions are not necessarily supported by the Bible, they just appear that way because a particular interpretation of the text is given as a de-facto interpretation. Plus some scientific findings can also have one or more interpretations depending on which world viewpoint you happen side with. Some people look at certain fossils and see transitional forms others see a unique and distinct species. Who's interpretation is right?

Science does challenge doctrine. In fact, that's its job.

It is true that scientists can be split into two camps. The 'global-warming' debate is one example where this has happened and look what has happened; it is almost as unpopular now to deny global-warming as it was four-hundred years ago to deny geocentrism. I think the similarity is striking; the RC institution wanted to supress one idea in favour of another and today, governments are doing the same. The RC church at that time was the government. Kings and Emperors submitted to the authority of the pope. However, none of the above has anything to do with science and everything to do with control.

As far as the fossils are concerned, one of them is definitely wrong.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You need to re-read the Bible. It was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God forbade them from partaking of not the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of the secrets of the universe.

It's funny how one remembers things isn't it? All the same, God put a limit on what Adam was permitted to know and subsequently over-reacted to Adam's weakness which had been made by God in the first place. And I always wondered, why did God make that tree? Maybe He intended for mankind to suffer from the off?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Copernicus (and Galileo for that matter) were both theists, they believed in God. The idea that the findings of Copernicus destroyed was the idea that we are special in the universe. But a lot of current scientific findings would go a long way to refute that idea. Our type of planet and our type of Sun, our position in our Galaxy all point to the fact that not only is our planet finely tune for life but it is also finely positioned for scientific discovery. For instance, if our solar system was closer to the centre of our Galaxy then we would not have the vantage point we now enjoy in order to explore the universe. So if God created it all then our position in the universe shows that He is not against us making scientific discoveries, quite the contrary actually.

If there are 'sweet-spots' or so-called 'goldilock's zones' then it would be inevitable that stars would occupy such regions.

Just to be clear, I believe that God gave us brains and wants us to use them. Suppose that one day science makes immortality possible, then at that time mankind would be restored to Adam-ness. In other words, what if Genesis was a kind of treasure map with clues; to walk with God in the garden is the treasure and knowledge of good and evil is the first clue? Maybe we're supposed to find God through ingenuity, not faith. Then it would be easy to understand why religious leaders want to throw the rest of us off the scent.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

No, they didn't. The auto-da-fe's were primarily directed against Jews. It was nothing to do with punishing people for thinking outside the box, and everything to do with expressing a very nasty streak of anti-semitism and xenophoboia.

Yes, they did. It was a fearful spectacle; to watch people being burned, or worse, because they weren't good Catholics. Jews, Protestants, Muslims and even Hindus were subjected to such condemnation. So, you're right; anti-semitism and xenophobia. And control over the flock.

From Fox's Book of Martyrs:
(http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox105.htm)

"Among those who were to suffer, was a young Jewess of exquisite beauty, and but seventeen years of age. Being on the same side of the scaffold where the queen was seated, she addressed her, in hopes of obtaining a pardon, in the following pathetic speech: "Great queen, will not your royal presence be of some service to me in my miserable condition? Have regard to my youth; and, oh! consider, that I am about to die for professing a religion imbibed from my earliest infancy!" Her majesty seemed greatly to pity her distress, but turned away her eyes, as she did not dare to speak a word in behalf of a person who had been declared a heretic."

The Queen was afraid to speak out.

I do not deny that the greatest evil ever to befall the Jews was waving a Christian flag but ordinary decent Catholic folk were even more afraid than the Queen to exhibit anything that could be remotely construed as heresy.

Auto da fe's were a tool of oppression designed to encourage conformity.

PDN wrote: »

One of the primary factors behind the Crusades was the huge number of barons that were roaming through Christendom making nuisances of themselves and basically banjaxing the economic system of the day. The Crusades in the Middle East, rather than fulfilling any papal agenda, were more a way of getting rid of the barons. Still horrendous events, of course, but much more complex than a simple papal attempt at a land grab.

http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture25b.html

PDN wrote: »

Your ignorance of history, impressive as it is, is exceeded by your ignorance of Christian doctrine. You appear to totally misunderstand what Christian faith is.

LOL. You have a nice turn of phrase. Now you should apologise.:(

I think that Christian faith is in the word of Jesus, which we cannot know, that has been related to the population by people with agendas that are not consistent with plotting a route to salvation.

