The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

> how does the description of “morons, illiterates or baboons” apply to
> the following eminent conventional scientists who founded the modern
> Creation Science movement?

Ach, I was pointing out that the caricatures are describing the creationists as "morons, illiterates and baboons", not me! I would never desribe somebody like the good Dr. Harold R Henry (Ph.D) Chairman, Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, as a moron, or an illiterate or a baboon no matter how far his views had strayed from the surface of the earth and into the dark mines where I presume this great man spends most of his quality time.

Coz he sure as hell doesn't spend it looking at biology, as our good friends over in talk.origins have pointed out:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-catalog.html

In fact, of the ten towering human geniuses you've mentioned only one (D Hamann) seems to have had any papers published anywhere at all in relevant disciplines. And of the five thunderingly irrelevant papers under his name, one is listed as "Effects of grind size, sucrose concentration and salt concentration on peanut butter texture". You'll excuse me if I suggest that the Biology Bepartments of the world's great universities may not look upon Hamann's sticky (but tasty) experiments with peanut butter as much of a threat to the theory of evolution!

Anyhow, the ICR needs supporters wherever it can get them, even if the most relevant work done by the best people they can get, is just a load of piddling about with a bag of dry-roasted peanuts and a hammer

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

The Creationist one works in all respects, whereas the materialistic one fails to account for the origin of the material universe. The Creationist model of a self-existing supernatural Being who creates the material universe is much more sensible than the materialist model that inconsistently asks us to belief in things we do not observe.

If it asked us only to believe in what we see, it would make no pretensions at explaining origins. But it asks us to believe that some things had no beginning, contrary to what we know about the material world we see around us. It asks us to believe that something is infinitely big, or that the universe does end and nothing is beyond it - both of which we do not observe in what we see around us.

The Creationist can face these problems by acknowledging another dimension, an eternal one not constrained by the laws of the material universe. A dimension that gave rise, in fact, to the material universe.

So it is the materialist explanation that is deficient, not the Creationist one.

You know, that's one of the silliest things you've said so far. You claim "materialism" asks us to accept all kinds of things that we don't observe, whereas Creationism doesn't. You then mention "acknowledging another dimension, an eternal one not constrained by the laws of the material universe".

Do you really not see the contradiction? All you're saying is "look, instead of swallowing all these gnats, just choke down this camel instead" - one big assumption in place of a lot of little ones...well, you know what they say about the big lie, don't you?

wolfsbane wrote:

I couldn't - but it would be up to the one supporting the demonic model to show how he came to that conclusion and why rain and wind are not the cause, as they appear to be.

What this has to do with the Creation model is beyond me.

Both Creationism and Evolutionism have natural forces at play in the day to day running of the universe. Erosion is caused in both models by rain and wind.

Well, the answer need only be "because I think it, and you can't disprove it". Oh, I know you'd like to pretend that the only options are evolution or Creation, but that's rubbish. The options are evolution or everything else, in which your claims, numerically, would be a long way down the queue.

wolfsbane wrote:

It doesn't say there were or were not such heaps. Would heaps of exposed fish have fossilized? Would they not be the last life to expire in receding waters and be on the surface? Whereas heaps of mammals would be buried in sediment as it was laid down by the receding waters and so stand a much better chance of fossilization.

There's a good chance they'd be fossilised by the processes following the Flood, which would, if you think about it, have left behind a lot of soaked and unstable hillsides liable to landslides. The top layer of all fossil records ought to be full of fish.

wolfsbane wrote:

Nothing more than what evolutionary science offers. No prayer-driven cars nor cars ex-nihilo. Just what ordinary science offers - Christian men who use the design and laws of nature to produce so many wonderful inventions, e.g:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/babbage.asp

Oh, wolfsbane, wolfsbane, you're voting the graveyard again. What Babbage did was not Creation Science - the term did not exist, nor did what he was doing derive from the Bible in any way. He was a mathematician, and a Creationist, at a time when pretty much everyone was. I'm sure you know what I'm looking for - an invention that derives from the Bible. Heck, surely the zoos could learn something from you?

Almost everyone in early (western) science was a creationist, which is indisputable - and now they're not, also indisputable. All you're really proving here is that the graveyards are full of Creationists.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

To stop the hardship?

Sigh. No-one knows whether hardship is permanent or temporary, so it is foolish to kill oneself (permanent) as a solution to hardship (probably temporary). In addition, one's suicide may well cause hardship to those around one - friends and family being the most affected - it's a selfish act.

wolfsbane wrote:

Any meaning is delusional if not based on reality. If all we are is intelligent chemicals, justise, etc. is a delusion.

If God is real, there is meaning. If matter is all there is, how can we have any more meaning than the excrement on our shoes?

But you have no REASON to attribute meaning to it. It is just something you do.

What is your validation?

As I say, you're simply begging the question. You think that God provides meaning, so logically there cannot be meaning without God.

Let's look up the logical chain - God gives your life meaning, what gives God's life meaning? Presumably God does. I'm just cutting out the middleman, as they say, by giving myself meaning.

This is another point where a religion is clearly a comfort.

wolfsbane wrote:

On the contrary, I said before that the atheist may be self-sacrificial, but not logically so. His action is motivated by either a desperate imposition of delusional meaning or his conscience bearing witness that there is indeed more to life than matter.

