The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

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

Wolfsbane, just out of interest can I ask you why do you not want the theory of evolution to explain the origins of life?

Even if the debate was more evenly balanced you wouldn't have the scientific acumen to understand it. (No offence, we all have strengths and weaknesses.)

You seem to be against evolution purely on the basis that you are part of a 'club', if you will, that is against evolution.

If it is on that basis then you can't offer anything to the debate and may even be undermining those who are against evolution on a scientific basis and possibly damaging the chances of a good theory that would replace evolution.

Again, no offence; I kind of like you.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Wolfsbane, just out of interest can I ask you why do you not want the theory of evolution to explain the origins of life?

I think you will find that IDers don't mind evolution being taught as a theory which explains the development of life on this planet. Nor do they mind when facts which support such a theory are also given. What they seem to mind is that none of the counter evidence against the theory is also being thought. That the theory is a sealed tight case. Nothing to debate anymore. No need to ask any further questions. If you do then there is something wrong with you because everyone knows that the theory of evolution is not just a theory anymore but is as solid a fact as the earth is round.

THAT'S what ID proponents get pee o'd about most. They'd want to have BOTH the pros AND the cons of the theory of evolution taught and for now at least they don't really care if ID is taught or not.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think you will find that IDers don't mind evolution being taught as a theory which explains the development of life on this planet. Nor do they mind when facts which support such a theory are also given. What they seem to mind is that none of the counter evidence against the theory is also being thought. That the theory is a sealed tight case. Nothing to debate anymore. No need to ask any further questions. If you do then there is something wrong with you because everyone knows that the theory of evolution is not just a theory anymore but is as solid a fact as the earth is round.

THAT'S what ID proponents get pee o'd about most. They'd want to have BOTH the pros AND the cons of the theory of evolution taught and for now at least they don't really care if ID is taught or not.

There is no counter evidence against the theory.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think you will find that IDers don't mind evolution being taught as a theory which explains the development of life on this planet. Nor do they mind when facts which support such a theory are also given. What they seem to mind is that none of the counter evidence against the theory is also being thought. That the theory is a sealed tight case. Nothing to debate anymore. No need to ask any further questions.

They can mind that all they like the but the simply fact is that this isn't true, if there was nothing to debate anymore, no further questions all evolutionary biologists would be out of a job.

What IDers object to is that their discredited 'counter arguments' are ignored because the vast majority of IDers are religiously motivated and cannot accept, for theological reasons, that they their arguments are flawed or unsupported, which ironically is the charge they often make towards evolutionary biologists.

Soul Winner wrote: »

everyone knows that the theory of evolution is not just a theory anymore but is as solid a fact as the earth is round.

Do you think Flat Earth theory should be taught in geography class rooms in the interests of teaching the 'other side' of the theory?

Or would that be nonsense because Flat Earth theory is not the "other side" at all.

Plate Tectonics is a good parallel. In geography class, at least the one I was in, we were taught about tectonics including the problems with the idea and the gaps in human understanding.

We weren't though taught Flat Earth theory, because that is not really the counter argument to plate tectonics. The counter argument to plate tectonics is different variations of plate tectonics because the evidence is over whelming that the Earth's crust moves across molten core. There is no theory that says the opposite that can be supported by science.

Any counter argument has to still be a scientific argument, it still has to have scientific support and evidence.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

There is no counter evidence against the theory.

You see? That's the point. Some would beg to differ Morbert, and there in lies the problem. If someone does differ no matter what their scientific qualifications they are branded a creationist by virtue of the fact that they just don't buy all the Darwinian explanations for all the anomalies which they perceive are present within current understanding. They have no problem with there being a Darwinian expiation per se they just don't think that it currently has the explanatory power to explain all the anomalies. Anomalies which appear to actually count against strictly Darwinian principles. I'm not going to give any names or examples of problems as we could debate them all day, all I will say is as far as I can see all IDers want is to be able to do is have the debate without fear of ridicule and ostracism. IDers seem to want not just to have taught Darwinian evolution in schools, rather teach both that and the position of those (who are equally qualified in the field) who simply think differently about it because of what they believe the evidence tells them.