PDN wrote: »

Copernicus and Galileo were Christians (in Copernicus' case a clergyman) who, quite rightly, believed that their theories were consistent with Scripture. Their theories were resisted, as Soul Winner has rightly pointed out, because they disagreed with the scientific orthodoxy of the day which was Aristotleian geocentrism.

Lots of theories are consistent with Scripture. Even wrong ones. Lots of people high up in the church hierarchy, including a pope or two I believe, had no objections from a religious standing to the work of Copernicus and Galileo, and others before them. However, books were banned, heresy was proclaimed and the world had to wait a little longer before they could enjoy the fruits of such great minds.

How can it be unreasonable to say that science suffered setbacks because of how Scipture was interpreted?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it is 500 million in our galaxy. And there an estimated 80 billion galaxies in the visible universe. And the visible universe may only be 13% of the actual universe. So realistically, assuming uniformity, you are looking at 500 million X 80 billion X 8.3

Which is a lot

But even if it was just 500 million that is still a huge number if all you are looking for is a planet with a moon to cause tides, given now nearly all the planets in the solar system have moons (moons are very common).

Most planets have moons yes but not like the relationship that our moon has to our planet. It is rare to see a planet that has a moon like the one earth has relative to its size and because of that relationship the moon exerts a very special influence on the earth. From tidal activity to as you say plate tectonic activity both of which are essential for bringing to the surface nutrient rich minerals from ocean floors and beyond.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which makes it rather odd to suppose they are the reason the universe exists, doesn't it?

Who's supposing that? Did I say that the this is why God made the universe? He could have many similar projects going on all over the place that we will never know about. For all we know maybe earth is the only reason He made the universe but I never actually said that. You are always reading stuff in other posters posts that are imaginary.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would God make the universe and then "fine tune" it to get life to appear. That seems rather unlikely proposal.

Like I said several times already. I'm not arguing that God did it, I'm saying that if He did do it then He is not against us observing it. Do I have to keep repeating this? If I do I will just type R after each of your responses.

Wicknight wrote: »

Who knows. My point is that you are just randomly picking things we have that provide some sort of benefit, ignoring the things we have that provide the opposite, and then supposing something must have put them there for us.

R

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no reason to suppose that. Any appeal to a creator runs into all the problems of if he meant to do that why did he also do this. You have no answer to those questions other than to suppose we don't know the reason.

Maybe this is His way of revealing certain traits that He has i.e powerful enough to create it in the first place. This might be designed to inspire awe on our part, and considering the beauty and care that must have gone into planning and executing such a wondrous creation, that might be designed to inspire faith, that although we cannot see Him physically we can know His ways by simply looking around us and letting the creation itself teach us. The letter to the Romans is very damming to those who simply fail to see His hand in it. And if like Bertrand Russell you say to God when you see Him: "You didn't leave enough evidence of your existence." God will reply and say: "Go to hell, I thought it was enough."

Wicknight wrote: »

Which you have no idea what that is. So why suppose a creator at all?

My intuition tells me that there is a Creator, that alone is good enough for me. Your intuition tells you that there isn't. You say to me that just because things are inexplicable now that doesn’t mean that God did it, and I would say that no matter how many things you explain with natural explanations you will still have to deal with a first cause for everything and when you try to explain that you end up venturing down paths that break the very laws of physics that materialists say cannot be broken and when I hear those arguments I laughed to myself in the knowledge that you can never dislodge my basic intuition even with all the science in the world (and I love science btw) and that's just my basic intuition never mind what I have come to know about God by reading His Word the Bible.

Wicknight wrote: »

Introduce a creator to explain the positive things, and then introduce an unknown plan to explain away the negative things is rather silly. Remove the creator entirely and you end up with a much simpler explanation.

You said in an earlier post that one of the negative effects of the moon was on plate tectonics but you neglected to mention that such effects are also essential for supporting advanced life forms even though they have negative side effects which when put in context to the positive are pail in comparison, bad an all that they are.

Wicknight wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head with the just happens. Would you like me to list the things that we would have seen if we had evolved a few million years either side of where we are now?

Yes I would love you to.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well for a start it would have been a lot easier to get to it. Do you imagine God wanted to make it harder for us to get to the moon? I suspect not.

Can you also outline all the benefits of getting to the moon were for mankind?

Wicknight wrote: »

Odd he chose personal revelation then as his way of communicating with us when he was planning on us eventually learning science ...

