Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Laugh?
The word 'Purpose' as defined by Dictionary.com
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
The word 'Function' from Dictionary.com
1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.
All purposeful things have function so all functional things have purpose.
Nope, doesn't work. :rolleyes:Soul Winner wrote: »Proteins are made up of amino acids which are folded into the three dimensional shapes specifically to carry out specific functions in the cell.
A river flows down hill specifically to get to the sea.
Nope, doesn't work.Soul Winner wrote: »And you want me to accept that natural selection acting on random mutations is responsible for this programming when everyone knows that natural selection does not have any goals or purpose to it.
Yes. Because this coding has no goal or purpose, something you are spectacularly failing to grasp.
THIS IS WHAT EVOLUTION EXPLAINS. Darwinian evolution explains how such a system can exist without anyone having to develop it.
To say that this is some how an issue for Darwinian evolution is utterly stupid. It is what evolution explains! Evolution is the answer to how this works.
You don't get that because you don't get what the heck evolution actually says.
This system is not a problem for natural selection, it exists BECAUSE of natural selection. There is no other system that can explain it as well as natural selection does.Soul Winner wrote: »It is a blind process not knowing what the outcome will be. It acts on random mutations that take place and selects for some and not for others, with the beneficial being selected for the most because they keep the organism alive whereas detrimental mutations don't and as such are not selected for. So if natural selection acting on random mutations in the code of DNA is not responsible for the code in the first place then what is?
It is responsible for the code in the first place as we explained to you over a year ago.
The DNA system evolved. That is what Darwinian evolution says. If you don't believe it for religious reasons or simply because you just can't understand it, what ever. But stop lying about what the theory says.Soul Winner wrote: »Oh yeah you answered that already - the laws of chemistry. If the laws of chemistry are responsible for the information in DNA, and explain how proteins are formed, and why they do what they do, and that these laws are universal, then why is life so improbable?
Life is not chemically improbable. The one planet we know of that can support life does support life. 1 to 1. The one planet we know with the conditions that would allow these chemical reactions we find these chemical reactions. Life will happen anywhere that the conditions are right for it.
There is nothing chemically improbably about life.
As for how proteins form, proteins form based on the chemical laws of the molecules that make them up. They can't not form given the existence of these chemicals, any more than a river can simply not flow down hill to the sea.
Your argument is like looking at the source of the Liffey and asking "How does it KNOW how to get the sea, something must have TOLD IT how to do that!", utterly missing the basic understand of the systems at work. And by God are we sick of explaining it to you when you just ignore the answers.
There is nothing more magical going on here than chemistry. The fact that you can't understand that is a reflection on you, not the theory, no more than someone thinking that rivers must know where they are going is a flaw with the theory of gravity. :rolleyes:0 -
What I actually wrote:himnextdoor wrote:Maybe then we could understand life as an emergent property of matter.
In the same way that flagellum are an emergent property of bacteria and the internet is an emergent property of electronics.
Your interpretation of what I actually wrote:Soul Winner wrote: »So no, the internet is not 'just' an emergent property of 'electrons'.
'Just' an emergent property? Of 'electrons'?
It makes me suspicious that you might interpret the Bible in the same way; that you take what is said and modify its meaning.
Like others on this thread, I am attempting to establish some common ground and I think a simple analogy could help to do that.
It could be argued that human-DNA represents the pinnacle of acheivement for DNA and equally it could be said that the internet represents the pinnacle of acheivement for 'electronics', the study of electrons. Is that fair?
For the purpose of this analogy it could be said that the time before electronics existed as a science is analogous to the time before the existence of DNA. Let us equate 'human discovery' with 'random mutation' and let the 'acceptance or rejection of scientific knowledge' be equated to 'natural selection'.
Also, the development of electronics can be thought of as an 'evolution' of information and so can the develepment of DNA.
So, two worlds: World A is a world where man is poised to make the very first electronic discovery and World B where the very first life-form is poised to come into existence. Both worlds have existed for a long time and natural processes have been at work mixing, heating, cooling the elements, forming the terrain, etc.
On World A, a man picks up a piece of amber and he rubs it. He then notices that strands of his hair stick to the amber and this fascinates him, and others, and soon lots of people have amber for the purpose of rubbing. Amber proliferates. (Notwithstanding, it looks pretty too.) The effect of electrostatic attraction is 'selected' as a unit of knowledge.
On world B, an earthquake causes a breach that allows an area rich in simple phospholipids to become flooded with water. Phosholipids have a 'hydrophilic' (water-loving) head and a 'hydrophobic' (water-hating) tail. When a phospholipid is surrounded by water, its tail gives rise to a repulsive force and this has the effect of 'causing' it to 'seek' a molecule that is not water. Consequently, where the concentration of phospholipids is high, they will tend to attach to each other, tail to tail, forming pairs. These pairs will then combine with other phospholipids and in a process of simply balancing forces, 'globules', bubbles of phospholipid molecules form; the heads form a 'skin' that is in contact with water and their tails point to a waterless centre. Other structures such as strings and sheets will form too and sheets can also give rise to 'bubbles' by folding and joining its edges.
