The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Diogenes

If no one is allowed to speculate about possible mechanisms for reported phenomena, without being accused of the worst kind of pseudo science imaginable, forensic investigations are a waste of tax-money.

I'm sorry are you equating Creationism in any way shape or form with Forensics? Jesus....

Forensics is a body of scientific specialities, designed to find out how something happened. A murder, a car crash, a robbery etc. An event that definetly occured. Then using various scientific principles, devices etc, they piece together the who and how of such an event. DNA, balisitics, fingerprinting etc, all working towards examining the how and why of an event.

Now you don't know mankind lived to the age of 700, but you believe it. And in your attempt to make others believe it you're dragging in actual science to support it, to try and legitimise creationism by proxy

And a lot of historical science. How were the pyramids built? Don't speculate about the men or machines that might have been used. It is all the worst kind of pseudo science imaginable.

Bollocks. Sorry that unparliamentary language but thats the most accurate word to describe the above.

We can use physics, geology, engineering, maths and historical evidence to debate how the pyramids were made. We can build models. Theres a base to build from.

You cannot prove your first assertion the mankind used to have a life expectancy of 700 hundred years. Speculating as to why it occured and trying to figure out why the life expectancy was truncated is just a clever ruse by creationists. By asking us to consider how people's life expectancy was cut down, they're planting the nugget of the idea that people did live to be 700. And this is how creationism will get in, tiny nuggets, tiny factiods, slowly and surely eating away, and this is why stuff that you are spouting needs to challenged.

Or maybe you apply that only to creationists who speculate?


What is pseudo-scientific about suggesting increased exposure to solar radiation might explain a big decline in longevity? Will you categorically state that radiation will not mutate genes to that effect, nor cause more rapid aging?

No again this is you trying to shift the goalposts of what is acceptable science. While theres evidence of the effect of radiation on cells theres no evidence of that this effect caused the truncation of our lifespan thousands of years ago. Trying to use a scientific fact to support a "belief"....

I mean if I say I believe cosmic radiation caused the extinction of dragons, and then got hung arguing whether cosmic radiation exists or not, thats ignoring a the elephant in the corner of my believe.

Or do you just like shouting what the big boys say, without thinking for yourself?

Considering someone is basing his argument on a book and some pretend scientists backing it up I really don't think you should be swinging a cat around the point of "who's thinking for themselves" here.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

How's this for the recent decade? http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticuk.htm

Those are, indeed, very large increases! Very worrying to see syphilis on the rise again.

Is your theory that this relates to an increase in casual sex? Has there actually been such a rise in casual sex in the last decade? I don't recall 1995 as particularly un-permissive myself...

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree with a lot of that. The media are certainly the worst offenders.

Here's an interesting article from a pro-choice source, showing their understanding (rather, lack of) of the problem: http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm11.asp

Hmm.

wolfsbane wrote:

I doubt it works like that. Establish the idea in an acceptable medium, and the reality follows. Cartoons have long been used for propaganda purposes to great effect. Animated ones should fare just as well.

Not really. Japan, which is the source of the animated stuff, has actually gone the other way, reducing the availability of real paedophilic pornography. Gateway arguments are terribly easy to make, and always sound like they make sense, but I can't remember any of them that turned out to actually hold up on examination.

wolfsbane wrote:

Even the treatment is beginning to weaken, due to overuse/misuse of the drugs and the mutation of the viruses and bacteria.

Mutation, eh?

wolfsbane wrote:

The issue then is, does the choice to create someone you know will sin constitute sin? God says He is entitled to do with His creation as He wishes and that the sin remains soley man's responsibility. Some of His creatures say He is lying, or doesn't exist. Having some knowledge of His majesty and mercy, I'll stick to His view.

God may well say so. That doesn't make him right - although of course that's not something we are ever likely to agree on!

As ever, applying the same standards to God that we apply to our fellow humans produces results we might call "discordant".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Let me rephase that, M'Lord. Do materialist scientists refuse to consider that the evidence may point to an earth substantially younger than what would arise from the condensing of matter in space bilions of years ago?

It was considered. It was considered a lot.

The inital estimates of the Earths age were much younger than we now know.

But eventually, as our understanding grew, we (ie humans) determined the Earth was much older than previously thought. This is what the evidence tells us.

Young earth theories are not considered these days because there is no evidence for them. They are simply made up by Creationists who refuse to accept modern science because it conflicts with their religous book.

It is actually the Creationists who refuse to consider the evidence, not the other way around.

wolfsbane wrote:

And is that refusal based on the likelihood that in would involve a supernatural cause?

Nope, refusal because there is no evidence (please don't quote AnswersInGenesis again, being anti-bible is not evidence)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmmm, I was quoting you - so you are disagreeing with yourself? I suppose that is the ultimate defence of atheistic irrationality.:D

Cheeky. I think you know what I meant.

wolfsbane wrote:

Quite.