Personal revelation is a completely different animal to General revelation. General revelation is what I mentioned earlier. God speaking to us through the things that He has made and the wonder and awe of them they were designed to bring about as a response in all but the most recalcitrant and stiff necked of is creatures. Once you respond properly to that type of revelation you are then ready for Special revelation. He has also provided that through the reading of His Word but unless you read it you will not get it. Then after that there is Personal revelation, like what the prophets and Apostles received. Most of us are a long ways from that kind of revelation because we ignore the basic stuff in general revelation i.e the creation itself and the things we read in the special revelation of His word.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is an argument that you only attribute the positive and ignore the negative. If God planned all this then he planned the thousands of deaths a year as well. But theists get a lot more nervous about the idea that God would plan bad things.

I don't. For one we all should be dead anyway. That we are alive to gripe about others dying is by the grace of God. And secondly, people who die in Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, Forrest fires and so on will be OK if they have responded accordingly to the aforementioned revelations that God deems sufficient to bring about the right response in relation to Him. Tough sh*t for them if it didn't, they most likely hardened themselves their whole lives to any concept of God. Now if God doesn’t exist then they were right and they have nothing to worry about, but if He does exist then they were wrong and will have poured out on them all the wrath that their rebellion has been accruing throughout their lifetime. Harsh I know but it is what it is. We are supposed to be ready to go at the drop of a hat anyway because tomorrow is promised to nobody. Always be thankful for a new day.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again the simplest explanation is the easiest, it doesn't require the convoluted explanations for why God would plan these things

God did it seems pretty simple to me.

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't make it more or less perfect. We are in the middle of a 6000 degree dust cloud, the only thing protecting us is the suns magnetic field. We will be in here for thousands of years.

It’s just as well the sun has that magnetic field then isn't it?

Wicknight wrote: »

What are the "trade offs" that require that we end up here as opposed to 30 light years over there (which is just down the road in universe length)

Being 30 light years away form were are now wouldn't make all that much difference in terms of observational benefits to us so I'm not sure what you want me to say. However if our sun was positioned closer to the outer edge of our galaxy, say the distance of the width of our spiral arm then the heavy elements required for earth type planets to form would not be in sufficient abundance and hence earth type planets would not form. If the sun were positioned a similar distance closer to the center of the galaxy then we would be positioned in a highly radioactive and gravitational zone rendering both survival and observation very difficult if not impossible.

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't this all supposed to demonstrate the glory of God? Surely the opposite is then true?

Well I'm amazed at it even if you're not.

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly. So why would he be making trade offs?

Who knows? Maybe this universe really isn't all that there is (as God’s Word declares) and He is training the ones He has chosen to practice how they are to relate to Him in eternity whilst dwelling without full knowledge of everything down here. Maybe He doesn't want them to know everything yet. Maybe He wants to teach them how to trust Him through daily practice of it down here first. Trusting what He says and not what our eyes see. That is the life of faith and that is what His Word is filled with the teaching of and that is how we are supposed to be realting to Him and as He is God and set it all up he has a right to create creatures like us to learn to relate to Him in this way by responding properly to the promises He has given to us in His Word.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

God did it seems pretty simple to me.
...
Who knows? Maybe this universe really isn't all that there is (as God’s Word declares) and He is training the ones He has chosen to practice how they are to relate to Him in eternity whilst dwelling without full knowledge of everything down here. Maybe He doesn't want them to know everything yet. Maybe He wants to teach them how to trust Him through daily practice of it down here first.

See. It isn't a simple explanation at all. It requires the introduction of a creator deity and then the supposing of all these possible reasons why things are the way they are.

Again it is convoluted. Remove God entirely and things because a lot simpler. We are where we are because if we weren't we wouldn't have existed in the first place.

Its like a plane crash. A survivor sits in the middle and survives the crash, and because of the type of crash everyone at the front and back dies.

The survivor goes "Amazing, what are the odds that I would survive and everyone else die"

But he is only saying that because he survived. If the crash had killed everyone at the back and the middle then someone in the front would be saying "Amazing, what are the odds that I would survive and everyone else in the back and the middle die"

You say that if the Earth was closer to the centre of the galaxy no life could develop and if it was further out no life would develop. But there is not one planet in the galaxy. There are planets out there with no life. Life developed where it could develop, that happened to be Earth. If it wasn't Earth it would have been some where else.

If you froze one end of a sausage and then cooked the other leaving a bit in the middle still raw then that is where the bacteria would grow. If you froze the middle but left the end raw that is where bacteria would grow.