What we have now is two isolated environments; a watery outside one and an internal waterless one but although the internal environment may be waterless it could contain other molecules... or ions.
Molecules or ions trapped in a bubble would cause the bubble to have certain properties. One of the properties might be to be attracted to other bubbles with certains properties of their own. When bubbles that are attracted to each other meet, some of them would combine or absorb each other. Some would destroy others perhaps absorbing only parts of their 'victims'.
Simple chemicals acting through simple forces and we can see processes that are resemblant of life. Bubbles proliferate and are selected.
Are you with me so far? Can you see how that might work? World A doesn't quite have electronics yet and World B doesn't quite have life.
A simple modification to phospholipid bubbles and we can demonstrate an osmotic pump. That would be interesting, wouldn't it?0 -
The Irish has a piece about a theory of common language.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0423/1224295310321.html
What do creationists believe was the first language that Adam and Eve Spoke?
Hebrew?
And do they believe that all other languages "evolved" from Hewbrew or were created by God?0 -
I particularly enjoyed the comparison of Materialistic Evolution to a dog with a hammer attached to his wagging tail being expected to construct a dog house ... it's a good illustration of capacity being required ... but not present ... in both the case of evolution and the dog!!!!:)0 -
Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches.
Lie
Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly.
Lie
Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.
Lie
All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.
Lie
Since the fossil record does not show tiny changes between one type of creature and another, a few evolutionists proposed a modification to evolution theory.
Lie
The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction"
Lie0 -
Advertisement
-
On the issue of the persecution of evolution dissenters I came across this interesting book by Dr John C Lennox, a professor of mathematics and a fellow in the philosophy of science at Oxford University.
He has selelected the following epitaph for his professional grave should the worst come about as a result of his going public in his dissent from Darwinism and his debunking of the unfounded idea that pondslime can spontaneously grow legs and walk ... if given enough time:-
Here lies the body of John Lennox.
You ask me why he’s in this box?
He died of something worse than pox, On Darwinism – heterodox.:)
... and you can read this review of his book 'God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?'
http://creation.com/review-lennox-gods-undertaker
... it's not just Creationists who risk professional 'life and limb' by going public with their reservations about the Darwinist belief system!!!!:eek:
... it also applies to evolutionists who 'waver' in their undying love for the idea that they are 'advanced pondkind' ... with (billions of) added mistakes!!!:eek:0 -
On the issue of the persecution of evolution dissenters I came across this interesting book by Dr John C Lennox, a professor of mathematics and a fellow in the philosophy of science at Oxford University.
He has selelected the following epitaph for his professional grave should the worst come about as a result of his going public in his dissent from Darwinism and his debunking of the unfounded idea that pondslime can spontaneously grow legs and walk ... if given enough time:-
Here lies the body of John Lennox.
You ask me why he’s in this box?
He died of something worse than pox, On Darwinism – heterodox.:)
... and you can read this review of his book 'God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?'
http://creation.com/review-lennox-gods-undertaker
... it's not just Creationists who risk professional 'life and limb' by going public with their reservations about the Darwinist belief system!!!!:eek:
... it also applies to evolutionists who 'waver' in their undying love for the idea that they are 'advanced pondkind' ... with (billions of) added mistakes!!!:eek:
I've read his book. Very good, and very well written. I really like John Lennox, he doesn't mince his words. In his book he goes into all the so called scientific theories that supposedly have buried God and shows that the idea that they have buried God is a myth itself, if anything it is more rational to believe in God today simply because of the findings of science than ever before. Plus he shows in the early days of modern science how the world view mindset of Christianity actually played a pivotal role in how we do science today. In fact we would not have the scientific method without Christianity. Christianity assumes that there is a Creator and by assuming that science can proceed to try and understand the universe because the assumption is that it was created with a purpose. That is how we proceed in science because if the universe is just an accident of cosmic proportions then there is no sense in trying to find a theory of everything, which is what scientists are desperately trying to come up with today, except for some by finding a theory of everything they think that they can completely do away with the idea of God, but they fail to see that without a Creator creating the universe with a purpose there is no way that they will ever find a theory of everything.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »I've read his book. Very good, and very well written. I really like John Lennox, he doesn't mince his words. In his book he goes into all the so called scientific theories that supposedly have buried God and shows that the idea that they have buried God is a myth itself, if anything it is more rational to believe in God today simply because of the findings of science than ever before. Plus he shows in the early days of modern science how the world view mindset of Christianity actually played a pivotal role in how we do science today. In fact we would not have the scientific method without Christianity. Christianity assumes that there is a Creator and by assuming that science can proceed to try and understand the universe because the assumption is that it was created with a purpose. That is how we proceed in science because if the universe is just an accident of cosmic proportions then there is no sense in trying to find a theory of everything, which is what scientists are desperately trying to come up with today, except for some by finding a theory of everything they think that they can completely do away with the idea of God, but they fail to see that without a Creator creating the universe with a purpose there is no way that they will ever find a theory of everything.