Doctor DooM

Soul Winner wrote: »

IDers want is to be able to do is have the debate without fear of ridicule and ostracism. IDers seem to want not just to have taught Darwinian evolution in schools, rather teach both that and the position of those (who are equally qualified in the field) who simply think differently about it because of what they believe the evidence tells them.

That was "all they wanted" after their last few tacts at getting it taught in American schools didn't work. Lest we forget that's why it's called ID now too. It was rebranded to be less religious post the ruling against creationism.

At the end of the day, what you're saying here is teach the controversy. And being brutally honest, with the level of peer reviewed scientific support ID has if you taught that you may as well force geocentricism, ghosts, and flat earth theory while you're at it.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

They can mind that all they like the but the simply fact is that this isn't true, if there was nothing to debate anymore, no further questions all evolutionary biologists would be out of a job.

I think that's a very narrow understanding of the whole debate, it may be true in certain cases but not across the board.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think Flat Earth theory should be taught in geography class rooms in the interests of teaching the 'other side' of the theory?

Or would that be nonsense because Flat Earth theory is not the "other side" at all.

Yes I do think that the flat earth side of the debate should be understood and taught in schools so that students could have a better understanding of the whole debate instead of just telling them what way they should think. There could be a student in the class that actual thinks the earth is flat, ever think of that? If the whole debate was taught he could at least have a basis for choosing which view he should personally side with. Ken Miller taught at length about why he believed Irreducible Complexity was flawed and nothing was said about that.

Wicknight wrote: »

Plate Tectonics is a good parallel. In geography class, at least the one I was in, we were taught about tectonics including the problems with the idea and the gaps in human understanding.

We weren't though taught Flat Earth theory, because that is not really the counter argument to plate tectonics. The counter argument to plate tectonics is different variations of plate tectonics because the evidence is over whelming that the Earth's crust moves across molten core. There is no theory that says the opposite that can be supported by science.

Possibly not, but for the benefit of the students who don't know any better, tell them what the other theories are saying and let them make up their own minds. Its not like we can see inside the earth and say; you see, there is the molten magma we said has to be there so that our plate tectonics theory can be correct.

Wicknight wrote: »

Any counter argument has to still be a scientific argument, it still has to have scientific support and evidence.

No it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. What if a really bright student who didn't have all the current data available to him stood up in class and asked a profound question about plate tectonics that stumped the teacher, and as a result caused the teacher to go off and try and get a good solid scientific explanation for him but he found that he could supply one to the student, but while he was looking he came up with an even better explanation for plate tectonics, one that was inspired by the students question? One that could be tested and verified? Would you have have a problem then with students who are not yet qualified as scientist asking such probing questions? That's what science is all about I thought but maybe I was wrong.

That's the problem with current Darwinian explanations. To Darwinists the explanations are clear but for those not yet persuaded either way it doesn't explain every anomaly. And Darwinist get angry because what they have bought into as an explanation is not bought into by others who never chose to make the leap of faith that they made.

Soul Winner

Doctor DooM wrote: »

That was "all they wanted" after their last few tacts at getting it taught in American schools didn't work. Lest we forget that's why it's called ID now too. It was rebranded to be less religious post the ruling against creationism.

At the end of the day, what you're saying here is teach the controversy. And being brutally honest, with the level of peer reviewed scientific support ID has if you taught that you may as well force geocentricism, ghosts, and flat earth theory while you're at it.

You don't or shouldn't have to force anything on anyone though. Teach all angles and let the students make up their own bloody minds on the matter. In science what should be taught are the controversies not what one particular subsection of the debate believes to be true. As Wicknight has oft reminded us, science doesn't prove anything so we can never really know what is true and what is false anyway. That shouldn't be a question that science can answer. Leave those kinds of questions to philosophy and religion.

Science should be about letting the evidence lead, and if there are different interpretations of the evidence (preferably from those qualified in the field) then teach the controversy. If not from those qualified in the field, then their questions should be easily answered using current understanding. If people still don't buy it then so be it. That is their choice. Why should they have to be convinced that any theory is true in the first place? Once they know what the theory is and can explain it they still shouldn't have to buy into it if they feel it is inadequate as an explanation for them. If ID or whatever shouldn't be forced on anyone (and I don't believe it should) then neither should any other theory.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think that's a very narrow understanding of the whole debate, it may be true in certain cases but not across the board.