Earth would only be miraculous if it was the only planet in the galaxy and it happened to end up in the right place for life. But it isn't. It is one of billions. It just happens to be the one in the right place, and unsurprisingly life develops here because the conditions are right, just like the middle of the sausage.

The only reason to suppose this was planned was if life had to develop on Earth. But there is no reason to suppose that, any more than there is to suppose that the guy in the middle of the plane had to survive or the bacteria had to form in the middle of the sausage.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Trusting what He says and not what our eyes see. That is the life of faith and that is what His Word is filled with the teaching of and that is how we are supposed to be realting to Him and as He is God and set it all up he has a right to create creatures like us to learn to relate to Him in this way by responding properly to the promises He has given to us in His Word.

It is illogical that God would make creatures that are very bad at personal assessment, requiring empirical study to be confident with knowledge (ie science) and then choose to communicate with them solely through personal revelation.

And I don't either of us like the idea of a stupid God.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I said several times already. I'm not arguing that God did it, I'm saying that if He did do it then He is not against us observing it. Do I have to keep repeating this? If I do I will just type R after each of your responses.

is not compatible with

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who knows? Maybe this universe really isn't all that there is (as God’s Word declares) and He is training the ones He has chosen to practice how they are to relate to Him in eternity whilst dwelling without full knowledge of everything down here. Maybe He doesn't want them to know everything yet. Maybe He wants to teach them how to trust Him through daily practice of it down here first. Trusting what He says and not what our eyes see. That is the life of faith and that is what His Word is filled with the teaching of and that is how we are supposed to be realting to Him and as He is God and set it all up he has a right to create creatures like us to learn to relate to Him in this way by responding properly to the promises He has given to us in His Word.

wolfsbane

Just found this new (to me) site:
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

Its list of scientists who have signed:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

**********************************************************
Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Growth in humans is stopped by hormones. I'm not sure how a hormone would stop genome mutation? But if it did surely this would be detectable?

What Creationists basically claim is that when a new species evolves this species, because it is at a "kind" wall, will not mutate any more and thus no new species can evolve from this species. There is no evidence this happens nor have Creationists ever put forward a method that would stop this.

It is not on evolutionary biologists to demonstrate this doesn't happen, the claim by Creationists is a positive claim, they claim something magical happens, and thus they have to back this up. In the normal standard theory of evolution there is no reason why this edge species can't also evolve into a new species that would jump the "kind" classification.

Who has the bigger burden of proof? No one has seen macro-evolution occur. It's non-repeatable in the lab - excuse is it takes too long. Fair enough, that is a valid excuse IF the theory is true. But it cannot be used to defend the theory. It is a big gap in its scientific defence. Limited variation IS what we see. That's a strong bit of wall in our scientific defence.

You say hormones limit human growth - but what determines the existence and operation of hormones? The information contained in the DNA. The information can be corrupted, or varied - but it seems to be self-limiting as to how far this goes. Even very short generation organisms have not been changed beyond recognition from their original ancestor.

Note the bits I have high-lighted in the following:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118
In the 1930s, "neo-Darwinists" proposed that genetic mutations (of which Darwin
was unaware) could solve the problem. Although the vast majority of mutations are
harmful (and thus cannot be favored by natural selection), in rare instances one may
benefit an organism. For example, genetic mutations account for some cases of antibiotic
resistance in bacteria; if an organism is in the presence of the antibiotic, such a mutation
is beneficial. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's
biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or
anatomy. Midway through the twentieth century, some Darwinian geneticists suggested
that occasional "macromutations" might produce the large-scale morphological changes
needed by Darwin's theory. Unfortunately, all known morphological mutations are
harmful, and the larger their effects the more harmful they are. Scientific critics of macromutations took to calling this the "hopeful monster" hypothesis. (See Chapter 12
of Bowler's book.)
The scientific controversy over whether processes observable within existing
species and gene pools (microevolution) can account for large-scale changes over
geological time (macroevolution) continues to this day. Here are a few examples of peerreviewed scientific articles that have referred to it just in the last few years:
• David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the
Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.
"One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved…
Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of
micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some
dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism."
• Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.
"Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of
extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and
species.”
• Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,"
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.
"A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution."