Just a thought ... the Evolutionist so-called 'tree of life' ... is actually a 'tree of dead things' ... and is so full of gaps that it should be called the 'tree of the gaps' !!!:pac:
0 -
-
0
-
Advertisement
-
LOL, you forgot to mention the actual persecution there JC. :rolleyes:Dr John C Lennox
Here lies the body of John Lennox.
You ask me why he’s in this box?
He died of something worse than pox, On Darwinism – heterodox.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »The Irish has a piece about a theory of common language.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0423/1224295310321.html
What do creationists believe was the first language that Adam and Eve Spoke?
Hebrew?
And do they believe that all other languages "evolved" from Hewbrew or were created by God?
I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe the universe, earth, and life were created. But that's religion. I am not a creationist in the sense that I adhere to a particular creationist theory of how it was done. I don't know how God created it except that I believe He simply spoke it into existence with His Word.
I have no problem with the idea of language evolution whether I believed in Adam and Eve or not. I don't believe Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew though, but I don't know nor does anyone else know what language they did speak. But if they existed then as the first speaking species it make perfect sense to think that their language would evolve over the generations. The Bible says that God confused the languages at Babel which suggest that the world had just one language but another verse in the Bible which precedes the confusing of languages event at Babel suggests that there was different tongues.
Here are the verses:
"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." Genesis 11:1
"By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." Genesis 10:5
A seeming contradiction you might say. Well it isn't. The 11th chapter is talking about a time in the past and the 10th chapter is talking about the present state of affairs at the time time of writing.
In any case we can trace our present day languages back into the past. A lot of English words come from the German for instance and a lot of Latin words come the Greek and so on. So at some point in the past as you get closer to the first speaker(s) language must have evolved from the very first words or grunts uttered. So even if you believe in language as a random mutation or whether you believe God created Adam and Eve with the ability to speak, evolution of language thereafter cannot do anything to either idea.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »The Irish has a piece about a theory of common language.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0423/1224295310321.html
What do creationists believe was the first language that Adam and Eve Spoke?
Hebrew?
And do they believe that all other languages "evolved" from Hewbrew or were created by God?
These languages have intelligently evolved since then ... with the possible exception of 'predictive text'!!!!:eek::D0 -
He seems to think that dissenting from the Evolutionists Articles of Faith is metaphorically worse for your career ... than acquiring a dose of the 'pox' ... before the invention of antibiotics!!!:eek::eek:
And any chance you could get back to answering the questions I left you on the A&A forum, if you aren't too busy? How is that pretending to be a Chrisitan thing working out for you, by the way?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »And that proves/shows/is evidence for natural selection acting on random mutations to produce a human being how???
Scientist can use any given mutation or protein to map out a tree of life. Darwinian evolution (i.e. Evolution through the accumulated natural selection of random mutations) predicts a single tree of life. Scientists have tested this hypothesis, and found that, no matter what gene we use for comparison, the same tree of life is mapped out in all cases. If creationism is true, and God directly designed a set of kinds, then the fact that the same tree of life happens to emerge, independently of the genes used for comparison is a massive, massive coincidence. What's more, it is the same tree of life as the one that emerges from the both the fossil records, and the distribution of species across the globe. We have a strict prediction of natural selection, confirmed by massive amounts of data. We can be as sure of Darwinism as we can of Einstein's theory of gravity.
Here is the Hillis plot showing a significant portion of the tree of life.
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/antisense/tree.pdfOK now you're back tracking the common decent quote above. So if this doesn't even support common decent then how do you think that it shows natural selection acting on random mutations to produce a human being? Plus the cambrian explosion simply blows the tree of life idea completely out of the water. Trees start off as seeds and seeds grows in various stages to become well 'trees'. They don't go from seed to tree in one jump.
Again the tree of life argument has been totally refuted by the Cambrian explosion, you can't escape that.
Firstly, the Cambrian "explosion" is an emergence of many species over several million years. It is only an "explosion" in the geological sense.
Secondly, there are Precambrian fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F
"The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history."
Our knowledge of the fossil record has grown a great deal since the 80s, when creationists were complaining about the "explosion". It is interesting in terms of animal lineage, but is certainly not blowing anything "out of the water".Snorsville at this stage... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
This is a childish response. If natural selection of random mutations is not true, then why would we expect to see species to be distributed throughout the globe as if it were true? Why don't we, for example, see a radial distribution from a single geographic region, where an arc containing all kinds of animals would have landed ?In very rare cases maybe but its not like its like one of the laws pf physics or one of the constants of nature. Natural Selection acting on random mutations doesn't know that its going to produce a human being. If and when it does work in nature is anyone's guess. You cannot measure when it might work or when it does work never mind when it did work which is what all of Darwinism is based upon.