It is true across the entire spectrum of biological research. What do you think these research scientists do all day? They are trying to find out everything they can about biological life on Earth, with includes figuring out exactly how life evolves.

The idea that everyone is sitting around twiddling their thumbs saying we have everything figured everything out is nonsense. For a start there is an entire industry being build around the medical uses of evolutionary biology, with businesses investing billions in this area (Robin can tell you more about that as his sister works in this field)

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I do think that the flat earth side of the debate should be understood and taught in schools so that students could have a better understanding of the whole debate instead of just telling them what way they should think.

Can you explain how that would go?

Some people think the world is flat. It isn't. Moving on...

Or should the teacher spend a day or a week teaching the Flat Earth idea? And then move on to the Earth on a turtle idea? And then move on to the Earth is a floating disk idea? And so on ....

The idea that every idea anyone has ever had should be included in a science, history, or geographic class room just in the interests of understanding the "whole debate" is ridiculous.

Teachers would spend far more time simply listing every nutty idea people have had throughout human history, rather than teaching the actual realities and science.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There could be a student in the class that actual thinks the earth is flat, ever think of that?

Of course, and when he is taught the current understanding of the world he will realize it isn't. Or he won't. But the teacher will have done her job.

He doesn't need his teacher to waste time teaching him about the ideas of the Flat Earth movement because they are quacks and religious nuts who have no scientific basis for their claims.

Again are you suggesting that the teacher spends their time teaching every nutty idea anyone has ever come up with? Or just certain ones? And if so on what basis do you decide which ones to pick, and isn't that stifling the "whole debate"

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the whole debate was taught he could at least have a basis for choosing which view he should personally side with.

He doesn't need to have a basis for choosing which view he would personally side with. The Earth doesn't become flat because Billy in North Dokota decides it is. The Earth is round, and that is what the teacher should teach him. Just the facts ma'am, as they say.

Children do not spend their time deciding what they will accept or not accept in school. A kid in 6th class isn't given the option to decide that 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' is stupid and shouldn't be the way that English works. That is the way English works, and he is taught that.

There is no reason why science or geography would be any different.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ken Miller taught at length about why he believed Irreducible Complexity was flawed and nothing was said about that.

If every student had an infinite time to spend in school or college Soul Winner I would be happy for every idea ever to be taught. But they don't. The have a limited time to be taught and a limited amont of information they can retrain and be tested on.

The idea that we should waste this time teaching them irrelevant non-scientific nonsense just because it makes some religious people happy is simply ridiculous. These theories have no scientific merit.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Possibly not, but for the benefit of the students who don't know any better, tell them what the other theories are saying and let them make up their own minds.

You answered that in your question. They don't know any better. If a teacher tells them two theories and says 'Make your mind up' the students are no in a position to spend the time deciding which is the valid one. That is why we have scientists, they do this.

The job of a teacher is to educate. A teacher should not give deceptive information, and pretending that theories like Flat Earth or Creationism have scientific merit and should be considered by the students as equally valid as real science is deceptive and misleading.

It would the same as a teacher saying "Decide yourselves if you think you should use the rules of English when righting, it all equally valid and you can pick which ever you like"

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its not like we can see inside the earth and say; you see, there is the molten magma we said has to be there so that our plate tectonics theory can be correct.

We can see inside the Earth, this is a image of the magma chamber under Yellowstone Park

Soul Winner wrote: »

No it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.

Of course it should! Do you want teachers spending a day/wee/month teaching science kids what the crazy guy on the street thinks that they sky is a carpet pulled over the sky? Of course not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8

Soul Winner wrote: »

What if a really bright student who didn't have all the current data available to him stood up in class and asked a profound question about plate tectonics that stumped the teacher, and as a result caused the teacher to go off and try and get a good solid scientific explanation for him but he found that he could supply one to the student, but while he was looking he came up with an even better explanation for plate tectonics, one that was inspired by the students question? One that could be tested and verified? Would you have have a problem then with students who are not yet qualified as scientist asking such probing questions? That's what science is all about I thought but maybe I was wrong.