Nah. We're all "motivated by either a desperate imposition of delusional meaning" - yours is just weirder than mine!

wolfsbane wrote:

A great number: Revelation 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

But relatively few: Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Confess - it's 144,000, according to nearly all calculations. That's a teeny-weeny number. If all good Christians get into Heaven, that suggests that good Christians are almost non-existent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

It must be my privileged unbringing or great intellect.:rolleyes: I grew up a son of working-class parents, in a poor area. I attended ordinary primary school and went on to non-grammar education.

But when I was 10 or 11 I knew how babies were made; a year later I knew about some of the finer details and the purpose of condoms. So did all my friends. If any of us got a girl pregnant, it was not because we did not know how it happened. Some of this knowledge was from school; some from our mates; a lot from furtive reading of books and magazines.

I started smoking seriously at about 14. By 16 I smoked 40 a day. I knew from the start that cancer was a real threat. I was not deterred, for the pleasure was worth the risk, in my then foolish opinion.

Today's youth are much more exposed to the facts of life; of STDs; of smoking and cancer; of drug-abuse. Some hill-billy girl may not have read a book or magazine and will be exposed to pregancy - but it is incredible to me that the boat-loads of girls going to England from Ireland for abortions or the greater number having the baby as single mums did not know the facts of life.

Ah - you reckon "knowing how babies are made" is the same thing as knowing how STDs are spread. Interesting theory. Just how accurately did you really know that, I wonder - I remember all kinds of amazing theories still floating about in my teens. Also, I'm male, and I know for a fact that a lot more of the girls were somewhat more in the dark than was wise.

Yes, young people today are much more exposed to the facts of life - something the religious fought tooth and nail against, and lost in most countries. However, public availability in big cities, and availability within a particular family, is entirely different. Get the right (or wrong) family, and you can grow up thinking it's normal to have sex with your relatives.

wolfsbane wrote:

Ignorance of the facts of life would be non-Christian. Recommendations how to have promiscuous sex without bad consequences is also non-Christian. It is the latter sort of propaganda Christians oppose.

Really? Unfortunately a condom is what you might call a "dual-use" item - it can be used in marriage, and outside it. It's very difficult to oppose "recommendations how to have promiscuous sex without bad consequences" without opposing all sexual education, as has been seen time and again.

The sad thing is that I am myself opposed to casual sex, on the basis that I think it's dehumanising. I can't accept a line drawn solely around Christian marriage - any committed relationship is good. On the other hand, I'm no fan of any "educational campaign" that encourages casual sex.

wolfsbane wrote:

I appreciate the honesty. Society is moving your way. We will soon see the consequences of this liberty.

We already are - longer lives, less misery, much less hypocrisy, and diseases that are endemic rather than epidemic.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, He made the person, but not what the person did. Sodomy, theft, murder - all action words.

To roll out the old argument - he made the person fore-knowing what they would do, or else he is not omniscient. That the person chooses to do it is neither here nor there, because the person was not responsible for their Creation - God was, and he knew what the person would do.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

You're in the very small minority that believes in Biblical inerrancy (not the Catholic Church or the Orthodox, who together form the mainstream of Christianity) and a Young Earth Creation.

Could you please then tell me what the words “Maker” and “Creator” mean in the first sentences of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds?

These Creeds take absolute precedence within all ‘mainstream churches’ over any musings that Theistic Evolutionists may make from time to time.

NO ‘mainstream church’ has ever repudiated the Nicene or Apostles Creeds – and these Creeds are evoked as a required part of their liturgies right up to the present time.

Indeed, I am actually unaware of ANY Christian Church (either ‘mainstream’ or otherwise) that has adopted a Creed that states that God was the ‘Evolver of Heaven and Earth’.
Unless and until these churches do so, Creationism remains the official position of ALL ‘mainstream churches’.

Could I also point out that the Nicene and Apostles Creeds are legally binding declarations and they are therefore written in a LITERAL style.
These Articles of Faith unambiguously ‘say what they mean and mean what they say’ using the most deliberate and carefully chosen words.

The Nicene and Apostles Creeds are unanimous in their declarations that God is the Maker/Creator (and not the Evolver) of all things.

OK. Not a monotreme, but a monomaniac! The churches that use these credal statements don't interpret them the way you do. It would be hard, now, wouldn't it, for the Pope to say "evolution is fully accepted by the Catholic Church" if what you said was the case, but as we almost invariably find, reality and JC-world do not share any common features.

JC wrote:

So as I have previously said, I am actually a 'mainstream Christian' – when it comes to Creation.:D

The Roman Catholic Church hasn’t repudiated the Nicene or Apostles Creeds – and unless and until it does – it will continue to be officially Creationist on the ‘Origins Issue'.

So sad. Wolfsbane digs up dead scientists to parade as "Creation Scientists", and you claim as fellows those who repudiate your narrow-minded bibliolatry. Both act in the hopes of bolstering their position. Both are pathetic.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
some days it seems you'd be dazzled by any number over 10.

Not really – although I must admit that I am IMPRESSED by the number 10^^1,800,000 – which is the odds AGAINST the Human Genome sequence developing via undirected processes.