Actually, mutation rates can be quite easily measured. And yes, the evolution of humans certainly wasn't inevitable (if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out, we wouldn't have evolved at all.) The rarity of beneficial mutations is why it took over 3 billion years for our complex brains to emerge.You look at the so called tree of life and see natural selection because that's what you've been conditioned to see. And all your attempts to make me see what you want me to see does not fly with me. I'm not seeing it, sorry. And because I'm not seeing what you see, you attack me, and accuse me of being stupid, insane or wicked (well not you specifically but others).
It is not that we see an arbitrary tree inferred from similarities in animals (which is what we would expect to see if a designer used themes or similar ideas to design life). It is that, regardless of what gene we analyse, we see the same hierarchy as we do in the fossil record, and the geographical distribution. There is no reason for this specific hierarchy to be reflected in all cases unless these modifications are inherited and preserved through natural selection.Ask Professor Richard Dawkins, is it about doing away with God or not and see what he tells you.
Listen to what he says @ 5:04 to 5:07
"I think there is something more absolute about truth than that , and I care about truth."
Something more absolute about truth? What is truth? How do we define truth?
How is this relevant to what we are discussing? We are not tendering the idea that evolution disproves God. We are explaining why evolution, regardless of your opinion of atheism, is true.0 -
Wolfsbane, you once posted a couple of scientific 'papers' on creationism. As a scientist, I said they were an absolute disgrace (and I explained why they were a disgrace). Creation "scientist" aren't being persecuted. They're just not doing science.
The logic falters in the evolutionist argument. The evolutionists are generally hostile to getting things out in the open. And their treatment of their opponents and their twisting of their opponents' arguments - as well as dishonest claims for their own - lead me to conclude the case for evolution is highly suspect.
The creationists are not perfect in any field, but on the face of it hold a much higher ground.
So sacking creationist scientists is not an act of proper occupational discipline, but ideological tyranny.
*************************************************************************
Revelation 12:15 So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth.0 -
I'm forced to weigh the testimony, the openness and the logic argument of both sides, as I can't critique the scientific argument in detail.
So how can you say that the sacking (or "Stalinist persecution" as you like to put it in very non-hysterical fashion) was not justified if you don't understand the science.
Or to put it another way, how do you know the person wasn't doing their job properly if you don't understand what their job actually should entail?
By the way it is rather ironic that you refer to scientists being much worse in their lies than Creationists while at the same time referring to Creationist being ignored from scientific papers or being passed over from tenure or in very rare cases being let go from their jobs as akin to Stalinist witch hunts.
Also if you think we are all lying to you and you cannot be convinced otherwise could you let us know, after all we have spent a great deal of time attempting to explain Darwinian evolution to you and if you are just ignoring is that is probably time that could be better spent ... just a thought.0 -
Wicknight said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No. Just that he is the victim, not the perpetrator. All the 'justification' for persecuting him is deplorable.
Can you give an example of a scientist who has been "persecuted" in a Stalinish manner?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, it is the agreement with those who fire and harass that constitutes my claim of Stalinism.
So the bad thing about Stalin was that he fired people? You sure that is it, that firing people means you are acting like Stalin. Must tell that to my boss who had to fire someone last monthQuote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, only a matter of spiritual antagonism would generate such a response.
Yes you do get a lot of scientists claiming belief in evolution is necessary to save one's immortal soul ... oh wait
**************************************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,0 -
So how can you say that the sacking (or "Stalinist persecution" as you like to put it in very non-hysterical fashion) was not justified if you don't understand the science.
Or to put it another way, how do you know the person wasn't doing their job properly if you don't understand what their job actually should entail?
By the way it is rather ironic that you refer to scientists being much worse in their lies than Creationists while at the same time referring to Creationist being ignored from scientific papers or being passed over from tenure or in very rare cases being let go from their jobs as akin to Stalinist witch hunts.
Also if you think we are all lying to you and you cannot be convinced otherwise could you let us know, after all we have spent a great deal of time attempting to explain Darwinian evolution to you and if you are just ignoring is that is probably time that could be better spent ... just a thought.
No, I am not ignoring your contributions. But you should be clear on what you can achieve by them:
Indeed, you cannot change my mind on the truth of creation, for that is spiritually revealed. The best you can convince me of would be that there is no known scientific support for creationism. I would still hold to it as the truth, and await scientific vindication in due time.
******************************************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,0 -
Wicknight said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If evolution falls, some form of creationism is the likely replacement - and that is an assault on the egos of every atheist.
Well at least you are admitting that is what you believe.
Many Creationists try and hide this belief lest they invoke ridicule, since of course disproving evolution means nothing for the support of Creationism, any more than disproving Darwinian evolution means Lamarkian evolution is correct. Those Creationists who realize this try and avoid "Creationism wins by default" style appeals since they are so silly and simply show the person making the claim to not understand science at all.
But maybe I am showing my ignorance. Can you suggest an alternative?
********************************************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight said:
Sure. 'Expelled' gave several examples.
Expelled has been exposed as one big pile of lies and propaganda.
And I know how much you hate lies and propaganda.