Quite.

wolfsbane wrote:

If Christianity can be defined as believing bits of the Bible, then you are correct. Bible-believing means holding to it being the inerrant word of God. One may err in one's understanding of non-essential items in it, but one cannot say it is itself erroneous.

My definition of how the Bible is to be regarded is the historic understanding of nearly all the churches who have called themselves Christrian. Their understanding of what it teaches is what has separated the orthodox from the heretic.

These are, still, minority views. For most of the history of Christianity, the Bible was kept well away from the ordinary believer, for reasons well covered by Augustine. It certainly was not treated in the way that Protestant fundamentalists treat it.

Since most of the people who have ever called themselves Christian never read the Bible, to suggest that "Christianity can be defined as believing bits of the Bible" is a huge stretch. Christians may well have believed things that were in the Bible, but not because they were in the Bible - they believed them because they were Christians. In addition, this would mean there were no Christians before the Bible came together in canonical form in the 300's - which, again, is a bizarre claim, since they were closer to Christ than you or I.

I can't see why you bother to make this claim, since the treatment of the Bible as effectively neither inerrant nor solely authoritative forms a large part of Protestant criticism of the Catholic Church.

That's the "ahistoric".

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes - leaving out those who have been stirred by God and are earnestly seeking after Him. They are not yet 'Bible-believing Christians, but will be. The rest are still enemies of God in their hearts: Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

And there's the "narrow".

wolfsbane wrote:

This from Intelligent Design and/or Scientific Creationism (#208)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/2708/But the ID people (creation by Intelligent Design) insist that these are two different systems and that Intelligent Design is certainly not Scientific Creationism—especially not Biblical Creationism. They feel it best to leave the Bible and the Biblical God out of the argument entirely. Some even feel that evolution is okay, provided that it is not atheistic Darwinian evolution. Thus, theistic evolution is quite compatible with Intelligent Design (Michael Behe himself admits to being an evolutionist). And some (e.g., William Dembski) say that the Designer does not necessarily have to be a deity!

Funny, then, the court judgements that say the opposite. Odd that virtually no-one actually cites any other Designer than the Biblical God. Strange indeed the Wedge Strategy documents themselves.

No, I'm afraid your passing the limits of my personal credulity here. The correspondences are too many. ID does indeed walk like a Creationist, and quack like a Creationist. It may even have an Intelligent Designer (or a couple).

wolfsbane wrote:

Needs re-thinking, then? http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
http://www.icr.org/article/2823/

The idea of Creation has hardly been unheard in that time...most people come to science from a religious background, but still only the already-committed Creationists find evidence for Creationism. No-one else does, although this may be because they have "hardened their hearts to God".

wolfsbane wrote:

Let me rephase that, M'Lord. Do materialist scientists refuse to consider that the evidence may point to an earth substantially younger than what would arise from the condensing of matter in space bilions of years ago? And is that refusal based on the likelihood that in would involve a supernatural cause?

There's always people who consider the evidence. Why, I do myself! I am always open to the possibility that you could prove a designer, because that would resolve a certain number of fundamental questions I have. Alas, it's like spiritualism and magic - the claims are large, the evidence is tiny, and almost invariably explicable by other means where it doesn't vanish entirely on closer examination.

No - if our dating methods consistently gave young ages for the earth, or extraterrestrial material consistently gave young ages, or there was any actual evidence, then it would become a viable alternative theory.

Unfortunately, the evidence really isn't there unless you want it very much to be. Creationism isn't a theory adduced from the evidence, it is a theory adduced from the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote:

Examples?

Oops. Probably made too sweeping a statement there. I should amend that to "Science can, and has, ruled out the testable history in Genesis". Other bits of the Bible do check out, at least in general. I can go and have a look for bits where it doesn't, if you like, but Genesis is the sticky bit. Are you still asking, given my revised statement?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Since most of the people who have ever called themselves Christian never read the Bible, to suggest that "Christianity can be defined as believing bits of the Bible" is a huge stretch. Christians may well have believed things that were in the Bible, but not because they were in the Bible - they believed them because they were Christians. In addition, this would mean there were no Christians before the Bible came together in canonical form in the 300's - which, again, is a bizarre claim, since they were closer to Christ than you or I.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Although it was officially recognized after the council of Nicea it's parts were being used and read in Christian churches from the time of thei rinitial writing. Pauls letter to the Corinthians as an example would have been read aloud in the Corinthian church at the time of writing. Church leaders in the 2nd century were writing that Paul's epistles and the four gospels were to recognised as authoritative. The Bible for all intents and purposes did exist prior to the council of Nicea and existed as it was written letter by letter.

J C

Ph
Here are some faith-based positions:
· The universe was created by God
· You are the only being existence, reality is all in your mind
· We're all part of a computer simulation.
· We were all created last week with all our memories intact.