It should be noted that all of the scientists quoted above are believers in Darwinian
evolution, and that all of them think the controversy will eventually be resolved within
the framework of that theory. Stern, for example, believes that new developmental
studies of gene function will provide "the current missing link." (p. 1079) The important
point here is that the controversy has not yet been resolved, precisely because the
evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking. It is important for students to know what the
evidence does or does not show -- not just what some scientists hope the evidence will
eventually show.
Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin's
theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice
to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely. Furthermore, since
the scientific evidence needed to settle the controversy is still lacking, it is inaccurate to
give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists
have reached a consensus on the issue.

**********************************************************
Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Its list of scientists who have signed:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Every scientist should sign that, as it is their job to be skeptical of all claims in science, and to carefully examine the evidence for any theory.

The Discovery Institute know this, which is why they framed the question in such a way and then added their own sub-text equating be skeptical of Darwinian theory means to reject it or to support theories such as intelligent design.

They didn't give this sub-text to the scientists they asked to sign of course, and since that statement was published some the scientists who have signed the statement have come out to say they had no idea there was a Creationist/ID sub-text to what they were being asked to sign, or that it would be used to suggest that they don't support evolution as a solid scientific theory, something they believe.

Just another example of the dishonest lengths that Creationist fronts such as the Discovery Institute will go to to try and make themselves out to be a legitimate scientific group. If they compiled an honest list, that said something like "We reject neo-Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory that has no validity and is not supported by a significant amount of evidence to be considered accurate" the list would be much smaller.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Who has the bigger burden of proof? No one has seen macro-evolution occur.

People see macro-evolution occur every day because micro and macro evolution are the same thing.

I did not sit outside the Nenagh by-pass and observe the entire road being built. I did see the start, I saw it a number of times as it was being built and I saw the end. By your logic I cannot say that the Nenagh by pass was build as I didn't sit outside watching the entire road being build. Nonsense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's non-repeatable in the lab - excuse is it takes too long. Fair enough, that is a valid excuse IF the theory is true. But it cannot be used to defend the theory. It is a big gap in its scientific defence.

What cannot be seen in a lab is the accumulation of the hundreds of thousands of stages of evolution. What can be seen in a lab is the individual stages, and what can be seen in the fossil record is the history of these individual changes.

Again there is no reason to suppose these changes just suddenly stop at some undefined point. That is a Creationist claim that has never been supported.

Your objection is like saying because you can't see the start and the end of the Mississippi river at the same time you can't say anything about the river.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Limited variation IS what we see.

Again the "limited" bit is a Creationist claim based on a rather odd reading of the Bible that has no support.

Again its like claim the Mississippi source cannot be the same river as the delta, but when asked to justify this the person refuses to explain at what point the two rivers form and just saying over and over "Prove me wrong" by observing the entire river in one go.

Its ridiculous, only Creationists find such nonsense convincing because they are scrambling around for anything to back up their theology.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You say hormones limit human growth - but what determines the existence and operation of hormones? The information contained in the DNA. The information can be corrupted, or varied - but it seems to be self-limiting as to how far this goes.

Show me evidence of a biological system that says to the DNA during reproduction 'Hold on now, if you do that mutation you will cross the kind barrier and we can't have that'

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even very short generation organisms have not been changed beyond recognition from their original ancestor.

Again with the barn yard biology. 'Recognition' defined as what exactly?

Any time you have been presented with evidence of mutation and selection you simply say that to you it still looks like the kind of organism that the ancestor was (its still a 'fly' as you claimed once).

That is totally unscientific as it is utterly arbitrary. I could show you a pig evolving into a dinosaur and you could simply choose to say well it still has a head, eyes, legs and a tail so it is still the same "kind" of organism.

You define things before we even start to ensure you only get the outcome you want. That is why science ignores such nonsense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Note the bits I have high-lighted in the following:

You should know by now that quote mining Creationist websites is pointless given that I've no reason to trust that the websites you pulled this from are accurately representing the views of the person they quote, or that even if they are the person is someone I should listen to.

I imagine if I quoted the hundred thousand or so biologists who accept evolutionary theory it would mean very little to you, so why do you expect the opposite from us?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Sure, given that this is one of the oldest and most refuted Creationist myths examples are easy to find (if you are prepared to look )

A nice summary with links from New Scientist dealing with new genetic code and new species
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...formation.html

Thanks for that. Interesting stuff. But I note the creationist rebuttals in the comment column. Seems the debate is not over.

**********************************************************
Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for that. Interesting stuff. But I note the creationist rebuttals in the comment column. Seems the debate is not over.