I would have no problem with that, but you will notice that the teacher went away and scientific demonstrated the idea had merit and then came back.

The teacher didn't go "And now in the spirit of being inclusive and teaching the 'whole debate' Timmy is going to teach the class about his idea that there is a magic fairy in the Earth who makes the surface move"

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's the problem with current Darwinian explanations. To Darwinists the explanations are clear but for those not yet persuaded either way it doesn't explain every anomaly.

Which is again why there are thousands of scientists working in this field. In fact no theory explains everything perfectly, that is why we still have science.

But because something doesn't explain a particular phenomena or event perfectly that doesn't mean any old nonsense that someone can come up with is a valid "counter argument" and should be taught in class.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And Darwinist get angry because what they have bought into as an explanation is not bought into by others who never chose to make the leap of faith that they made.

Scientists get angry when people who reject scientific ideas because it doesn't line up with their religious beliefs attempt to get these unscientific ideas shoe horned into schools and text books despite the fact that they have no scientific merit.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

You see? That's the point. Some would beg to differ Morbert, and there in lies the problem. If someone does differ no matter what their scientific qualifications they are branded a creationist by virtue of the fact that they just don't buy all the Darwinian explanations for all the anomalies which they perceive are present within current understanding. They have no problem with there being a Darwinian expiation per se they just don't think that it currently has the explanatory power to explain all the anomalies. Anomalies which appear to actually count against strictly Darwinian principles. I'm not going to give any names or examples of problems as we could debate them all day, all I will say is as far as I can see all IDers want is to be able to do is have the debate without fear of ridicule and ostracism. IDers seem to want not just to have taught Darwinian evolution in schools, rather teach both that and the position of those (who are equally qualified in the field) who simply think differently about it because of what they believe the evidence tells them.

Again, there is no evidence against the theory. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. If ID proponents want to have the debate "without fear of ridicule" then they have to do two things. They have to produce evidence against the theory, and they have to have the debate at the level of the scientific community, and not at the level of schools. They are not doing either of these things.

I would normally insist you give examples of problems with the theory (even though you said you would not), but you have done that before, and when I explained why those problems aren't actually problems, but rather misinformation spread among ID proponents, you pulled out of the discussion only to reiterate your general assertion that "there are problems". Saying there are problems does not mean there are problems.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think you will find that IDers don't mind evolution being taught as a theory which explains the development of life on this planet. Nor do they mind when facts which support such a theory are also given. What they seem to mind is that none of the counter evidence against the theory is also being thought. That the theory is a sealed tight case. Nothing to debate anymore. No need to ask any further questions. If you do then there is something wrong with you because everyone knows that the theory of evolution is not just a theory anymore but is as solid a fact as the earth is round.

THAT'S what ID proponents get pee o'd about most. They'd want to have BOTH the pros AND the cons of the theory of evolution taught and for now at least they don't really care if ID is taught or not.

Are you an advocate for ID, as opposed to creationism, and opposed to evolutionism?

I mean do you think that the physical universe came into existence within the last six-thousand years or so?

wolfsbane

This is a fascinating debate:
The Great Debate - What is Life?
Panel discussion
DATE: February 12, 2011
RUN TIME: 42 minutes
SPEAKERS: Richard Dawkins, J Craig Venter, Sydney Altman, Lee Hartwell, Paul Davies, Chris McKay, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Bingham
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/what-is-life-panel

An insight on current evolutionist thinking.

**************************************************************
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

wolfsbane

himnextdoor said:

Wolfsbane, just out of interest can I ask you why do you not want the theory of evolution to explain the origins of life?

Sure. If it did, I would have to reject the Bible as the word of God. Since I have been enlightened by God to see that it IS His word - true in all it asserts - I cannot reject this truth for the speculations of man.

Even if the debate was more evenly balanced you wouldn't have the scientific acumen to understand it. (No offence, we all have strengths and weaknesses.)

No offence taken. But we do not need a PhD in biology or geography to assess logical errors and failures to explain conflicting evidences. Those areas in a debate give some indication of the validity of the overall argument.

You seem to be against evolution purely on the basis that you are part of a 'club', if you will, that is against evolution.