You forgot the biggest leap of faith of them all:-
The atheistic belief "That God doesn’t exist and we all have evolved spontaneously from basic chemicals!!!!."

This is also the faith position with the greatest amount of evidence against it – and NO evidence in favour of it!!!


Originally Posted by wolfsbane
How's this for the recent decade? http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticuk.htm
Scofflaw
Those are, indeed, very large increases! Very worrying to see syphilis on the rise again.

Is your theory that this relates to an increase in casual sex? Has there actually been such a rise in casual sex in the last decade? I don't recall 1995 as particularly un-permissive myself...

The statistics are very worrying indeed, because they indicate that the greatest explosion in STD’s is amongst teenagers, with apparently over 10% of this age group infected.

This aspect is particularly illuminating – as teenagers are the generation that has had most exposure to the ‘latest and greatest’ sex education as well as freely available condoms.

However, these two planks of ‘sexual health‘ seem to be having the opposite effect to what they promised – among the generation most exposed to their application.

Sex education and condoms have the potential to reduce STD incidence - but that potential can be rapidly negated if promiscuity levels increase significantly.

The high teenage Chlamydia infection rate practically guarantees an infertility explosion as this age cohort moves into their 20s and 30s and starts trying for a family.

It is all so preventable and all so very sad.


Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Even the treatment is beginning to weaken, due to overuse/misuse of the drugs and the mutation of the viruses and bacteria.

Scofflaw
Mutation, eh?

I should have warned you, Wolfsbane, that when you mention the word ‘mutation’ to an Evolutionist he twitches!!!

The reason for this reflex reaction is neatly summarised in the following quote:-

Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, in ‘Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp 88.
“Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve.
This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious or general; second, because its conclusions does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

robindch

JC, any chance you could tell us, please, what happened to English between when you say that it was suddenly created by an intelligent designer in Babylon and it turning up in England several thousand years later? And how come linguists say that it actually evolved from documented Norse, Frisian, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, Greek and others, through the intermediate and documented forms of Anglo-Frisian, Old English, Middle English and thence, finally, into Modern English?

I've never come across what I suppose you could call "lingustic creationists" before, but I'm afraid that this posting of yours about English starting off in Bablyon (unless you can justify it, of course!) has me thinking that your conversion to Evolution might have been less than sincere.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Although it was officially recognized after the council of Nicea it's parts were being used and read in Christian churches from the time of thei rinitial writing. Pauls letter to the Corinthians as an example would have been read aloud in the Corinthian church at the time of writing. Church leaders in the 2nd century were writing that Paul's epistles and the four gospels were to recognised as authoritative. The Bible for all intents and purposes did exist prior to the council of Nicea and existed as it was written letter by letter.

Hmm. The Eastern and Western versions of the Bible were those in use in mainstream Christianity throughout most of its existence.

The Eastern Church got Eusebius' list of books to include (Eusebius is 4th century), plus documents he is believe to have modified. The Western Church got Jerome's version, which is the Vulgate.

Augustine convinced Jerome to include works on a list compiled by himself, which was similar to one compiled by Athanasius (4th century), the author of the first Apostolic Creed, rather than that of Melito of Sardis (2nd century).

That is to say, the canon was not compiled until the 4th century. There certainly were lists of those books considered authoritative, but there were different versions of them, and different versions of the documents (consider Jerome's complaints about scribal mistakes and interpolations, and Eusebius' known alteration of documents).

The existence of a few lists of canonical works that differed one from the other suggests, as history is normally understood, that there would have been many such lists. This in turn suggests that there were plenty of different Christian groups in the early centuries - an interpretation that need not be taken on faith, since there is a wealth of documentary material to back that up.

In turn, this suggests that the Bible we now have would not have been recognised as such by many early Christians.


How close any version of the Bible is to the original documents will always be open to dispute, since we have neither the original documents nor their authors to hand.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

JC, any chance you could tell us, please, what happened to English between when you say that it was suddenly created by an intelligent designer in Babylon and it turning up in England several thousand years later? And how come linguists say that it actually evolved from documented Norse, Frisian, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, Greek and others, through the intermediate and documented forms of Anglo-Frisian, Old English, Middle English and thence, finally, into Modern English?

I've never come across what I suppose you could call "lingustic creationists" before, but I'm afraid that this posting of yours about English starting off in Bablyon (unless you can justify it, of course!) has me thinking that your conversion to Evolution might have been less than sincere.

Worth reading: "Empires of the Word" by Nicholas Ostler.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Mutation, eh?

I should have warned you, Wolfsbane, that when you mention the word ‘mutation’ to an Evolutionist he twitches!!!

The reason for this reflex reaction is neatly summarised in the following quote:-

Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, in ‘Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp 88.
“Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve.
This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious or general; second, because its conclusions does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

Well, the reason for the twitch is that we know that, as if by magic, a Creationist will appear with an out-of-context quote. Like yours. Let's consider your quote, and consider also another quote from Grassé in the same book:

Piere Grass&#233 wrote:

the editors of The Revised Quote Book neglect to tell their readers that in the same book by Grasse from which they have quoted, Grasse also stated in the most unequivocal terms: "Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)

You have not, of course, read Grassé - you have merely quoted from the Revised Quote Book.