The 'debate' will never be over, the world will always contain people who for what ever nutty reason simply cannot accept reality.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Every scientist should sign that, as it is their job to be skeptical of all claims in science, and to carefully examine the evidence for any theory.

The Discovery Institute know this, which is why they framed the question in such a way and then added their own sub-text equating be skeptical of Darwinian theory means to reject it or to support theories such as intelligent design.

They didn't give this sub-text to the scientists they asked to sign of course, and since that statement was published some the scientists who have signed the statement have come out to say they had no idea there was a Creationist/ID sub-text to what they were being asked to sign, or that it would be used to suggest that they don't support evolution as a solid scientific theory, something they believe.

Just another example of the dishonest lengths that Creationist fronts such as the Discovery Institute will go to to try and make themselves out to be a legitimate scientific group. If they compiled an honest list, that said something like "We reject neo-Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory that has no validity and is not supported by a significant amount of evidence to be considered accurate" the list would be much smaller.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html

I need the follow up the claims of distortion by the DI, but I found the accusers piece very slippery itself:
Since scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of everything, even ardent evolutionists could sign such a statement.

Really? The scientific community as a whole is skeptical of evolution? I don't think so, from anything I have heard on this thread or in my wider reading of evolutionists.

The accusers slip in a theoretical, notional 'skepticism' in place of the actual skepticism in the list statement. Who would bother signing a statement about notional skepticism on evolution?

**********************************************************
Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

I imagine if I quoted the hundred thousand or so biologists who accept evolutionary theory it would mean very little to you, so why do you expect the opposite from us?

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to listen to the evolutionists the site quoted. THEY make the point about the lack of evidence.

**********************************************************
Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I need the follow up the claims of distortion by the DI, but I found the accusers piece very slippery itself:
Since scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of everything, even ardent evolutionists could sign such a statement.

Really? The scientific community as a whole is skeptical of evolution?

The scientific community as a whole is skeptical of all scientific theories, that is their job and it includes evolution. Evolutionary theory is tested every single day.

What do you think scientists do all day, sit around discussing how they know everything?

Like me and a lot of people have said in this thread if you over turn a well established scientific theory you get a Nobel prize.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't think so

You're wrong and you don't understand science. Sorry to be blunt, but with the length of this thread it seems a bit of cut to the chase is in order :P

wolfsbane wrote: »

The accusers slip in a theoretical, notional 'skepticism' in place of the actual skepticism in the list statement.

No they don't. They correctly do not interpret 'skepticism' as decent. Neither would most of the people who signed this.

Of course the Discovery Institute knew that as soon as they published this, and gave it the anti-evolutionary slant that comes with the DI, the lay man on the street would confuse what these scientists were saying with decent against evolution.

It highlights the type of debate the DI wish to have.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to listen to the evolutionists the site quoted. THEY make the point about the lack of evidence.

You aren't quoting the evolutionists. You are quote mining from Creationist websites, websites I've no confidence would accurately represent what the scientists were saying.

Read the original papers these quotes are from, understand them, and then get back to me with what these scientists are saying and whether I should listen to them or not.

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

Who has the bigger burden of proof? No one has seen macro-evolution occur. It's non-repeatable in the lab - excuse is it takes too long. Fair enough, that is a valid excuse IF the theory is true. But it cannot be used to defend the theory. It is a big gap in its scientific defence. Limited variation IS what we see. That's a strong bit of wall in our scientific defence.

Evolutionists do seem to have something.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

Also, notice how caveats have been mentioned in the second one. How many creationists would do that?

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Who has the bigger burden of proof? No one has seen macro-evolution occur. It's non-repeatable in the lab - excuse is it takes too long. Fair enough, that is a valid excuse IF the theory is true. But it cannot be used to defend the theory. It is a big gap in its scientific defence. Limited variation IS what we see. That's a strong bit of wall in our scientific defence.

I see you're still peddling the usual nonsense. Your habit of repeating things we have already corrected you on is reaching J C proportions.

Macroevolution, as defined by biologists (evolution at or above the species level) has been observed. It has also been scientifically inferred, as it makes predictions about what we should see in the geographical distribution of life, in the fossil record, and at the genetic level.

Macroevolution, as defined by creationists (evolution above the "kind" level) makes no sense, as creationists have not defined "kind". All they have done is given it a scientific sounding name (baramin).

This has been explained to you before. Why are you repeating the same mistakes you have been corrected on before?