As above, I'm opposed to evolution primarily because it is against the teachings of the Bible. Secondarily, I see some real problems with its case. If I were not a Christian, I still might have doubts about evolution.

If it is on that basis then you can't offer anything to the debate and may even be undermining those who are against evolution on a scientific basis and possibly damaging the chances of a good theory that would replace evolution.

If this debate (I assume you mean the one on this thread/forum) was only about the scientific argument, you would have a point. I would leave it to scientists to defend creation. But the title of the thread - and the forum - gives an indication that theology is at least as important to the debate.

Again, no offence; I kind of like you.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Yes, I see what you are saying. And no offence taken. Honest comment is always welcome. And thank you for your affection.

************************************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

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?

You final sentence begs the question. I could say the same to you. ANY opponent could say the same to his opponent, since one assumes our proof has been sufficient.

When I use the term 'macroevolution' I do so as I defined. I am not challenging what I call 'microevolution', even if you call it macroevolution. Why not stick to the reality - do we see evolution of organisms beyond the place where they cannot breed with their original form? (I don't mean being sterile in themselves). Do we see them lose even an apparent likeness to their ancestor?

OK, I'm not a scientist - I do not possess the skills and arguments of the scientists who defend creationism. I may make invalid arguments. So I'd rather point you to the scientists who make the points - but again and again the evolutionists here have refused to accept that. They demand I make the case; they refuse to examine the linked articles.

But that is up to you. My responsibility is not to make you drink, just bring you to the water and urge you to do so.

In that spirit, I point out this article (note: it suggests I should avoid the terms marco and micro evolution):
Variation, information and the created kind
http://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind


**************************************************************
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

You final sentence begs the question. I could say the same to you. ANY opponent could say the same to his opponent, since one assumes our proof has been sufficient.

When I use the term 'macroevolution' I do so as I defined. I am not challenging what I call 'microevolution', even if you call it macroevolution. Why not stick to the reality - do we see evolution of organisms beyond the place where they cannot breed with their original form? (I don't mean being sterile in themselves). Do we see them lose even an apparent likeness to their ancestor?

OK, I'm not a scientist - I do not possess the skills and arguments of the scientists who defend creationism. I may make invalid arguments. So I'd rather point you to the scientists who make the points - but again and again the evolutionists here have refused to accept that. They demand I make the case; they refuse to examine the linked articles.

But that is up to you. My responsibility is not to make you drink, just bring you to the water and urge you to do so.

Then, if we pursue the issue of "kinds" with links and references, will you promise not to repeat the same arguments again, at a later stage? I have done the same with JC and the evolution of DNA, and he eventually pulled out and went back to regurgitating the same original assertions.

In that spirit, I point out this article (note: it suggests I should avoid the terms marco and micro evolution):
Variation, information and the created kind
http://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

This article defines a kind as follows: "Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.". This definition, while consistent, raises the issue of how to determine one kind from another. What if, for example, there is only one kind, as Evolutionary biology suggests? Here, the article doesn't produce any scientific arguments, and merely says: "The Scriptures, the fossil record and common sense unite to prevent creationists doing too much ‘lumping together’ as we go back in time. For instance, it is conceivable (though not necessarily so) that crocodiles and alligators both descended from the same ancestral gene pool which contained all their functionally efficient genes, but not really conceivable that crocodiles, alligators and ostriches had a common ancestral pool which carried the genes for all three!". Scientific evidence places the common ancestor of alligators and ostriches in the lower-middle triassic period, which diverged into Crocodilia and Struthioniforms (which included ostriches), though not before also diverging into other groups like Anseriformes and Neoaves. Citing scripture and using "common sense" is not a valid argument against scientific evidence.

Creationwiki does a little better, and attempts to justify baraminology, but again it does not give scientific evidence for a given list. It even says "A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and such examples are extremely provisional".

So now, to progress the conversation, you must provide links and references to scientific evidence establishing a list of kinds, and a definition of baraminology as a scientific field itself. If you, in turn, want links to papers on common ancestry between alligators and ostriches feel free to ask.

Zombrex

One would think it hardly bares mentioning but any "scientific" argument that requires an appeal to scripture should be setting off significant warning bells for you Wolfsbane.