It would be lovely, in one sense, if you would come up with your own material, JC. On the other hand, it might be a little restrictive...

somewhat dismissively,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, in ‘Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp 88.

You do know that Grasse believed in the theory of natural evolution, he just didn't believe mutation was the way it developed. He had a number of quite unorthodox views on biology, a lot of wish have been show to be incorrect. Which isn't surprising since his main body of work was published some 30 years ago.

I would imagine that if he was alive today he would be horrified by the way Creationists constantly trundle his name out in a desperate attempt to show proper scientists supporting creationism or intelligence design.

In reality he was no more a supporter of Creationism than Darwin was, and his research is as damning to the creationist theory as darwins was. So why do you keep quoting him? If he is correct you are wrong :rolleyes:

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw
I agree with you on the Bible being officially recognised in the fourth century.

However the reason the books became the bible was that they were used, recognised and read by Christians as authoritative works.

Iraneaus 2nd century spoke of the four gospels.
Clement late 1st century lauded 1 Corinthians.
Origen late 2nd century accepted the Bible pretty well as we have it.
Tatian 2nd century compiled a harmony of the gospels.

On the topic of the reliability of the scriptures and whether or not we have as the authors wrote I would suggest Bruce Metzger Ph. D.

J C

Scofflaw
Sorry? There are many Creationists who reject the ID movement....

There are NO Creationists that I know of, who reject the concept of Intelligent Design. Indeed this may be why some Evolutionists claim that ID and Creationism are synonymous.
However this is obviously not the case - because there are many Intelligent Design Proponents (such as Theistic Evolutionists) who reject Creation Science, but accept ID.

This topic is discussed in more detail here
http://www.icr.org/article/2708/


Robin
JC, any chance you could tell us, please, what happened to English between when you say that it was suddenly created by an intelligent designer in Babylon and it turning up in England several thousand years later? And how come linguists say that it actually evolved from documented Norse, Frisian, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, Greek and others, through the intermediate and documented forms of Anglo-Frisian, Old English, Middle English and thence, finally, into Modern English?

You are correct that English has it’s roots in Anglo-Saxon i.e. it derived originally from the people who settled in the Saxony (Schleswig) region of Germany after the Babel Dispersal.

The Saxons combined with another Germanic tribe known as the Angles to invade and conquer England during the mid 400's.

Because English was the predominant language of world trade and commerce over the past 1,000 years, it has borrowed heavily from many other languages including the ones listed by you above.

English is a cosmopolitan language and so it has changed greatly since the Babel Dispersal – unlike many other isolated languages, which have retained their unique Babel Dialects largely unchanged right through to the present time.


Wicknight
You do know that Grasse believed in the theory of natural evolution,

Yes, Dr Grassé was an Evolutionist of sorts.

In any event, when somebody as eminent as a former President of the French Acadamie des Sciences says “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution” that is indeed a very powerful objection to the idea of mutation-driven Evolution.

Dr Grassé’s comment highlights a common fallacy among Evolutionists in equating mutations with ‘Evolutionary Progress’.

Mutations are PREDOMINANTLY phenotypically deleterious and ALWAYS destroy genetic information - and so Dr Grassé is correct in his opinions on this matter.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Sorry? There are many Creationists who reject the ID movement....

There are NO Creationists that I know of, who reject the concept of Intelligent Design. Indeed this may be why some Evolutionists claim that ID and Creationism are synonymous.
However this is obviously not the case - because there are many Intelligent Design Proponents (such as Theistic Evolutionists) who reject Creation Science, but accept ID.

This topic is discussed in more detail here
http://www.icr.org/article/2708/

You are again conflating "Intelligent Design" the concept with "Intelligent Design" the movement. Many Creationists reject the latter, but, yes, obviously they all accept the former. That's a no-brainer (luckily for them).

JC wrote:

Wicknight
You do know that Grasse believed in the theory of natural evolution,

Yes, Dr Grassé was an Evolutionist of sorts.

In any event, when somebody as eminent as a former President of the French Acadamie des Sciences says “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution” that is indeed a very powerful objection to the idea of mutation-driven Evolution.

Dr Grassé’s comment highlights what he saw as a common fallacy among Evolutionists in equating mutations with ‘Evolutionary Progress’.

Mutations are PREDOMINANTLY phenotypically deleterious and ALWAYS destroy genetic information - so Dr. Grassé is correct in his conclusions on this issue.

Actually, when someone even so eminent says such a thing, it is no objection at all. The view of someone of the greatest eminence in science can be disproved by a PhD student.