The list of those featured in Expelled who are supposed to have been persecuted due to their Creationist beliefs
Richard Sternberg
Claim in Expelled: After publishing a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer Sternberg's life was ruined and he was forced to stand down as editor of the journal that published the paper and was fired from his job at the Smithsonian.
Reality: People were certainly not happy that the paper was published, but Sternberg had previously given notice that he was stepping down and did so when he was supposed to. There is zero evidence that he faced any threats of physical violence as Expelled states or that he had is professional career ruined. This is despite the fact that he had peer reviewed the paper himself, which is a clear ethical issue as he was also the editor. Sternberg claims he was fired from the Smithsonian, but it later emerged he was never a paid employee in the first place and was never dismissed, in fact he was offered a position of research council.
Guillermo Gonzalez
Claims in Expelled: Gonzalez was refused tenure at Iowa State because he had mentioned Intelligent Design. The tenure process is simply and he should have been a shoe in.
Reality: The tenure process is not simple, in the time he worked there out of the 12 professors who applied for tenure 4 were turned down, some of how had produced more research papers than Gonzaelz, who produced very little while at Iowa. Gonzaelz consistently under performed at Iowa, he raised very little funding for the college and his post-graduate students had issues with him and the completion of their studies. He was simply a Professor who peaked early and then, for what ever reason, never lived up to the potential he had shown. There is no surprise he did not get tenure.
Caroline Crocker
Claims in Expelled: By simply mentioning ID in a science class room Crocker was fired from his position
Reality
Crocker was never fired. Despite numerous complaints from her students that she had stopped teaching the normal course work and instead was teaching Intelligent Design and dismissing evolution as nonsense (ie she did not simply mention ID, but decided to devote her class to it) she completed her contract with George Mason university. Her contract was simply not renewed, though the evidence is that this was due to staffing constraints, not the numerous complaints made against her by her students. Despite Expelled claiming she was "blacklisted" she actually walked straight into another job at Northern Virginia Community College where she continued to teach ID and continued to get complains from her students.
So, tell us how you pick Creationist because they lie to you less
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that not a single thing I just said to you about Expelled being one big Creationist lie will in anyway stop you from continuing to claim that Creationists are being persecuted. That is after all a narrative you seem to particularly like, so I'm guessing reality won't stop you from hanging on to it.By Stalinism I did not mean you sent any creationist to the gulag, nor shot them in Lubyanka prison. No imprisonment nor neck-shots. Just cutting off their income, black-balling them from their career.
Yes, because that is what most people think of when someone says "Stalinism", people not having contracts renewed :rolleyes:
Face it, you were being overly hysterical for effect to try and put forward this rather ridiculous idea that Creationists are suffering systematic persecuted. This is a narrative that Creationist have grabbed on to to deflect from the question of why the scientific community ignores them. It couldn't possibly be because they are doing bad science, must be a grand conspiracy of persecution! Lets see if we can get any people who are annoyed at their employers to lie on camera!
Which makes your claim that you pick Creationism over science because they are more honest rather ridiculous. You pick Creationism over science because it agrees with your theology, and you don't care if they lie about it.They are so upset because evolution sheltered them from facing up to the fact they have an immortal soul, one that is going to hell for eternity if they do not change their ways.
Yeah they don't seem all that upset though, do they.
The ones who seem upset are the Creationists, making up false claims of persecution and spending millions of dollars on movies and websites complaining about this.0 -
I'm just putting myself in the place of the unbeliever. I know how it is, for I once was one. What credible alternative suggests itself to the mind of a thinking man if evolution is ruled out?
A "thinking" man... umm, well not Creationism obviously ... how about Larmarickism? Or perhaps Curiver catastrophism? Or panspermia? Don't forget since you have thrown out most of science we can't say any of those things don't happen, since you use the science you reject to say they don't happen.
Any of those perhaps? No? Has to be Biblical Creationism?That is, if purely natural causes are ruled out.
How have you ruled out purely natural causes again?Intelligent Creation is the only thing I can think of.
That dear Wolfsbane is something of which I've absolutely no doubt what so ever.0 -
Expelled has been exposed as one big pile of lies and propaganda.
And I know how much you hate lies and propaganda.
The list of those featured in Expelled who are supposed to have been persecuted due to their Creationist beliefs
Richard Sternberg
Claim in Expelled: After publishing a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer Sternberg's life was ruined and he was forced to stand down as editor of the journal that published the paper and was fired from his job at the Smithsonian.
Reality: People were certainly not happy that the paper was published, but Sternberg had previously given notice that he was stepping down and did so when he was supposed to. There is zero evidence that he faced any threats of physical violence as Expelled states or that he had is professional career ruined. This is despite the fact that he had peer reviewed the paper himself, which is a clear ethical issue as he was also the editor. Sternberg claims he was fired from the Smithsonian, but it later emerged he was never a paid employee in the first place and was never dismissed, in fact he was offered a position of research council.
Guillermo Gonzalez
Claims in Expelled: Gonzalez was refused tenure at Iowa State because he had mentioned Intelligent Design. The tenure process is simply and he should have been a shoe in.