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

In that spirit, I point out this article (note: it suggests I should avoid the terms marco and micro evolution):
Variation, information and the created kind
http://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

First impression; 'microevolution' appears five times in that article.

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

First impression; 'microevolution' appears five times in that article.

On a quick re-scan, all I found related to why we should NOT use it.

Anyway, apologies again for the delay in reply. I have been engaged is an unpleasant debate on Bible versions.

**************************************************
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

One would think it hardly bares mentioning but any "scientific" argument that requires an appeal to scripture should be setting off significant warning bells for you Wolfsbane.

Indeed it would. So its important to distinguish between a scientific argument and a theological one about science or that discusses science.

*****************************************************
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

Then, if we pursue the issue of "kinds" with links and references, will you promise not to repeat the same arguments again, at a later stage? I have done the same with JC and the evolution of DNA, and he eventually pulled out and went back to regurgitating the same original assertions.

Certainly - if the links and references prove your case. But if they do not, the debate is still open. I expect no more from you. If my links and references don't prove the case, why should I expect you to consider the matter closed?

Scientific evidence places the common ancestor of alligators and ostriches in the lower-middle triassic period, which diverged into Crocodilia and Struthioniforms (which included ostriches), though not before also diverging into other groups like Anseriformes and Neoaves. Citing scripture and using "common sense" is not a valid argument against scientific evidence.

But does the scientific evidence place the common ancestor of alligators and ostriches in the lower-middle triassic period? If it does, then all argument, scientific or otherwise is futile. But if the scientific evidence merely suggests to evolutionists such a conclusion, and quite otherwise to the creationist, other arguments may be valid.

So now, to progress the conversation, you must provide links and references to scientific evidence establishing a list of kinds, and a definition of baraminology as a scientific field itself. If you, in turn, want links to papers on common ancestry between alligators and ostriches feel free to ask.

That's fine by me. Exactly what scientific evidence would be sufficient for you is another matter.

****************************************************************
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

You don't or shouldn't have to force anything on anyone though. Teach all angles and let the students make up their own bloody minds on the matter. In science what should be taught are the controversies not what one particular subsection of the debate believes to be true. As Wicknight has oft reminded us, science doesn't prove anything so we can never really know what is true and what is false anyway. That shouldn't be a question that science can answer. Leave those kinds of questions to philosophy and religion.

Science should be about letting the evidence lead, and if there are different interpretations of the evidence (preferably from those qualified in the field) then teach the controversy. If not from those qualified in the field, then their questions should be easily answered using current understanding. If people still don't buy it then so be it. That is their choice. Why should they have to be convinced that any theory is true in the first place? Once they know what the theory is and can explain it they still shouldn't have to buy into it if they feel it is inadequate as an explanation for them. If ID or whatever shouldn't be forced on anyone (and I don't believe it should) then neither should any other theory.

The reality is that there is absolutely no evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution' ...
Faced with this reality, a number of strategies are used to protect Evolution from serious scrutiny (as per this thread and the other mega-thread over on the A & A):-

1. Brainwash people by repeating the mantra that Evolution is a fact.

2. Refer to micro-evolution ... the ratio of grey moths to white ones moving from 90:10 to 10:90 ... for example ... and say that this proves that Moths could become Humans if given enough time ... even though all it proves is that Moths remain Moths!!!

3. Say that Evolution is science and Evolutionists are scientists ... and anti-evolutionists aren't scientists ... even when they are eminently and conventionally qualified.

4. Ban the publication of science papers that are critical of Evolution ... and sack anybody who persists in publishing them.

5. Continuously examine what everyone is saying ... and if a Creationist is identified ensure they are sacked/never get any job of importance within science.

6. Ban the teaching of the (many) deficiencies in Evolutionary Theory.

7. Keep talking about 'millions of years' and hope that nobody notices that thousands of so-called 'living fossils' haven't changed one iota over supposed millions of years of evolutionary time ... and if challenged say that they were perfectly matched to their environment to begin with!!!

8. Get church people to make pious platitudes in favour of evolution ... because they haven't a clue about it ... but don't want to be out of step with 1-7 above!!