Grassé is part of a historic French school of evolutionary biology that preferred what is generally called "Lamarckian" inheritance. He does not dispute evolution, but disputes that it is mutation-driven.

Grassé's views were not shared by the majority of scientists, but you'll notice how he wasn't ostracised by the scientific "establishment" as someone with "heterodox" views ought to be according to Creationists.

Having said that, there is increasing evidence for epigenetic inheritance in addition to purely genetic inheritance, so there is certainly a role for non-mutational change in natural selection. There may actually be some Lamarckian inheritance of acquired traits, but it's early days yet.

Before you leap on this one, let me point out how your words would come back to haunt you:

1.evolution requires a mechanism of change, and a mechanism for inheritance of change, so that natural selection can operate
2. the current favoured mechanism for change is gene mutation, and the mechanism for inheritance is genetic transmission
3. assume that the current favoured mechanisms turn out not to be the major mechanisms of change and inheritance, or such mechanisms at all
4. as long as there are mechanisms of change and inheritance, there is something for natural selection to operate on
5. as long as there is something for natural selection to operate on, evolution as a theory is largely unaffected.

You will have to mount the same fight you currently wage against mutation against whatever new mechanisms are discovered. Were I you, I would be careful of how I quoted people like Grasse. But then, were I you, you'd be smart enough not to be a Creationist...

with mild derision,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Scofflaw
I agree with you on the Bible being officially recognised in the fourth century.

However the reason the books became the bible was that they were used, recognised and read by Christians as authoritative works.

Iraneaus 2nd century spoke of the four gospels.
Clement late 1st century lauded 1 Corinthians.
Origen late 2nd century accepted the Bible pretty well as we have it.
Tatian 2nd century compiled a harmony of the gospels.

On the topic of the reliability of the scriptures and whether or not we have as the authors wrote I would suggest Bruce Metzger Ph. D.

Should this be on another thread?

I don't deny that there were lists containing the accepted canon of Scripture. My point is more that there were many such lists, and they varied.

There are no extant complete copies of Iranaeus' writings in the Greek. What does exist are writings by Eusebius, fourth century historian, and others who wrote in Greek and supposedly give us direct quotes from Iranaeus' writings. The only complete copies of Iranaeus' work that scholars possess are fourth century Latin copies - the text of which are in "barbaric Latin" and as a result much of Iranaeus is "now quite obscure".

More saliently, even if modern scholarship renders the Bible exactly as the authors wrote it, the alarming fact is that such a totally accurate rendition will not replace the majority of Bibles in everyday use, nor can it ever (obviously) replace the Bibles that were in use throughout history.

If the "inerrant" Bible of today (as used by modern or future Biblical inerrantists) is not the same as the "inerrant" Bible of yesterday (as used by modern or past Biblical inerrantists), then the concept of "inerrant" is so wide as to be effectively meaningless, condemns all past generations to error, or must be seen for the manmade dogma it actually is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Yes, Dr Grassé was an Evolutionist of sorts.

Not "of sorts", he was a envolutionist. He believed in evolution, he rejected the religous notions that God created all life at once fully formed. As do all proper scientists.

As Scofflaw points out you as a Creationists quoting Grasse is nonsense, since his system of evolution is just as damning to your argument as the mutational system of evolution (neo-darwinism). If Grasse's theories are correct you are as equally wrong as if neo-darwinism is correct.

It shows the ridiculousness of the Creationists position, they don't have a position themselves, they just attack any evolutionary theory they can, even if the attack would also nullify Creationists theory.

Idiotic :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

In any event, when somebody as eminent as a former President of the French Acadamie des Sciences says “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution” that is indeed a very powerful objection to the idea of mutation-driven Evolution.

And when the vast vast majority of major biologiests, including the former President of the French Acadamie des Science says that Creation Science is nonsense?

Is that not a "very powerful objection" to the idea that life originated on Earth 6000 years ago full formed and developed?

Just a bit I think ... :rolleyes:

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Should this be on another thread?

Yes, I think it should. I am very interested in this topic and do not want to sidetrack JC and Wolfsbane away from their work here:)

RiverDeep

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't true. Its just nothing "supernatural" has ever been properly observed, let alone a God wielding his power on Earth.

What's not true? That materialists reject the existence of any deity prefering to believe that matter is the only reality and that explanations for all that exists can only be derived from purely physical phenomena? I would have thought that's the very thing that makes them materialists in the 1st place!

Though I'm always confused exactly what people mean by the term "super-natural"

Why the confusion around the term "supernatural" - I would think that most fairminded people understand that it refers to things from outside of the natural realm. e.g. a divine power or a divine personality. (BTW - I would have thought that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth which was observed by over 500 witnesses would count as a supernatural event !)

Your argument seems to be that a materialist can't apprechate the work of God. That depends on if they believe in God or not

Precisely

but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence shows that everything we have so far observed came about during a natural phenomona. What happened before the Big Bang? No idea, maybe we will never know. If people want ot believe that was God, go ahead. But to claim God made the Earth out of thin air, or place fully formed humans in a garden 8000 years ago? No, not supported by any evidence.

What we observe now is an artefact of whatever occured, and our obervation can only be determined by natural means. However, the most absolutely reliable evidence as to exactly what happened would be eye-witness testimony. Genesis claims to be the revelation of eye-witness account from the Creator's point of view! If it can be squared with any interpretation of observed natural phenomena, then it is a valid option. Whether people believe it or not is a separate question.

Regarding the question of current world population at approx 6.7 billion, the mathematics of population growth are consistent with a 4350 year time frame for 6 people and a growth rate of 0.48%. This correlates well with the population growth of the Israeli people group from Jacob's time to just before the 2nd World War, confirming biblical accuracy. As it happens, the current global population growth rate is approx 1.7%, so 0.48% is not outlandish by any stretch.

Interestingly, if we use evolutionary timeframes for a similar study, say 1 million years, and a much smaller growth rate, say 0.01%, then the current human population should stand at an absurd 5.3E+43! Given the area of global land surface at 1.5E+12, that gives a very overcrowded 3.6E+29 humans per square metre. Now that's a housing crisis!

5uspect

RiverDeep wrote:

Regarding the question of current world population at approx 6.7 billion, the mathematics of population growth are consistent with a 4350 year time frame for 6 people and a growth rate of 0.48%. This correlates well with the population growth of the Israeli people group from Jacob's time to just before the 2nd World War, confirming biblical accuracy. As it happens, the current global population growth rate is approx 1.7%, so 0.48% is not outlandish by any stretch.

Interestingly, if we use evolutionary timeframes for a similar study, say 1 million years, and a much smaller growth rate, say 0.01%, then the current human population should stand at an absurd 5.3E+43! Given the area of global land surface at 1.5E+12, that gives a very overcrowded 3.6E+29 humans per square metre. Now that's a housing crisis!

You're quoting a creationist paper that has been shown to be nothing other than number fiddling. See here for a full debunk.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/populate.htm

5uspect

Also if your creationist "facts" are indeed facts why then aren't these creation scientists wowing the world and winning Nobel prizes for showing us the light?

Zombrex

RiverDeep wrote:

That materialists reject the existence of any deity prefering to believe that matter is the only reality and that explanations for all that exists can only be derived from purely physical phenomena?

You are getting a bit muddled there.

Firstly, if God(s) exist, that is a physical phenomenon.

Secondly materialists "reject" the existence of a deity only because a deity has never been shown to exist. If tomorrow science showed that God does exist this would be accepted by materialists.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "matter is the only reality" ... not sure how matter is a reality.

RiverDeep wrote:

Why the confusion around the term "supernatural" - I would think that most fairminded people understand that it refers to things from outside of the natural realm.

But that is a paradox. The "natural realm" includes everything, so how can something lie outside of everything.

An example I used on another threat is a number bigger than infinity. That doesn't make sense, because infinity includes all numbers.

RiverDeep wrote:

(BTW - I would have thought that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth which was observed by over 500 witnesses would count as a supernatural event !)

It would if you consider supernatural to be limited to our understanding at the present time. But then the definition of supernatural becomes rather meaningless

If God exists, and if Jesus rose from the dead using Gods power, that was a perfectly natural event, since God if he exists is a natural force of nature. Though it may not fit into our current understanding of how the universe works.

RiverDeep wrote:

Precisely

If you don't believe God exists then you would not attribute the beauty of the world around us to Him. That doesn't mean you don't appreacate the beauty of the world around us.

RiverDeep wrote:

Genesis claims to be the revelation of eye-witness account from the Creator's point of view!

From a historical or scientific stand point that "claim" is largely meaningless.

RiverDeep wrote:

If it can be squared with any interpretation of observed natural phenomena, then it is a valid option.

It can't, so it isn't really an issue. There is evidence of phenomena that matches those described in book of Genesis.

RiverDeep wrote:

Regarding the question of current world population at approx 6.7 billion, the mathematics of population growth are consistent with a 4350 year time frame for 6 people and a growth rate of 0.48%.

The Creationists population theory, put forward by the likes of William Williams (boy was he beaten up a lot in school with a name like that) in "Evolution Disproved" was debunked years ago I'm afraid.

For a start it is completely inconsitent with known populations in history.

For example, following the 0.48% rate starting from 6 people, there would only have been 650,000 people alive on Earth in the time of Jesus, which we know isn't true because the Roman Empire itself consisted of millions of people, let alone the 3/4 of human population that didn't live in the Empire.

The fact is the population size 6,000 years ago was much bigger than 6, but the growth rate was much smaller. Where as today a doubling in population occurs every 60-50 years, in 1000AD this was every 900 years.

RiverDeep wrote:

Interestingly, if we use evolutionary timeframes for a similar study, say 1 million years, and a much smaller growth rate, say 0.01%, then the current human population should stand at an absurd 5.3E+43! Given the area of global land surface at 1.5E+12, that gives a very overcrowded 3.6E+29 humans per square metre. Now that's a housing crisis!

Why would you start with 1 million years when the first homosapeins appear 150,000 years ago, and why would you fix a consistent 0.01% growth rate when growth rate of species is never constant, especially over a period of 100,000 years.

The reality is that for most of human history the population growth has been very very small. Natural forces, such as diease, stablised population growth at almost 0%. This is illustrated by this graph from Wikipedia

J C

Wicknight wrote:

The above Wikipedia graph is actually perfectly consistent with a Creationist perspective - starting off with practically nobody (two people actually) 7,000 years ago with little net population growth up to 4,000 years ago (eight people actually after Noah's Flood) and a normal population growth curve since then with evidence of exponential growth in the last 200 years!!!

If a 'picture is worth a thousand words' then this Wikipedia graph is worth a thousand Creationist words!!!

It (once again) proves the veracity of the Bible on the recent creation of Mankind. It is estimated that the Earth could sustainably support in excess of 2 billion people on a 'low technology' basis. Could I therefore suggest that if a 'long ages' Evolutionary scenario was true, the graph should be showing at least two billion people for over 150,000 years - and not effectively zero people up to 7,000 years ago!!!.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

The above Wikipedia graph is actually perfectly consistent with a Creationist perspective - starting off with practically nobody (two people actually) 7,000 years ago with little net population growth up to 4,000 years ago (eight people actually after Noah's Flood) and a normal population growth curve since then with evidence of exponential growth in the last 200 years!!!

If a 'picture is worth a thousand words' then this Wikipedia graph is worth a thousand Creationist words!!!

It (once again) proves the veracity of the Bible on the recent creation of Mankind. It is estimated that the Earth could sustainably support in excess of 2 billion people on a 'low technology' basis. Could I therefore suggest that if a 'long ages' Evolutionary scenario was true, the graph should be showing at least two billion people for over 150,000 years - and not effectively zero people up to 7,000 years ago!!!.

JC, I'm sure you can. After all, it takes an almost unlimited amount of idiocy to suggest such a thing. It seems, however, that you have found a soulmate in RiverDeep, who also appears to put his trust in these ludicrously inept "theories".

Frankly, these kind of "back of an envelope" calculations with numbers plucked out of the air don't even reach the level of pseudoscience. You have descended to pub speculation, and still you think it proves something. It does prove something - but not what you think it does.

I am forced, once again, to deride any claim to scientific qualifications you may think you have - your level of comprehension, from what you have put forward here, is so low that your grasp of scientific methods and concepts is actually worse than that of people who've never even heard of them.

pityingly,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

RiverDeep wrote:

What we observe now is an artefact of whatever occured, and our obervation can only be determined by natural means. However, the most absolutely reliable evidence as to exactly what happened would be eye-witness testimony. Genesis claims to be the revelation of eye-witness account from the Creator's point of view! If it can be squared with any interpretation of observed natural phenomena, then it is a valid option. Whether people believe it or not is a separate question.

It's a claim. It needs to be independently verified, which it hasn't been. It can certainly be "squared" with interpretations of observed natural phenomena, but only by suspending all known laws and applying a large number of miracles - which is a good deal less scientific than the sort of things they put on the back of cereal packets for the edification of children.

RiverDeep wrote:

Regarding the question of current world population at approx 6.7 billion, the mathematics of population growth are consistent with a 4350 year time frame for 6 people and a growth rate of 0.48%. This correlates well with the population growth of the Israeli people group from Jacob's time to just before the 2nd World War, confirming biblical accuracy. As it happens, the current global population growth rate is approx 1.7%, so 0.48% is not outlandish by any stretch.

Interestingly, if we use evolutionary timeframes for a similar study, say 1 million years, and a much smaller growth rate, say 0.01%, then the current human population should stand at an absurd 5.3E+43! Given the area of global land surface at 1.5E+12, that gives a very overcrowded 3.6E+29 humans per square metre. Now that's a housing crisis!

The same type of calculations were done by Victorian Malthusians to prove that by the year 2000, there would only be 9 square feet of land per person, and that they would, in any case, by 6 feet deep in horse excrement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw
Grassé's views were not shared by the majority of scientists, but you'll notice how he wasn't ostracised by the scientific "establishment"

Very interesting – so you are saying that once you don’t propose Intelligent Design or anything else with a possible Theistic input like Creation – you won’t be ostracised by Materialistic Evolutionists.


Scofflaw
there is increasing evidence for epigenetic inheritance in addition to purely genetic inheritance, so there is certainly a role for non-mutational change in natural selection. There may actually be some Lamarckian inheritance of acquired traits, but it's early days yet

You are also saying that even if you propose that somebody who loses an arm could produce one-armed offspring – without any known mechanism ever being observed to account for such a phenomenon – you still won’t be ostracised by Materialistic Evolutionists!!!

But if you propose ID or Creation…………that is ‘a bridge too far’ !!!

But wait, what light at yonder window breaks?..............

Wicknight
If tomorrow science showed that God does exist this would be accepted by materialists.

Excellent – progress at last!!!

So you are accepting that God can POTENTIALLY be proven to exist by scientific means – and even better, that materialists WILL accept such evidence!!!

Welcome to Creation Science, Wicknight.

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

The same type of calculations were done by Victorian Malthusians to prove that by the year 2000, there would only be 9 square feet of land per person, and that they would, in any case, by 6 feet deep in horse excrement.

Yes, Thomas Malthus (and his Victorian 'fan club') got it completly WRONG.

But then Malthus was the Evolutionist whose Essay on the Principle of Population suggested the idea of 'survival of the fittest' to one Charles Darwin.
So your point is suggesting (correctly) that Darwin based his theory (in part) on the ERRONEOUS mathematics of Thomas Malthus!!!!

River Deep's calculations are CORRECT, as indeed is the Wikipedia graph which shows the Human Population starting from zero 7,000 years ago and rising to over 6 billion at present!!!

John Doe

J C wrote:

Very interesting – so you are saying that once you don’t propose Intelligent Design or anything else with a possible Theistic input like Creation – you won’t be ostracised by Materialistic Evolutionists.

Once you don't propose anything that isn't backed up by science you won't be ostracised by scientists. Well done.

J C wrote:

You are also saying that even if you propose that somebody who loses an arm could produce one-armed offspring – without any known mechanism ever being observed to account for such a phenomenon – you still won’t be ostracised by Materialistic Evolutionists!!!

Once again, if it makes scientific sense then scientists will accept it.

J C wrote:

But if you propose ID or Creation…………that is ‘a bridge too far’!!!

Now, why could that be? Perhaps because it doesn't make scientific sense? Please, do suggest other motives. I'm sure they won't be laughable.

J C wrote:

So you are accepting that God can POTENTIALLY be proven to exist by scientific means – and even better, that materialists WILL accept such evidence!!!

Surely a God proven to exist by scientific means wouldn't be God? It would be some sort of natural phenomenon/phenomena. That, in fact, is a major problem with 'Creation Science' in itself. Such 'scientists' accuse the reputable scientific establishment of trying to eliminate God by explaining everything scientifically. The Creation scientists (I'm getting sick of my inverted commas) are attempting to explain God scientifically: what arrogance!

God is unknowable, beyond human comprehension according to Christianity. Creation Science is spitting in the face of that. 'Oh, he's unknowable but we can kinda explain him... He's beyond comprehension, but we can clearly follow what he did and make up figures to understand it...

John Doe

J C wrote:

the Wikipedia graph which shows the Human Population starting from zero 7,000 years ago and rising to over 6 billion at present!!!

Are you claiming that you can see well enough to read a graph right down to an accuracy of a few thousand people when the scale is one billion people to about half an inch?

Notwithstanding that, it clearly shows roughly the same population from 10,000 BC right up to about 2100 BC. That doesn't fit in with your theories at all.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The above Wikipedia graph is actually perfectly consistent with a Creationist perspective - starting off with practically nobody (two people actually)

Actually the "practically nobody" was approx 100,000 humans about 50,000 years ago.

Its not actually physically possible that 6 people in 4000 BCE could grow to approx 200 million in 1 CE. You have used the "but Adam and Eve were genetically perfect" argument before to explain rapid population growth and inbreading, but were Noah, his wife and children genetically perfect?

I would also point out that your "perfectly consistent" perspective is not at all consistent with RiverDeeps, yet both your theories are supposed to be the Creationist theory. Which kinda once again shows Creationism is a bit all over the place in what they make up.

J C wrote:

Could I therefore suggest that if a 'long ages' Evolutionary scenario was true, the graph should be showing at least two billion people for over 150,000 years

You could, but it would be demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of population growth. For a start, you are assuming population growth is constant, which it isn't, that it doesn't stablise, which it does, and that it is not effected by environmental asspects such as disease, which it is

JC if you know nothing about a subject why do you even bother making theories up. At least stick to making theories up on things you seem to have a grasp of.


- and not effectively zero people up to 7,000 years ago!!!.[/QUOTE]

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Wicknight
If tomorrow science showed that God does exist this would be accepted by materialists.

Excellent – progress at last!!!

So you are accepting that God can POTENTIALLY be proven to exist by scientific means – and even better, that materialists WILL accept such evidence!!!

Welcome to Creation Science, Wicknight.

Sigh .... :rolleyes:

Creation Science works off the scientifically baseless assumption God does exist, despite the fact that has never been proven.

Prove to me God exists and I'll accept God exists. So would the scientific community. The community doesn't except God exists because so far no one has been able to prove He does.