Reality: The tenure process is not simple, in the time he worked there out of the 12 professors who applied for tenure 4 were turned down, some of how had produced more research papers than Gonzaelz, who produced very little while at Iowa. Gonzaelz consistently under performed at Iowa, he raised very little funding for the college and his post-graduate students had issues with him and the completion of their studies. He was simply a Professor who peaked early and then, for what ever reason, never lived up to the potential he had shown. There is no surprise he did not get tenure.
Caroline Crocker
Claims in Expelled: By simply mentioning ID in a science class room Crocker was fired from his position
Reality
Crocker was never fired. Despite numerous complaints from her students that she had stopped teaching the normal course work and instead was teaching Intelligent Design and dismissing evolution as nonsense (ie she did not simply mention ID, but decided to devote her class to it) she completed her contract with George Mason university. Her contract was simply not renewed, though the evidence is that this was due to staffing constraints, not the numerous complaints made against her by her students. Despite Expelled claiming she was "blacklisted" she actually walked straight into another job at Northern Virginia Community College where she continued to teach ID and continued to get complains from her students.
So, tell us how you pick Creationist because they lie to you less
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that not a single thing I just said to you about Expelled being one big Creationist lie will in anyway stop you from continuing to claim that Creationists are being persecuted. That is after all a narrative you seem to particularly like, so I'm guessing reality won't stop you from hanging on to it.
Yes, because that is what most people think of when someone says "Stalinism", people not having contracts renewed :rolleyes:
Face it, you were being overly hysterical for effect to try and put forward this rather ridiculous idea that Creationists are suffering systematic persecuted. This is a narrative that Creationist have grabbed on to to deflect from the question of why the scientific community ignores them. It couldn't possibly be because they are doing bad science, must be a grand conspiracy of persecution! Lets see if we can get any people who are annoyed at their employers to lie on camera!
Which makes your claim that you pick Creationism over science because they are more honest rather ridiculous. You pick Creationism over science because it agrees with your theology, and you don't care if they lie about it.
Yeah they don't seem all that upset though, do they.
The ones who seem upset are the Creationists, making up false claims of persecution and spending millions of dollars on movies and websites complaining about this.
If the 'Expelled' stuff is false, that would remove a big part of the 'persecution' case for creationists. Reiss would be a different matter. As would any demands by scientists that creationists be removed from office because of their views. I'll check that out too, DV.
****************************************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,0 -
A "thinking" man... umm, well not Creationism obviously ... how about Larmarickism? Or perhaps Curiver catastrophism? Or panspermia? Don't forget since you have thrown out most of science we can't say any of those things don't happen, since you use the science you reject to say they don't happen.
Any of those perhaps? No? Has to be Biblical Creationism?
How have you ruled out purely natural causes again?
That dear Wolfsbane is something of which I've absolutely no doubt what so ever.
My point is that atheists would be happy with ANY non-supernatural explanation being proved true. But seeing they regard Cuvier and Lamarck as debunked, if all forms of evolution are discredited, that opens the door to some form of creationism. And THAT causes the nightmare of personal accountability to the Creator. (Panspermia would only remove the cause of origin back one step - the choice would still be creation or naturalistic evolution).
**********************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
0 -
I'm sorry if I failed to join the dots. I used 'evolution' to cover all non-supernatural explanations.
Why exactly?
If you use "evolution" to mean any explanation other than the Christian notion of direct creation by God, then obviously the only alternative to "evolution" is Creationism. But that with be a rather ridiculous notion of "evolution".
It is like saying the only alternative to General Relativity is God moving things around because you are defining "General Relativity" to mean any theory in physics that doesn't mention God physically moving things around.My point is that atheists would be happy with ANY non-supernatural explanation being proved true.
Well since a supernatural explanation is untestable and thus unknowable, if anyone wants to have a model to work with that allows them to do useful things it requires a non-supernatural model.
It is very difficult to do something like medicine or build a space ship with a scientific model that requires everyone once and a while a miracle takes place in order for the model to be accurate, since those are some what difficult to predictBut seeing they regard Cuvier and Lamarck as debunked, if all forms of evolution are discredited, that opens the door to some form of creationism.
Since in your theoretical proposal modern science has been thrown out the window, so too has the debunking of Cuvier and Lamarck, and any other theory that was doing the rounds in Darwins time.
They were debunked with the same science that supports Darwinian evolution. Since you do not accept this science you also cannot accept the debunking of these theories.
So rather than the rejection of evolution narrowing down to just Creationism, it does in fact open up a wealth of alternative theories. Though quite how you are going to sort them without modern science I'm not sure.And THAT causes the nightmare of personal accountability to the Creator.
If Christianity is true an atheist will be no less accountable to the creator because he has accepted evolution than you will be for not.
You rejecting evolution will do nothing more to guarantee your position in heaven. You are a sinner along with everyone else, and you are bound for hell unless you accept Jesus' offer of salvation. Whether you accept evolution or not is irrelevant to any of that.