9. Never address the fact that the production of the Complex Specified Functional Information found in the genomes of all living creatures can never be produced by non-intelligently directed processes ... and if pushed on the issue ... deny that genetic information is Complex Specified or Funcional ... even though it objectively is all three!!!

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

The reality is that there is absolutely no evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution' ...
Faced with this reality, a number of strategies are used to protect Evolution from serious scrutiny:-

1. Brainwash people by repeating the mantra that Evolution is a fact.

2. Refer to micro-evolution ... the ratio of grey moths to white ones moving from 90:10 to 10:90 ... for example ... and say that this proves that Moths could become Humans if given enough time ... even though all it proves is that Moths remain Moths!!!

3. Say that Evolution is science and Evolutionists are scientists ... and anti-evolutionists aren't scientists ... even when they are eminently and conventionally qualified.

4. Ban the publication of science papers that are critical of Evolution ... and sack anybody who persists in publishing them.

5. Continuously examine what everyone is saying ... and if a Creationist is identified ensure they are sacked/never get any job of importance within science.

6. Ban the teaching of the (many) deficiencies in Evolutionary Theory.

7. Keep talking about 'millions of years' and hope that nobody notices that thousands of so-called 'living fossils' haven't changed one iota over supposed millions of years of evolutionary time ... and if challenged say that they were perfectly matched to their environment to begin with!!!

8. Get church people to make pious platitudes in favour of evolution ... because they haven't a clue about it ... but don't want to be out of step with 1-7 above!!

9. Never address the fact that the production of the Complex Specified Functional Information found in the genomes of all living creatures can never be produced by non-intelligently directed processes ... and if pushed on the issue ... deny that genetic information is Complex Specified and Funcional.

All of which constitutes a rant and exemplifies the Creationist's M.O.

The Bible is not scientific evidence of anything and if you are going to base a scientific theory on the Bible then the Bible must bear out the theory.

In this, you have utterly failed. Remember, according to your figures it took one-hundred and fifty years for the Egyptian empire to get from non-existence to its pinnacle.

Your science requires that there be 'magic'.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I think that Evolutionists should indeed be more explicit about every supposed step between Pondkind and Mankind!!

... and I also agree, that reference to miracles (or 'strokes of luck') ... aren't allowed!!!:)

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5236-39-stroke-of-luck-39-led-to-life-on-earth

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

All of which constitutes a rant and exemplifies the Creationist's M.O.

All of my points are verifiable facts ... all anybody needs to do is scan this thread to verify them!!!
You may well argue that this is how it should be ... but please don't insult everybody's intelligence by denying that this is what is happening!!!

The Bible is not scientific evidence of anything and if you are going to base a scientific theory on the Bible then the Bible must bear out the theory.

I'm not arguing that the Bible is a scientific book ... it clearly isn't ... but science can (and has) been used to verify it's historical veracity!!!

In this, you have utterly failed. Remember, according to your figures it took one-hundred and fifty years for the Egyptian empire to get from non-existence to its pinnacle.

The dates of the Flood and Creation, according to the Bible, are 4,500 and 6,000 years +/- 500 years Before Present respectively, depending on what the average generation length was in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.
The Jewish Year is currently 5771 and this is supposed to date from Creation - thereby dating Noah's Flood at 4,115 BP.

Your science requires that there be 'magic'.
The idea that Human beings arose spontanously from pondslime certainly requires a belief in 'magic' ... AKA millions of 'strokes of luck'!!!!!

.

J C

... and here is a fascinating (and very frank) interview on Revelation TV with Prof Richard Dawkins ... he confirms that he was a Theist of sorts who became a Deist and then an Atheist ... and the primary reason for the transition was Evolution.
He also freely admits that the Creationists (whom he refers to as 'evangelicals' ... which, of course we also are) have got it right ... that Evolutionism is the greatest 'enemy' of Theism!!!

He then said that 'sophisticated' (Evolutionist) Theologians are 'deluded' on the issue of Evolution being compatible with Christianity !!:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfe4IUB9NTk

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed it would. So its important to distinguish between a scientific argument and a theological one about science or that discusses science.

*****************************************************
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

You agree I hope that the scientific one shouldn't be referencing the Bible for support?