To put this number into perspective - the number of electrons in the postulated 'Big Bang' Universe is ONLY 10^^82 !!!

Obviously some days involve bigger numbers. Yay big numbers! Hang on, is that the same number you usually use, or have you come up with more zeros?

deriding you, your worldview, your apparently total inability to grasp anything more complicated than a banana, and, as ever, your so-called "scientific credentials",
also, your mother may well have been an elderberry, and it's possible your father smelled of hamsters,
or the other way round,
but in any case wishing you full enjoyment of your pocket reality,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> I'd be pointing out the evidence for Intelligent Design.

Presumably if the car was designed by a perfect intelligence, then it wouldn't break down. Or, if humans were designed by one, then they wouldn't either?

Hmm, yes. The problem, of course, is that the cars we have now are far superior to, say, the Model T Ford, having become incrementally better at least partly by a process of trial and error - or, to use another word, evolution (gasp!).

While the changes have been made to each succeeding generation of cars have sometimes been entirely intentional, many of them have been happy accidents that survived the culling process. There is, as a result, no single "Intelligent Designer" that created modern cars ex nihilo - just a load of engineering "mutations". The same, of course, is true for 747's, computers, and all the other stuff that cretinists like to trot out on these occasions.

Also, if I keep on posting, I may fill the entire page. Get orf moi paage, robin!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Diogenes

wolfsbane wrote:

Diogenes said:

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't speaking of proof of the ancient longevity, only of the likelihood of ageing being increased by harmful radiation. It is speculation on my behalf, as the Bible reveals no mechanism for the dramatic reduction. It does seem humanity has a genetic limiter on how long we last, and a dramatic reduction seems more likely to be accounted for by genetic degradation than likestyles, etc.

No you said

wolfsbane wrote:

Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.

You start by saying categorically that there is proof re the aging, and now you're saying you're speculating. So which is it, facts or guesswork?

Scofflaw

Diogenes wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.

You start by saying categorically that there is proof re the aging, and now you're saying you're speculating. So which is it, facts or guesswork?

"Modern discoveries" is Creation-Science-speak for "stuff recently posted on AiG". See also "latest advances", "recent thinking", etc. It all means that a fundie has posted a little polemic in which they suggest, without proof, some scientific-sounding nugget or other.

Thus does pseudo-science advance - by huge and glorious leaps of faith to new claims that can be abandoned in an instant if challenged.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> There is, as a result, no single "Intelligent Designer" that created modern
> cars ex nihilo - just a load of engineering "mutations".

A better analogy arises from the question "What intelligent designer created the world's economic system?" or "What intelligent designer created English?" or (Douglas Adams' one) "Who made the water in a pond fit the pond's basin exactly?"

As before, just because a human thinks that something looks like it's been "designed", it doesn't actually mean that it is designed. It's really just an expression of extreme wishful thinking. Which is what religion is all about, really.

robindch

BTW, Scofflaw, when do you sleep? That's an impressive number of posts you've produced in the last 12 hours!

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

BTW, Scofflaw, when do you sleep? That's an impressive number of posts you've produced in the last 12 hours!

We never sleep. We are like Lady Thatcher.

staring at you,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

that the 'independent' testing is based on the same assumptions.

They are not, otherwise they wouldn't be 'independent'

wolfsbane wrote:

Truly independent dating would involve other types of dating, some of which clearly indicate a much younger earth.

Such as?

wolfsbane wrote:

Here's one example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/landforms.asp

If you are looking for science don't read AnswersInGenesis, it is a nonsense website.

There are so many flaws in that one article alone I could write another article just about the flaws. It was clearly written by someone who doesn't understand the subject they are discussing. For a start they don't seem to have read any of the referenced articles on erosion in Austrialia. They are basically saying "its wrong" because the author can't understand how a very old surface could be slowly eroded and a new surface could be quickly eroded, despite the fact that that this is quite well explained in the articles the author references :rolleyes:. The author is using his own ignorance as justification for his position that it could not have happened.

Once again Creationsist ignorance and lack of understanding is used to justify claiming that something could not have happened a certain way. JC does this all the time.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

or (Douglas Adams' one) "Who made the water in a pond fit the pond's basin exactly?"

LOL .. brilliant

robindch

> B]Son Goku[/B here are two papers in the same subarea of physics, a Creationist Paper

This paper's contribution can be summarised by quoting two sentences. One from the subtitle (1) and one from the conclusion (2):

(1) Any solution must be self consistent
(2) In this model, the laws of physics are suspended

You don't need PhD in Physics to see that these two sentences contradict each other. Flatly.

> Mainstream Science Paper

Aren't TeX and CMR wonderful? The creationist paper, on the other hand, is set in Times New Roman and Arial. Need one say more?

J C

Son Goku
Weather Simulations are millions of times (literally) more complicated than any DNA computations ………..
Your reasons for what makes Weather simulations complex is totally erroneous. They are difficult because they obey the Navier-Stokes equation.

Some weather simulations are very simple.
If you live in the Atacama Desert, where it hasn’t rained for over 100 years – the weather is so stable that forecasting is EASY and super computers AREN’T required to handle either the data or Navier Stoke’s Equation!!

I could produce an accurate weather forecast for the Atacama Desert using only a pencil and the back of a cigarette packet!!!:)

In any event, under dynamic weather conditions, it doesn’t matter how complex the equations used or how powerful the computers deployed, the accuracy of long range weather forecasts decline rapidly with time due to the increasing impact of random factors over time .

Even short range forecasts can get it wrong in the rapidly changing weather conditions usually found in Ireland – and that is why I always carry an umbrella in the car – even if showers aren’t forecast for my area!!!


Son Goku
There is some extremely complicated things in the universe, such as chaotic systems.

Indeed there are complex CHAOTIC systems in the Universe.

However, it is the complex ORDERED systems found in life that actually proves Creation via Intelligent Design.


Son Goku
the Big Bang's aftermath can be viewed as the progressive "hiding" of wierd physics as time marched on

Sounds like the scientific equivalent of Gnosticism to me!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
The churches that use these credal statements don't interpret them the way you do. It would be hard, now, wouldn't it, for the Pope to say "evolution is fully accepted by the Catholic Church" if what you said was the case

I too fully accept that Evolution (as Genetic Drift via N S) occurs!!!!:D
What I don't accept is that macro-Evolution of primordial chemicals to Man ever occurred.

Could I point out that Creeds are Statements of Faith expressed in the most stark and unambiguous terms possible.
Unfortunately for the ‘Metaphorically inclined’, Creeds by their very nature, leave no room for “interpretation” – they simply ‘say what they mean and mean what they say’!!!

The wording of both the Nicene and Apostles Creeds was deliberately and carefully chosen to avoid ambiguity – and after a great deal of debate in the case of the Nicene Creed.

The use of the words ‘Maker’ and ‘Creator’ (as distinct from ‘Evolver’) in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds puts the issue beyond all doubt - and therefore all of the ‘mainstream churches’ continue to hold to Direct Divine Creation Creeds.

I don’t believe that Pope Benedict has made ANY pronouncements on Evolution – other than to lend his full support, to the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna’s pronouncements IN FAVOUR OF Intelligent Design and AGAINST neo-Darwinian Evolution!!!

Pope Benedict has actually recently moved to tighten up the translations of the Nicene Creed to more accurately reflect the ORIGINAL Latin version that was produced at the Council of Nicea - mandating that the declaration be a personal one by replacing the words 'We believe' with 'I believe' at the start of the Creed.

Sounds like he is NOT about to repudiate the Nicene Creed but is instead about to give it an even higher status than the exalted one that it already enjoys within Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Churches.

I am sorry to disappoint you – but the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches remain firmly Creationist.

……………and I therefore continue to be a 'mainstream Christian' – when it comes to Creation!!!!!:D


Robin
Presumably if the car was designed by a perfect intelligence, then it wouldn't break down. Or, if humans were designed by one, then they wouldn't either?

Sigh!!
You’re (conveniently) forgetting about The Fall, Robin.:cool:

Scofflaw
the cars we have now are far superior to, say, the Model T Ford, having become incrementally better at least partly by a process of trial and error

And WHO did the ‘trial and error’?
INTELLIGENT Humans – and not the blind undirected forces of nature!!

Of course God, being infinitely intelligent didn’t need to use ‘trail and error’ – He just said it – and it was ‘done right first time’!!!:cool:

Robin
"What intelligent designer created the world's economic system?"

A group of highly INTELLIGENT Bankers!!!

Robin
or "What intelligent designer created English?"

God at Babel – and further refinements through it’s usage by INTELLIGENT Human Beings!!.

Robin
or "Who made the water in a pond fit the pond's basin exactly?"

The plain Laws of Physics – which were themselves Intelligently Designed by God!!!:cool:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Son Goku
Weather Simulations are millions of times (literally) more complicated than any DNA computations ………..
Your reasons for what makes Weather simulations complex is totally erroneous. They are difficult because they obey the Navier-Stokes equation.

Some weather simulations are very simple.
If you live in the Atacama Desert, where it hasn’t rained for over 100 years – the weather is so stable that forecasting is EASY and super computers AREN’T required to handle either the data or Navier Stoke’s Equation!!

I could produce an accurate weather forecast for the Atacama Desert using only a pencil and the back of a cigarette packet!!!:)

Indeed. I'm glad there is a level of science to which even you can attain.

JC wrote:

The churches that use these credal statements don't interpret them the way you do. It would be hard, now, wouldn't it, for the Pope to say "evolution is fully accepted by the Catholic Church" if what you said was the case

Creeds are Statements of Faith expressed in the most stark and unambiguous terms possible.
Unfortunately for the ‘Metaphorically inclined’, Creeds by their very nature, leave no room for “interpretation” – they simply ‘say what they mean and mean what they say’!!!

The wording of both the Nicene and Apostles Creeds was deliberately and carefully chosen to avoid ambiguity – and after a great deal of debate in the case of the Nicene Creed.

The use of the words ‘Maker’ and ‘Creator’ (as distinct from ‘Evolver’) in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds puts the issue beyond all doubt - that all of the ‘mainstream churches’ continue to hold to Direct Divine Creationist Creeds.

I don’t believe that Pope Benedict has made ANY pronouncements on Evolution – other than to lend his full support, behind the scenes, to the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna’s pronouncements IN FAVOUR OF Intelligent Design and against neo-Darwinian Evolution!!!

Pope Benedict has actually recently moved to tighten up the translations of the Nicene Creed to more accurately reflect the ORIGINAL Latin version that was produced at the Council of Nicea.

Sounds like he is NOT about to repudiate the Nicene Creed but is instead about to give it an even higher status than the exalted one that it already enjoys within Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Churches.

I am sorry to disappoint you – but the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches remain firmly Creationist.

……………and I therefore continue to be a 'mainstream Christian' – when it comes to Creation!!!!!:D

To quote Ratzinger...

* ...for science has long since disposed of the concepts (Genesis: l-49) that we have just now heard ...we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago.
* ...it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that earth and the universe were constructed. (p.12)
* We cannot say: creation or evolution. The proper way of putting it is: creation and evolution. (p.65)
* ...the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. (p.66)

But, you know, whatever. The mainstream churches are all OECs, you're a YEC - are you now telling me there's no difference?

JC wrote:

Robin
Presumably if the car was designed by a perfect intelligence, then it wouldn't break down. Or, if humans were designed by one, then they wouldn't either?

Sigh!!
You’re (conveniently) forgetting about The Fall, Robin.:cool:

And one should never forget the convenience of the Fall.

derisively,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

I'm sorry, Folks, I am very busy this week and maybe for a while, so I will avoid going around the bush if I can.

Son Goku said:

Only a sentient being can randomly throw things together. Without an overarching intelligence the universe just is. Randomness is a human concept of which the universe has no knowledge, it simply exists.

Thanks for that materialist explanation of the apparent design of nature. It is good that one clearly sees the implications of one's beliefs.

Where did I say this? How would you even gather this based on what I said?
This kind of characterisation of everything the rest of us say is getting tiring.

The universe has neither disorder or order. How would one define such things with regard to an "inert omnium".
There is some extremely complicated things in the universe, such as chaotic systems.

Ah, maybe I was thinking complexity meant complex order, not just randomness.

I.e., it has no freedom. The complete opposite of acting in any old way.

If you're going to talk with us, read what we say. Instead of applying a caricature on top of everything.
Just because no Designer implies randomness and no complexity to you, does not mean we're saying the universe is totally random and simple when we say we can't see a Designer.

It either exhibits design or it does not. If it does, that suggests a Designer. Matter being constrained to behave in a particular way suggests order, order implies design.

In fact the Big Bang's aftermath can be viewed as the progressive "hiding" of wierd physics as time marched on. However this does not speak of design to me as it is basic consequence of the laws.....

Where the conditions are forced by nothing but simple tautological facts.

A poor explanation, but it's the best I can do.

So there are laws or 'facts' that impose order on the universe, but you would not call that design - it 'just is.' If there is no Creator, no designer, it indeed still is a poor explanation, but it's the best you or any materialist can do.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Wouldn't you be satisfied when he tells you that his holybook says that bad spirits caused cars to break down? What more evidence do you need?

An inner enlightenment from those spirits? An historical record of the credibility of his holy book - how many people over how long a time have held it to be true.

Presumably if the car was designed by a perfect intelligence, then it wouldn't break down. Or, if humans were designed by one, then they wouldn't either?

Cars are not moral beings. Humans are, and having sinned, 'breakdown' became certain at some stage for everyone of them. I know you might not accept that we are anything more than chemicals similiar to those making up a car, but then that is part of the debate.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Science is a methodology, so anyone who has been trained to do it can use it, and see where it is not being used.

Yes, the Creation Scientists agree.

Then, frankly, wolfsbane, all we're arguing about is the evidence, and we could do that in an entirely scientific way. We don't need to, though, because it's been done already. Virtually every western science grew out of Creationism 150 years ago. Creationism was resurrected in the 1960's by a handful of religious fundamentalists, and remains a doctrinal position based on Biblical inerrancy. It has no credibility within science - only amongst the handfuls of scientists who are Christian fundamentalists. That you choose to believe this tiny minority is a tautology, given your religious position - it does nothing to make Creationism more credible.

You seemed to have been saying that belief in a ex-nihilo creation meant one could not be a world-class scientist, and I pointed out that history disproves that. As to belief in a recent creation being a minority throughout the previous century, that does not prove or disprove it. That it has credibility amongst some scientists is significant. That they are Bible-believing Christians would account for bias toward creationism, but likewise an antipathy toward Bible-believing Christianity can account for bias toward evolutionism.

Really, wolfsbane, if the evidence supported your position as you say it does, non-fundamentalist Christian scientists would be discovering that in droves and flooding into the Bible-worshipping sects

People who hate God do not flock to believe in Him, despite the evidence. It takes God to overcome their hardness of heart.

The oil and mineral industries would be sitting through seminars on Flood geology.

Wouldn't the Flood have geology like any other flood - sedimentary deposition, etc? Just that one should find sedimentary rock at all altitudes.

Intelligent Design, in turn, has been fully outed as the thin end of the Creationist wedge. Why bother pretending the two things are different when even the ID sites have published material showing they aren't?

Regardless of who claims that, logic shows that one can believe in a Designer, yet not in a mature creation 6000 years ago. That there are IDers who are Creationists, certainly. I can't see how one could be a creationist without holding to ID. But the reverse is not true. The Intelligent Designer/s could be Hindus, ETers, whatever.

With respect to the invisible demons of erosion, the point is that you cannot disprove them if I choose to claim them. It is a demonstration of how science cannot operate with supernatural explanations. You've said that God produced the Flood through naturalistic mechanisms, and that therefore there's nothing supernatural about it. In that case, you must drop your complaint that science should consider the supernatural, since neither you nor I need it.

No, you err again in confusing cause and effect. The effect is what science can examine. Sedimentary rock, for example. And the forces that led to its formation. What science cannot rule out is a supernatural cause for the Flood. Or for life. Creationism makes assertions that the world was created c.6000 years ago. That assertion can be tested by looking at various things that might indicate the age of the earth - no one is asking that science show how God could have created all. Likewise with the Flood - evidence of deposition, population growth, ocean salinity, etc. can be examined.

Science has never ruled out God, and indeed, cannot do so. It can, however, rule out a Book, and has done so.

It can rule out a Book dealing with spiritual things, but not the parts of it that deal with testable history - it must test those things and not ignore them because they have come from a Book.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

You know, that's one of the silliest things you've said so far. You claim "materialism" asks us to accept all kinds of things that we don't observe, whereas Creationism doesn't. You then mention "acknowledging another dimension, an eternal one not constrained by the laws of the material universe".

I never said creationism doesn't. It does. Materialism also does so, but insists there can be no supernatural explanation for the things that must be there but that cannot be accounted for materially.

Do you really not see the contradiction? All you're saying is "look, instead of swallowing all these gnats, just choke down this camel instead" - one big assumption in place of a lot of little ones...well, you know what they say about the big lie, don't you?

So a infinite Designer is less credible than an infinite space? An eternal God than eternal matter?

Well, the answer need only be "because I think it, and you can't disprove it". Oh, I know you'd like to pretend that the only options are evolution or Creation, but that's rubbish. The options are evolution or everything else, in which your claims, numerically, would be a long way down the queue.

I agree, there are any number of origins scenarios possible to the lively imagination. That doesn't mean they all have equally credible claims. You like to think only evolution has credibility; I'm pointing out that Creationism has real scientists also in support of it.

There's a good chance they'd be fossilised by the processes following the Flood, which would, if you think about it, have left behind a lot of soaked and unstable hillsides liable to landslides. The top layer of all fossil records ought to be full of fish.

By the nature of it, most fish would have escaped. Unless you know of a slowly receding flood today that litters the land with fish.

Oh, wolfsbane, wolfsbane, you're voting the graveyard again. What Babbage did was not Creation Science - the term did not exist, nor did what he was doing derive from the Bible in any way. He was a mathematician, and a Creationist, at a time when pretty much everyone was. I'm sure you know what I'm looking for - an invention that derives from the Bible. Heck, surely the zoos could learn something from you?

Ah, I see what you are asking now: not if scientists who are creationists have make great contributions to science, but have they used the Bible to make such contributions.

I assume they just use their eyes and ears and minds to observe and test like all scientists. They did not look to the Bible to give an insight into the laws of electromagnetism, etc. They did however expect nature to manifest both the order of a great designer, and the marks of decay begun at the Fall. So I suppose the amazing discoveries of complexity of matter made in the previous century came as no surprise to creationists. so complex we can speak of irreducible complexity . No more nonsense of the 'simple cell'. and of course the Second Law of Thermodynamics comes as no surprise either.

What had you in mind as a discovery of evolutionism?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Sigh. No-one knows whether hardship is permanent or temporary, so it is foolish to kill oneself (permanent) as a solution to hardship (probably temporary). In addition, one's suicide may well cause hardship to those around one - friends and family being the most affected - it's a selfish act.

For many people, their suffering can only be ended by suicide or a miracle. As an atheist rules out the latter, the former must be attractive. If their families are also atheists, they should be happy to see it all end. Indeed, that was the argument for the murder (oops, withdrawal of food and water) of the Florida lady last year.

I'm just cutting out the middleman, as they say, by giving myself meaning.

I know you are, but you have to admit if your atheist premise is true, your 'meaning' is a fantasy of your own making. Mine, however, if my theist premise is true, is real.

This is another point where a religion is clearly a comfort.

I totally agree.

Confess - it's 144,000, according to nearly all calculations. That's a teeny-weeny number. If all good Christians get into Heaven, that suggests that good Christians are almost non-existent.

You been listening to some weird cult? The references to 144,000 saints are in Revelation, and are regarded as symbolic of completeness (for instance, of the total number of Jews saved). In any event, they are mentioned alongside a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=7&version=50

wolfsbane

Diogenes said:

You start by saying categorically that there is proof re the aging, and now you're saying you're speculating. So which is it, facts or guesswork?

Read again what I said: Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.
Does grounds to suspect equal saying categorically that there is proof ?

However, if you are denying the harmful effects of cosmic radiation on humans, I'm sure NASA would like to hear from you. They could do without hauling all that lead clothing into space.

Or maybe it is only genetic damage you deny?

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Indeed there are complex CHAOTIC systems in the Universe.

However, it is the complex ORDERED systems found in life that actually proves Creation via Intelligent Design.

Chaotic does not mean random. The fact that you confuse a scientific word with its vernacular equivalent is very telling.

JC wrote:

Sounds like the scientific equivalent of Gnosticism to me!!!

I have no idea what that means or how it applies.
I also noticed how you didn't answer my questions.

wolfsbane wrote:

Thanks for that materialist explanation of the apparent design of nature. It is good that one clearly sees the implications of one's beliefs.

Another comment that adds nothing but manages a subtle jibe at the end.

wolfsbane wrote:

Ah, maybe I was thinking complexity meant complex order, not just randomness.

And again. Chaotic does not mean random. Actually try reading what we write and don't pour "liberal atheist" all over the text before you put it into your head.

wolfsbane wrote:

It either exhibits design or it does not. If it does, that suggests a Designer. Matter being constrained to behave in a particular way suggests order, order implies design.

It suggests order to you and order implies design to you.
It is very difficult for me to convey five years worth of learning into a paragraph, but this is a kind of order I can't see implying design.
You will not see what I mean unless you study it.
For those interested the best example of what I mean is the Least Action Principle from Classical Mechanics.

wolfsbane wrote:

If there is no Creator, no designer, it indeed still is a poor explanation

As I said you are definitely taking what I said the wrong way. In part because you want to take it the wrong way and because I am largely incapable of conveying it.
It is not an explanation of the universe, it is an explanation of a common outlook among physicists. I don't see how there being no designer makes my explanation of that outlook any poorer.
However if it is a poor explanation, then ask JC. He'll explain it correctly as his areas of expertise are "many and varied".

wolfsbane wrote:

So a infinite Designer is less credible than an infinite space? An eternal God than eternal matter?

Like I have said already, all evidence suggests the universe is not infinite. Current Cosmological thinking is that it is finite. What are you talking about?
And matter is not eternal. Again where does this statement come from?

wolfsbane wrote:

So I suppose the amazing discoveries of complexity of matter

19th Century physics was very linear and simple. Again, where does this come from?

wolfsbane wrote:

the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The law that states the closed integral of the quotient of the heat change during a Thermodynamic process and the final Temperture tends to infinity if and only if the system is thermodynamically isolated?
You mean that law? The law that doesn't say what you want it to say?

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

Like I have said already, all evidence suggests the universe is not infinite. Current Cosmological thinking is that it is finite.

If the universe is finite, where does it end and how does it end? And what is beyond?

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

If the universe is finite, where does it end and how does it end? And what is beyond?

A sphere is finite and nowhere on its surface does it end. The Universe is similar. It is finite but unbounded.
It's too late now, but I'll post an more detailed post tomorrow. However even though it is finite, it is not required for there to be anything for the universe to exist in. In other words, there doesn't need to be anything beyond it.

More tomorrow.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, the Creation Scientists agree.

I'm glad you think so. The vast majority of scientists disagree, as I do myself.

wolfsbane wrote:

You seemed to have been saying that belief in a ex-nihilo creation meant one could not be a world-class scientist, and I pointed out that history disproves that. As to belief in a recent creation being a minority throughout the previous century, that does not prove or disprove it. That it has credibility amongst some scientists is significant. That they are Bible-believing Christians would account for bias toward creationism, but likewise an antipathy toward Bible-believing Christianity can account for bias toward evolutionism.

Hmm. No, not my intention. Being a Creationist certainly does not exclude a priori being a world-class scientist. It has certainly become more and more difficult to be a world-class scientist while being a Creationist, but as long as one picks a speciality where one's beliefs will not be challenged, it remains possible.

"Bible-believing Christians" I take to be only those who believe in Biblical inerrancy and a literal interpretation, since otherwise your point is actualy against you. Obviously, virtually every Christian places some reliance on the Bible, so the majority of Western scientists, who are mostly Christian, would otherwise fall into the category. Of course, your view of Christianity is both incredibly narrow, and ahistoric.

wolfsbane wrote:

People who hate God do not flock to believe in Him, despite the evidence. It takes God to overcome their hardness of heart.

I assume that all who are not "Bible-believing Christians" are of necessity God-haters.

wolfsbane wrote:

Wouldn't the Flood have geology like any other flood - sedimentary deposition, etc? Just that one should find sedimentary rock at all altitudes.

Nah. The differences really are enormous. Geology as produced by a worldwide flood would be totally different, assuming one scaled up known flood processes.

wolfsbane wrote:

Regardless of who claims that, logic shows that one can believe in a Designer, yet not in a mature creation 6000 years ago. That there are IDers who are Creationists, certainly. I can't see how one could be a creationist without holding to ID. But the reverse is not true. The Intelligent Designer/s could be Hindus, ETers, whatever.

Sure, sure. Except they're not. ID is a Creationist dummy. There are certainly Creationists who are not IDers, but who are the IDers who are not also Creationists?

wolfsbane wrote:

No, you err again in confusing cause and effect. The effect is what science can examine. Sedimentary rock, for example. And the forces that led to its formation.

Yes. It's been done, though, about 150 years ago.

wolfsbane wrote:

What science cannot rule out is a supernatural cause for the Flood. Or for life. Creationism makes assertions that the world was created c.6000 years ago. That assertion can be tested by looking at various things that might indicate the age of the earth - no one is asking that science show how God could have created all. Likewise with the Flood - evidence of deposition, population growth, ocean salinity, etc. can be examined.

Science does not rule out a supernatural "cause" for anything.

wolfsbane wrote:

It can rule out a Book dealing with spiritual things, but not the parts of it that deal with testable history - it must test those things and not ignore them because they have come from a Book.

100% the wrong way round. Science can, and has, ruled out the testable history in the Bible - not because it's in the Bible (in fact, that was the only reason it was examined at all), but because the evidence does not support it.

As you say, the Bible is testable. It has been tested. It has been found not to match the evidence. That's it, really. All that's left over are a handful of people in science who won't accept that, plus a large mass of people who don't know any better.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I never said creationism doesn't. It does. Materialism also does so, but insists there can be no supernatural explanation for the things that must be there but that cannot be accounted for materially.

Such as?

wolfsbane wrote:

So a infinite Designer is less credible than an infinite space? An eternal God than eternal matter?

Necessarily so, since an infinite Designer presupposes not only infinite space (otherwise, where would he fit?) but also an infinite Designer. Similarly, an eternal God presupposes eternity, and an eternal substance. As Son Goku points out, materialistic "evolutionism" requires none of these presuppositions.

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree, there are any number of origins scenarios possible to the lively imagination. That doesn't mean they all have equally credible claims. You like to think only evolution has credibility; I'm pointing out that Creationism has real scientists also in support of it.

While they are scientists, what they offer in support of Creationism has not been science. Therefore, their belief in Creationism, like their political beliefs, remains firmly in the sphere of opinion, not fact. Evolution has scientific credibility, which you are confusing with credibility amongst scientists.

wolfsbane wrote:

By the nature of it, most fish would have escaped. Unless you know of a slowly receding flood today that litters the land with fish.

All floods trap fish, no matter how slowly they recede. The land surface being uneven, hollows will drain more slowly than peaks. Any fish caught in a hollow that will eventually drain will wind up littering the landscape unless it learns to walk in a hurry.

wolfsbane wrote:

Ah, I see what you are asking now: not if scientists who are creationists have make great contributions to science, but have they used the Bible to make such contributions.

Well, yes, obviously! Otherwise I fail to see how it's Creation Science....it's just regular science done by a Creationist.

wolfsbane wrote:

I assume they just use their eyes and ears and minds to observe and test like all scientists. They did not look to the Bible to give an insight into the laws of electromagnetism, etc. They did however expect nature to manifest both the order of a great designer, and the marks of decay begun at the Fall. So I suppose the amazing discoveries of complexity of matter made in the previous century came as no surprise to creationists. so complex we can speak of irreducible complexity . No more nonsense of the 'simple cell'. and of course the Second Law of Thermodynamics comes as no surprise either.

What had you in mind as a discovery of evolutionism?

Everything else. No useful science is derived from the Bible, so all the rest is "materialistic evolutionism" by your definition, or plain science by anyone else's.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

For many people, their suffering can only be ended by suicide or a miracle. As an atheist rules out the latter, the former must be attractive. If their families are also atheists, they should be happy to see it all end. Indeed, that was the argument for the murder (oops, withdrawal of food and water) of the Florida lady last year.

It's very rare that this is the case. Terry Schiavo, of course, had no way of ending her suffering, nor any way of hoping for it to end. She's hardly "many people" though - who were you thinking of, whose lives are so hopeless?

wolfsbane wrote:

I know you are, but you have to admit if your atheist premise is true, your 'meaning' is a fantasy of your own making. Mine, however, if my theist premise is true, is real.

Er, no, I don't. Whichever of our premises are true, our self-ascribed meaning remains just as meaningful (what a sentence!). I consciously ascribe my own meaning, you embrace "God". In my system, these are both meanings that we ascribe. In your system, both our lives are given meaning by God.

wolfsbane wrote:

You been listening to some weird cult? The references to 144,000 saints are in Revelation, and are regarded as symbolic of completeness (for instance, of the total number of Jews saved). In any event, they are mentioned alongside a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=7&version=50

Oh! Sorry! It's symbolic! Riiight. That explains it then. I'm so glad you can keep track of which bits of the Bible are literal and which bits are symbolic....I'm sure it would baffle a lesser man.

symbolically,
or literally,
depending on which weird cult you listen to,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Diogenes said:

Read again what I said: Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.
Does grounds to suspect equal saying categorically that there is proof ?

However, if you are denying the harmful effects of cosmic radiation on humans, I'm sure NASA would like to hear from you. They could do without hauling all that lead clothing into space.

Or maybe it is only genetic damage you deny?

Or maybe it's the link you've drawn between them, which you're now back-pedalling from? Don't pretend to be confused - you're cleverer than that.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

If the universe is finite, where does it end and how does it end? And what is beyond?

Imagine a room that is all that exists.

If you can do that, the answer to the last question is obvious. If you cannot do it, and have to imagine the room as floating in space, or embedded in something, the answer to that question is entirely incomprehensible.

Now imagine that the room has doors that lead back into the room, and nowhere else.

If you can do that, the answer to the first two questions are obvious. If you cannot do it, and have to imagine a corridor or other connector, the answer to the first two questions are entirely incomprehensible.

gnostically,
Scofflaw