You are contradicting standard Christian doctrine if you think otherwise.(Panspermia would only remove the cause of origin back one step - the choice would still be creation or naturalistic evolution).
Darwinian evolution (or any evolution) is not the only possible natural explanation for life, thus disproving evolution will not remove natural explanations.
Disproving all natural explanations possible on Earth will not remove all natural explanations if panspermia is possible, given that we do not know what conditions are like in the rest of the universe and thus cannot compile a set of all natural explanations.
I'm afraid you are a long way away from Creationism winning by default, if that was your goal.0 -
Wicknight said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm sorry if I failed to join the dots. I used 'evolution' to cover all non-supernatural explanations.
Why exactly?
If you use "evolution" to mean any explanation other than the Christian notion of direct creation by God, then obviously the only alternative to "evolution" is Creationism. But that with be a rather ridiculous notion of "evolution".
It is like saying the only alternative to General Relativity is God moving things around because you are defining "General Relativity" to mean any theory in physics that doesn't mention God physically moving things around.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My point is that atheists would be happy with ANY non-supernatural explanation being proved true.
Well since a supernatural explanation is untestable and thus unknowable, if anyone wants to have a model to work with that allows them to do useful things it requires a non-supernatural model.
It is very difficult to do something like medicine or build a space ship with a scientific model that requires everyone once and a while a miracle takes place in order for the model to be accurate, since those are some what difficult to predictQuote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But seeing they regard Cuvier and Lamarck as debunked, if all forms of evolution are discredited, that opens the door to some form of creationism.
Since in your theoretical proposal modern science has been thrown out the window, so too has the debunking of Cuvier and Lamarck, and any other theory that was doing the rounds in Darwins time.
They were debunked with the same science that supports Darwinian evolution. Since you do not accept this science you also cannot accept the debunking of these theories.
So rather than the rejection of evolution narrowing down to just Creationism, it does in fact open up a wealth of alternative theories. Though quite how you are going to sort them without modern science I'm not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And THAT causes the nightmare of personal accountability to the Creator.
According to your religion personal accountability to the Creator is based on sin, not on accepting or rejecting evolutionary biology, as the wealth of Christians, Muslims and Jews who accept evolutionary biology demonstrate.
If Christianity is true an atheist will be no less accountable to the creator because he has accepted evolution than you will be for not.You rejecting evolution will do nothing more to guarantee your position in heaven. You are a sinner along with everyone else, and you are bound for hell unless you accept Jesus' offer of salvation. Whether you accept evolution or not is irrelevant to any of that.
You are contradicting standard Christian doctrine if you think otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
(Panspermia would only remove the cause of origin back one step - the choice would still be creation or naturalistic evolution).
Darwinian evolution (or any evolution) is not the only possible natural explanation for life, thus disproving evolution will not remove natural explanations.
Disproving all natural explanations possible on Earth will not remove all natural explanations if panspermia is possible, given that we do not know what conditions are like in the rest of the universe and thus cannot compile a set of all natural explanations.
I'm afraid you are a long way away from Creationism winning by default, if that was your goal.
*******************************************************************
Genesis 6:13 And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.0 -
Wicknight said:
No, I was accepting the fact that science - the science agreed by both creationist and evolutionist - has overthrown the competing naturalist theories, so if it falls, supernaturalism must be the alternative even in the mind of the atheist.
Science has over thrown all naturalistic explanations? ALL OF THEM? Even the ones we haven't thought of yet?
Can you explain how that works?We are talking about ORIGINS, Wickie, not OPERATIONS. Creationism and Evolutionism both hold to natural operations.
If we are talking science we are talking operations. Science is methodology for modelling processes and testing to see if these models are accurate.
For science to model the origin of anything it has to model the operation that cause that thing to be.
You stated that atheists would be happy with any non-supernatural explanation of the operation that causes the origin of life. That is correct, though for reasons you seem not to understand.
It is correct because the alternative is that the operation cannot be known and thus cannot be understood. And since atheists tend to like understanding things, we prefer it the thing is knowable. It may not be, which would be a same, but by definition we will never know this either.Certainly, having evolution debunked would warrant a brief re-examination of previous debunked theories - but with the same result.
You see pretty confident of that? Can I ask what do you base this confidence on? Biblical revelation perhaps?Creationists do accept modern science - just not some of the speculation and interpretation that has emerged from it - evolution being the major example.
Along with astrophysics, atomic theory, radioactive decay theory, general relativity, big bang theory, expanding universe theory. Basically anything within the last 150 years that contradicts their particular interpretation of the Bible. Which is most things. Hence they reject most science.
One therefore cannot use these rejected theories to justify rejecting other theories without being hypocritical.
Which makes me wonder why you stated that after a "brief" period we could reject all other naturalistic theories of the origin of life. Using what, exactly?True. But that is not my point. It is not the actuality of the atheist's accountability, but their recognition of that accountability - that is where the nightmare begins!