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... and here is a fascinating (and very frank) interview on Revelation TV with Prof Richard Dawkins ... he confirms that he was a theist who became a deist and then an Atheist ... and the primary reason for the transition was his discovery of Evolution.
He also freely admits that the Creationists (whom he refers to as 'evangelicals' ... which, of coruse we also are) have got it right ... that Evolutionism is the greatest 'enemy' of Theism!!!

He then dismisses the 'sophisticated' Evolutionist Theologians as 'deluded' on the issue of Evolution being compatible with Theism ... something that I would agree on with Prof Dawkins myself!!:)

Evolution 1, Creation 0.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Certainly - if the links and references prove your case. But if they do not, the debate is still open. I expect no more from you. If my links and references don't prove the case, why should I expect you to consider the matter closed?

But does the scientific evidence place the common ancestor of alligators and ostriches in the lower-middle triassic period? If it does, then all argument, scientific or otherwise is futile. But if the scientific evidence merely suggests to evolutionists such a conclusion, and quite otherwise to the creationist, other arguments may be valid.

That's fine by me. Exactly what scientific evidence would be sufficient for you is another matter.

The scientific papers are referenced in this wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur

The evidence for the presented diagrams are found in the reference section. The evidence is not only suggestive, it is conclusive. There is some disagrement over some of the details, but the overarching structure is well established.

While I wouldn't expect you to accept a wikipedia page as evidence, the trees they present have corresponding scientific papers which they reference.

JC wrote:

<video>

JC has linked to the wrong video. I'm presuming he meant to link to the interview, but instead linked to a creationist asserting things that have been addressed before.

Here is the actual interview. Howard gets slaughtered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfe4IUB9NTk

[edit]-JC has since fixed the link

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

The reality is that there is absolutely no evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution' ...
Faced with this reality, a number of strategies are used to protect Evolution from serious scrutiny (as per this thread and the other mega-thread over on the A & A):-

1. Brainwash people by repeating the mantra that Evolution is a fact.

2. Refer to micro-evolution ... the ratio of grey moths to white ones moving from 90:10 to 10:90 ... for example ... and say that this proves that Moths could become Humans if given enough time ... even though all it proves is that Moths remain Moths!!!

3. Say that Evolution is science and Evolutionists are scientists ... and anti-evolutionists aren't scientists ... even when they are eminently and conventionally qualified.

4. Ban the publication of science papers that are critical of Evolution ... and sack anybody who persists in publishing them.

5. Continuously examine what everyone is saying ... and if a Creationist is identified ensure they are sacked/never get any job of importance within science.

6. Ban the teaching of the (many) deficiencies in Evolutionary Theory.

7. Keep talking about 'millions of years' and hope that nobody notices that thousands of so-called 'living fossils' haven't changed one iota over supposed millions of years of evolutionary time ... and if challenged say that they were perfectly matched to their environment to begin with!!!

8. Get church people to make pious platitudes in favour of evolution ... because they haven't a clue about it ... but don't want to be out of step with 1-7 above!!

9. Never address the fact that the production of the Complex Specified Functional Information found in the genomes of all living creatures can never be produced by non-intelligently directed processes ... and if pushed on the issue ... deny that genetic information is Complex Specified or Funcional ... even though it objectively is all three!!!

Wow, every single point in that is a lie that has been repeatably contradicted with evidence on this thread.

And yet Wolfsbane thanked it. Really makes you wonder if we are wasting our time with Wolfsbane. Some times he seems like he is genuinely interested, and others he just seems like your standard Creationist.

Sad really, that a pretend Christian troll like JC can spread such ignorance.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Sad really, that a pretend Christian troll like JC can spread such ignorance.

... No pretence ... no ignorace ... and a true Christian.

...I'm sorry, but all of the ignorance on this thread is on the Evolutionist side of the house ...
... and calling the truth lies ... doesn't affect it's veracity!!!!:)

Like I have already said, all of my points are verifiable facts ... all anybody needs to do is scan this thread to verify them!!!
You may well argue that this is how it should be ... but please don't insult everybody's intelligence (and your own credibility) by denying that this is what is happening!!!