If Christianity is right they are sinners. They will face hell for that sin. Again recognising or rejecting evolutionary theory won't change that. God has never said all those who are saved are those who reject Darwinian theory of evolution. That would have certainly made an interesting 11th Commandment though.
The only way, according to Christianity, to save oneself is through accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You will be no more saved by doing this and rejecting evolutionary biology.
I don't know where you have been getting your theology from Wolfsbane, but if it is from Creationist website stating that rejection of evolution is necessary to save oneself from accountability for sins, that would be a rather un-Christian message.Well, I try to keep to imaginable probabilities.
Do you think 100 years ago they could imagine quantum mechanics (I know you reject quantum theory, but assume for a minute you don't). Limiting what you think can happen to what you can only imagine limits reality to what you can imagine. And it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you that reality has no requirement to be limited by your imagination.If this 'apparently fine-tuned' earth is incapable of forming life naturally, it would be a very desperate hope the atheist would have in appealing to an unimaginable better scenario elsewhere.
That is some what of an irrelevant proposition since we have no idea where the Earth falls in terms of places that could produce life externally to Earth. The only science so far that does actually do this, you reject because it contradicts the Bible. So you can't use that to say anything about the properties of Earth in relation to the rest of the universe.
You claimed that if we ruled out life arriving naturally on Earth we could rule out all naturalistic explanations.
You seem to be just assuming the answer you want. Which is odd because you complain about others doing that.0 -
There was a single language up until the Babel Dispersal ... when God intervened to overthrow Nimrods plan for a fascist world tyranny centred in Babel ... by creating all of the basic languages of Mankind!!!
These languages have intelligently evolved since then ... with the possible exception of 'predictive text'!!!!:eek::D
So just to confirm... You believe that Latin evolved into two (or more) separate languages e.g. French and Italian? This happens through a process of mutation and selection. Groups of people speaking Latin are separated from each other. Their words mutate, change from each other and eventually you end up with two different languages.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »So just to confirm... You believe that Latin evolved into two (or more) separate languages e.g. French and Italian? This happens through a process of mutation and selection. Groups of people speaking Latin are separated from each other. Their words mutate, change from each other and eventually you end up with two different languages.
Languages are the constructs of intelligent agents. They evolved by means of social and cultural and geographical changes over time. Names are given to people, places, events etc by intelligent agents. These names change over time due to the spreading of populations into new environments where they eventually get mixed up with other words to describe things in that environment that have no relevance in previous environments, things like hills, mountains, rivers and so on.
We call certain types of evolution 'Darwinian' because that particular type of evolution is curtailed within the confines of his mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations. But that's not the only evolutionary mechanism that one can theorize. Other mechanisms can also be constructed. In a few decades or so I'm sure new words like 'Dawkinsism' or 'Dennetism' will be used to describe the ideas of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet, but don't think that these words are anything other than symbolic entities constructed to convey ideas between intelligent agents who know what the symbols actually mean.
In other words, in language, intelligence is involved right from the beginning. The emergence of language onto the stage of history is not the product of the laws of chemistry as some think the emergence of life is. But like life itself, language is better explained when you postulate an overriding intelligence (in this case human intelligence) as the sustaining agent and root cause. But under Darwinian principles there is no overriding intelligence involved at all. So proposing that such a mechanism was involved in the evolution of language is absurd because we know that language evolved by a completely difference evolutionary mechanism than that. And any mutations that took place along the language stream are themselves the construct of intelligent agents be they deliberate, incidental or accidental. So if your going to draw similarities between life and language then you must postulate intelligence as the cause for the information encoded in DNA.0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Languages are the constructs of intelligent agents. They evolved by means of social and cultural and geographical changes over time. Names are given to people, places, events etc by intelligent agents. These names change over time due to the spreading of populations into new environments where they eventually get mixed up with other words to describe things in that environment that have no relevance in previous environments, things like hills, mountains, rivers and so on.
We call certain types of evolution 'Darwinian' because that particular type of evolution is curtailed within the confines of his mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations. But that's not the only evolutionary mechanism that one can theorize. Other mechanisms can also be constructed. In a few decades or so I'm sure new words like 'Dawkinsism' or 'Dennetism' will be used to describe the ideas of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet, but don't think that these words are anything other than symbolic entities constructed to convey ideas between intelligent agents who know what the symbols actually mean.
In other words, in language, intelligence is involved right from the beginning. The emergence of language onto the stage of history is not the product of the laws of chemistry as some think the emergence of life is. But like life itself, language is better explained when you postulate an overriding intelligence (in this case human intelligence) as the sustaining agent and root cause. But under Darwinian principles there is no overriding intelligence involved at all. So proposing that such a mechanism was involved in the evolution of language is absurd because we know that language evolved by a completely difference evolutionary mechanism than that. And any mutations that took place along the language stream are themselves the construct of intelligent agents be they deliberate, incidental or accidental. So if your going to draw similarities between life and language then you must postulate intelligence as the cause for the information encoded in DNA.
Holy smuck. What a mouthful and you didn't even answer the question.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement