The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

robindch said:

In my experience, religious people tend towards hierarchicalism, by which I mean that they feel able to deal only with decisions about information (and the rules which govern it) which are defined according to strictly-demarcated hierarchical lines. It follows from this that religious people do not seem to accept that (a) information and rules may be arrived at consensually, without a hierarchy which defines it, and therefore (b) they tend to assume that a hierarchy msut exist, even if there isn't one.

Can you comment on whether or not you feel that this is an accurate or an inaccurate summary of the epistemological framework that you use?

I can confirm it is an accurate comment on most religions. But that also applies to most of the secular world also - even Democratic Parties have their informal elites, their insiders who must be appeased if one seeks advancement. From what I have seen of the academic world, that is just as true.

I can confirm that I would be very surprised if consensus or even democracy really determined who gets a fair hearing in scientific academia.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

How is Genesis "in detail"

You will note the definition said 'usually'. Not all reports are detailed.

wolfsbane

John Doe said:

Oh, this is brilliant! In your brave new world, in order to win a debate one must be branded a raving lunatic by the majority of people!

Seems your logic is skipping a bit too, JD. The quotation is not suggesting that being branded a lunatic is the criteria for success. It is merely stating that those who expose widespread and long-held errors may well be so designated.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

To anyone who isn't a tabloid reader, the things you find in tabloids are generally called "tabloid stories", for precisely the reason you imply! A "news report" may turn out to be mistaken, and in that case it is called a "mistaken report" or "false report" - note the use of the qualifier, because a report is taken to be something true and accurate.

Therefore, using the term report is intended to convey veracity, as I said in my post...

That is the sense I used it in. You might hold that it was a false report; others might say it is an unconfirmed report; I hold it was a true and accurate report. Report it remains.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Oh, please - we can all spot this one, wolfsbane. I use nothing developed by Creation Science. The scientists who developed the things I use may have been flat-earthers, Elvisites, alien abductees, or even Scientologists, but as long as they stuck to scientific principles there isn't a problem - nor is what they have done "Flat-Earth Science", "Elvis Science", "alien science", or "Scientological Science" - it's just science.

Exactly my point. What we all use is just science - not Creation Science nor Evolution Science. The sleight of hand set up by some evolutionists here is that Science = Evolutionary Science, Creation Science therefore being non-science. So evolutionary science gives us cars, TVs, duvets. In reality, all evolutionary science gives us is a lot of complex arguments.

This is a standard philosophical mistake - it goes like this:

1. cats are black
2. this is black
3. therefore, this is a cat

or, even worse

1. those who speak the truth may be called mad
2. Creationists are called mad
3. therefore, Creationists must be speaking the truth

This one is worse because it's based on another mistake. Most of those who are called mad are called mad because they're mad...not because anyone is trying to discredit them, or suppress what they're saying, but because they are in fact completely bonkers.

I see you share John Doe's lack of logic on this. James is making no such claims to the universal sanity of those branded lunatics. He is merely pointing out that such will be the reaction when entrenched dogma is exposed as error.

To apply this to the Creationist argument, it is possible that we are completely bonkers. It is also possible that James' maxim is valid here: that we are being branded lunatics just because we expose entrenched error.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

What?!
Of course they are. If evolution is atheist as you claim, then of course Hindus, jainists, e.t.c. would be motivated to question it.
For instance, wolfsbane, why doesn't a Shinto practitioner question "atheist" evolution?

I said evolution is non-Biblical, not necessarily atheist. Excelsior is a fellow-believer, yet an evolutionist.

Believe it or not, not everybody thinks like you. Evolution is not our received dogma. You seem to believe that everybody must be religious in some way and materialism is my religion. This is not the case. Evolution is not something we believe in and we aren't as attached to it as you are to your faith.
If evolution was wrong, most scientists wouldn't care half as much as you think.

I would like to think so - but the is much evidence of refusal to consider any other explanation.

You always speak like you see atheism as the worship of material things (i.e. matter, nature). Which it isn't.

I never meant to give that impression. I think it would be perfectly possible - indeed very logical - for an atheist to have no regard for anything, much less worship it.

Also I have asked over and over again for an actual rigorous definition of irreducible complexity and mathematical impossibility. For the former all I have is a loose concept with no quantitative method of application. For the later we have the misapplication of Bayesian probability.

I can only give you a layman's definition. For a rigorous definition of irreducible complexity and mathematical impossibility, I suggest you try Wikipedia and the Creationist sites.

Argue like an adult. What follows this is too childish to rebuke.

It's your life, your freedom. I'm only suggesting you open your eyes. Christians are already aware of the encroachments on liberty posed by a fascist-liberal mindset.
Here's some 'adult' facts for you: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2168445,00.html. The chief executive of an institution aborting babies complains that photos of that work are 'very upsetting and offensive', and Edward Atkinson, 74, was sentenced to four weeks in prison last Friday for posting “very upsetting” images to Ruth May, chief executive of the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk. So much for free speech. I mean, he didn't send it to the cleaner, nor the receptionist - but to those running the show.

The truth is that most scientists, particularly in the east, have no idea Creationism even exists. Those that do find it boring and not worth their time.
The small minority who spent time on it say it was an interesting diversion for a few months before they forgot about it.

Your side isn't being suppressed as there isn't enough people actively aware of your side. Particularly in Asia and Africa.
You think Creationism is a bigger global scientific issue than it is because you're immersed in it.

As I said, they are comfortable in their presuppositions.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I feel I should say that it would raise the level of the debate here if you could drop your repeated references to professional biologists being Nazis. At this stage, I think that everybody is probably aware of your view, and it does not become any less insipid or offensive with repetition. Certainly, doing so may help to remove the conviction that your are as ill-informed about history, as you are about biology, chemistry and physics.

I should declare an interest here, as my sister-in-law is a PhD-level geneticist working here in Dublin on a range of genetic disorders of the eye, including retinitis pigmentosa, macular degeneration, Usher syndrome and others. It would surprise many, I think, to see people like her who are out there at the coal-face of biology trying to improve the lives of her fellow-humans, being continually compared to a group known, amongst other things, for gassing children.

If you can show me where I have branded all non-creationist scientists as Nazis, I will gladly recant. What I have said, or implied, is that the elite, the establishment of scientific academia are behaving in just such an intolerant way. Of course, as I have observed in other walks of life, those behaving as fascists often think of themselves as the preservers of liberty, defenders of the truth, bastions of reason against heretics/disrupters/ reactionaries.

I wish your sister-in-law well in her good work. She may have encountered a Christian geneticist from Belfast, Professor Norman Nevin. http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/genetics/gtac/proceedings2001.htm He was one of the folk who first interested me in Creationism.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Exactly my point. What we all use is just science - not Creation Science nor Evolution Science. The sleight of hand set up by some evolutionists here is that Science = Evolutionary Science, Creation Science therefore being non-science. So evolutionary science gives us cars, TVs, duvets. In reality, all evolutionary science gives us is a lot of complex arguments.

There is no such thing as "Evolution Science". Science predates the theory of evolution, and operates in many fields which bear no relation to it. The sleight of hand is the claim that Creation Science is science, despite its failure to exclude supernatural explanations. There is science, and there is pseudo-science - and Creationism is of the latter, because of this major flaw.

wolfsbane wrote:

I see you share John Doe's lack of logic on this. James is making no such claims to the universal sanity of those branded lunatics. He is merely pointing out that such will be the reaction when entrenched dogma is exposed as error.

To apply this to the Creationist argument, it is possible that we are completely bonkers. It is also possible that James' maxim is valid here: that we are being branded lunatics just because we expose entrenched error.

Yes, that's so. However, if you look back, you'll see that you had, in effect, claimed that you were correct because you were being called mad, a proposition which does not follow. No-one is attacking your signature!

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> B]wolfsbane[/B I can confirm that I would be very surprised if consensus or even
> democracy really determined who gets a fair hearing in scientific academia.

My question was whether *you* can recognise any hierarchicalism in *your* system. In the sense that one small group tells another much larger group what to think. Do you see that this happens, or do you not see that this happens?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

As I said, they are comfortable in their presuppositions.

They are uncomfortable with the Creationists abuse of science, and the use of this abuse to push a fundamentalist religious propaganda campaign into the realm of science, onto others, specially those who do not belong to the religion.

And rightly so. Creationist science, particularly young earth creationist science, is far to much like something like the religious campaigns of the middle ages, where the religious views of the Christian churchs were oppressed upon others, to be comfortable with.

One of the greatest things about proper science is that it is religion neutral. Science discovers what is, it is up to the different religions to fit that into their own belief system. Some obviously will have trouble with this, others find it easier. That isn't sciences responsiblity. Science has a responsibility only to the truth.

Creationism basically sets out to prove all other non-Judo/Christian religions are correct religions and expects that this is taught as science, abusing scientific knowledge to support this campaign of propaganda.

It is a slight variation on Ann Colters famous "Lets kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity" quote. But instead of killing their leaders Creationists want Noah's flood taught in schools as fact, and the Fall used as the reason for diease. The argument being that if Noah's flood had to have happened, how can anyone not be Christian or Jewish. The fact that Noah's flood didn't happen isn't important, the point isn't to get to the truth of something, the point is to spread the religion, to impose the religion on others. Just as it always has been, just now instead of the fundamentalists using violence they want to abuse the realm of teaching.

If young earth creationists wish to believe their religious teachings are correct go ahead. But how dare they distort science, distort the quest for truth and knowledge, to enter these beliefs into the realm of science.

We have already established that Creationist authors and groups has no problem lying in this quest to push religous propaganda. The truth comes a distant second to the attempt to muddy the waters, to confuse and baffle people into accepting the possibility that they are correct.

Personally I find the whole movement disgusting.

We didn't go through 500 years of clawing our way out of the days of religious bigotry and oppression to be thrown back into the dark ages now by a group that simply cannot accept that some descriptions, when taken literal, of their holy book, written 4000 years ago, are wrong.

J C

Wicknight
Mutation and evolution hasn't stopped. Plants and animals are evolving all around you. What do you thing these new super bugs are?

Plants and animals are undoubtedly suffering mutagenic change.
The mutation of Retroviruses and the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria are examples of the distribution, reduction, or recombination of EXISTING genetic information – but NONE of these processes have ever been observed to INCREASE genetic information.
Bacterial antibiotic resistance is caused by a LOSS of genetic information or the recombination of such defective genetic information into normal bacteria. What actually kills most bacteria is not the antibiotic itself – but the metabolites of the antibiotic – and if the ability to metabolise the antibiotic IS LOST the bacterium usually stays alive and therefore “resistant”. The non-resistant bacteria literally "know" too much for their own good!!!
Antibiotic resistance is an example of DEVOLUTION in action i.e. a LOSS of genetic information – admittedly doing some short term good for the bacterium. However, as soon as the antibiotic pressure is removed from the environment the non-resistant (but otherwise “fitter") bacteria tend to take over again and rapidly replace the resistant ones.

The topic is discussed further here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp

Originally Posted by J C
Firstly, bottle feeding children over 6 months is merely a convenience – such children are quite capable of directly drinking milk – and indeed eating solid food!!!
Wicknight
If you give a new born solid food he will die.

I actually said that children over 6 MONTHS can eat solid food.
Of course you don’t give NEWBORN children solid food - and I NEVER said that you should.


Wicknight
Actually it is a 1 years JC, when the child begins on solid food and gets the nutritian that way.

You need to talk to a mother of your acquaintance, Wicknight – or visit your local supermarket and check out the jars of solid baby food that are available for infants from 4 months onwards !!!!


Wicknight
Why would the decendents of Noah decide we should stop feeding our baby with breast milk and switch to cows milk. Why would they be bothered? Producing cows milk to feed babies would be a huge extra chore, and also lead to much higher levels of infant deaths.

They would WEAN the baby off breast milk and onto solid food supplemented with cows milk at 6 MONTHS (or made with cows milk in the case of ‘baby rice’ and other similar foods).

BTW they wouldn’t be SPECIALLY producing cows milk for babies – merely introducing their babies at 6 months to solid foods and the cows milk that the rest of the family would also be drinking.


Wicknight
Is that with or with out pasteurisation

Pasteurisation is required to eliminate any pathogenic bacteria that may be present and to extend the ‘shelf life’ of milk by eliminating the Lactobacilli that cause milk to sour.
Could I remind you that ‘shelf life’ wasn’t an issue when people were consuming milk fresh from the cow.
Pathogens would only be an issue if the cow was sick – and the person milking the cow would obviously not give milk from a sick cow to his family.

BTW, I believe Pasteurisation to be a good idea - but the absence of Pasteurisation up until relatively recent times DIDN'T kill people.


The following quote is from 'Darwinism Refuted' at
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted4.php
It shows that what Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation."

DISCUSS

"The True Origin of Species

When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was believed that he had put forward a theory that could account for the extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed that there were different variations within the same species. For instance, while wandering through England's animal fairs, he noticed that there were many different breeds of cow, and that stockbreeders selectively mated them and produced new breeds. Taking that as his starting point, he continued with the logic that "living things can naturally diversify within themselves," which means that over a long period of time all living things could have descended from a common ancestor.
However, this assumption of Darwin's about "the origin of species" was not actually able to explain their origin at all. Thanks to developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species. What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation."

THE MEANING OF VARIATIONS
Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. For example, all the people on earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.
Variation does not constitute evidence for evolution because variations are but the outcomes of different combinations of already existing genetic information, and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information. The important thing for the theory of evolution, however, is the question of how brand-new information to make a brand-new species could come about.
............However, variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase in the genetic information of the living thing, which is certainly not possible through variations.
Darwin was not aware of this fact when he formulated his theory. He thought that there was no limit to variations. In an article he wrote in 1844 he stated:"That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this belief is grounded." In The Origin of Species he cited different examples of variations as the most important evidence for his theory.
For instance, according to Darwin, animal breeders who mated different varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties that produced more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into a different species. Darwin's notion of "unlimited variation" is best seen in the following sentence from The Origin of Species:
I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale..
The reason Darwin cited such a far-fetched example was the primitive understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20th century, science has posited the principle of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), based on the results of experiments conducted on living things. This principle holds that, since all mating attempts carried out to transform a species into another have been inconclusive, there are strict barriers among different species of living things. This meant that it was absolutely impossible for animal breeders to convert cattle into a different species by mating different variations of them, as Darwin had postulated.
Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his book Darwin Retried, states:
The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent... The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip.
Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder of all time, expressed this fact when he said, "there are limits to the development possible, and these limits follow a law." In his article titled "Some Biological Problems With the Natural Selection Theory," Jerry Bergman comments by quoting from biologist Edward Deevey who explains that variations always take place within strict genetic boundaries:
Deevey concludes, "Remarkable things have been done by cross-breeding ... but wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. We can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs." A more contemporary example is the average increase in male height that has occurred the past century. Through better health care (and perhaps also some sexual selection, as some women prefer taller men as mates) males have reached a record adult height during the last century, but the increase is rapidly disappearing, indicating that we have reached our limit.
In short, variations only bring about changes which remain within the boundaries of the genetic information of species; they can never add new genetic data to them. For this reason, no variation can be considered an example of evolution. No matter how often you mate different breeds of dogs or horses, the end result will still be dogs or horses, with no new species emerging. The Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen sums the matter up this way:
The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure'."

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Mutation and evolution hasn't stopped. Plants and animals are evolving all around you. What do you thing these new super bugs are?

Plants and animals are undoubtedly suffering mutagenic change.
The mutation of Retroviruses and the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria are examples of the distribution, reduction, or recombination of EXISTING genetic information – but NONE of these processes have ever been observed to INCREASE genetic information.

Bacterial antibiotic resistance is caused by a LOSS of genetic information or the recombination of such defective genetic information into normal bacteria. What actually kills most bacteria is not the antibiotic itself – but the metabolites of the antibiotic – and if the ability to metabolise the antibiotic IS LOST the bacterium usually stays alive and therefore “resistant”. The non-resistant bacteria literally "know" too much for their own good!!!
Antibiotic resistance is an example of DEVOLUTION in action i.e. a LOSS of genetic information – admittedly doing some short term good for the bacterium. However, as soon as the antibiotic pressure is removed from the environment the non-resistant (but otherwise “fitter") bacteria tend to take over again and rapidly replace the resistant ones.

The topic is discussed further here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp

For (probably not) the last time, JC - what does "INCREASE genetic information" mean? Does it mean:

1. more genes
2. new genes
3. new beneficial mutations
4. other (please specify)

See, my fundamental difficulty here is that while the YEC arguments are superficially attractive, they are in conflict with observation. Here, for example, is a page that lists beneficial mutations. It also lists a couple of examples of speciation. All its items are properly referenced, so you can track the information back to its authors. So, er, there you go - I find it hard to see exactly what JC is getting at here.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Why would the decendents of Noah decide we should stop feeding our baby with breast milk and switch to cows milk. Why would they be bothered? Producing cows milk to feed babies would be a huge extra chore, and also lead to much higher levels of infant deaths.

They would WEAN the baby off breast milk and onto solid food supplemented with cows milk at 6 MONTHS (or made with cows milk in the case of ‘baby rice’ and other similar foods).

BTW they wouldn’t be SPECIALLY producing cows milk for babies – merely introducing their babies at 6 months to solid foods and the cows milk that the rest of the family would also be drinking.


Wicknight
Is that with or with out pasteurisation

Pasteurisation is required to eliminate any pathogenic bacteria that may be present and to extend the ‘shelf life’ of milk by eliminating the Lactobacilli that cause milk to sour.
Could I remind you that ‘shelf life’ wasn’t an issue when people were consuming milk fresh from the cow.
Pathogens would only be an issue if the cow was sick – and the person milking the cow would obviously not give milk from a sick cow to his family.

BTW, I believe Pasteurisation to be a good idea - but the absence of Pasteurisation up until relatively recent times DIDN'T kill people.

Fascinating. Also risible. Milk is not pasteurised for fun, after all. Even Wikipedia know that:

Raw milk may harbor a host of disease-causing organisms (pathogens), such as the bacteria campylobacter, escherichia, listeria, salmonella, yersinia, and brucella. Common symptoms of foodborne illness from many of these types of bacteria include diarrhea, stomach cramps, fever, headache, vomiting, and exhaustion.

Most healthy people recover from foodborne illness within a short period of time, but others may have symptoms that are chronic, severe, or life-threatening.

People with weakened immune systems, such as elderly people, children, and those with certain diseases or conditions, are most at risk for severe infections from pathogens that may be present in raw milk. In pregnant women, Listeria monocytogenes-caused illness can result in miscarriage, fetal death, or illness or death of a newborn infant. And Escherichia coli infection has been linked to hemolytic uremic syndrome, a condition that can cause kidney failure and death.

Some of the diseases that pasteurization can prevent are tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, salmonellosis, strep throat, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever.

In addition, it's interesting to wonder, in the context of this unbelievably silly claim about cows, how and when the problem of lactose intolerance arose. After all, if we look at lactose intolerance worldwide (see here), we can see an interesting pattern - lactose tolerance is unusual, and the rates of intolerance rise steeply outside north-western Europe:

The prevalence of primary lactose maldigestion is 3–5% in Scandinavia, 17% in Finland, 5–15% in Great Britain, 15% in Germany, 15–20% in Austria, 17% in northern France, 65% in southern France, 20–70% in Italy, 55% in the Balkans, 70–90% in Africa (exeptions: Bedouins, 25%; Tuareg, 13%; Fulani, 22%), 80% in Central Asia, 90–100% in Eastern Asia, 30% in northern India, 70% in southern India, 15% in North American whites, 80% in North American blacks, 53% in North American Hispanics, and 65–75% in South America

J C wrote:

The following quote is from 'Darwinism Refuted' at
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted4.php
It shows that the Darwin's ideas about "the origin of species" were actually not able to explain the origin of species at all. What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation."

DISCUSS
The True Origin of Species...For this reason, no variation can be considered an example of evolution. No matter how often you mate different breeds of dogs or horses, the end result will still be dogs or horses, with no new species emerging. The Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen sums the matter up this way:
The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure'.

I draw your attention to:

Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. "

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
from Observed Instances of Speciation

This is one example. Contrary to what appears to be claimed in JC's quote, speciation has been observed arising from variation repeatedly. All that is required is that the variation be meaningful in producing two populations that do not crossbreed. An example of such meaningful variation would be timing of the breeding season. If "natural variation" caused half of a population to breed in March, and the other half in May, there are two populations. Accumulated mutations will eventually render these two non-interbreeding populations distinct species.

Virtually everything JC said in his post is in conflict with observation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> If you can show me where I have branded all non-creationist scientists as
> Nazis, I will gladly recant.

In your postings, you have asserted that modern biologists are behaving like Nazis:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51826327&postcount=2713
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51806356&postcount=2611
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51780576&postcount=2538
(etc, there are quite a few)

> "They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew..." [...] Recognise the
> abuse of power in time, for your time will come too

...in which you suggest that it's somehow likely that somebody will turn up at my front-door enquiring if I accept that differential reproductive success is a reasonable explanation for the diversity of life? Get real, for heaven's sake!

> What I have said, or implied, is that the elite, the establishment of
> scientific academia are behaving in just such an intolerant way.

Can you tell me the names of ten "elite" biologists who have gassed children? If you can't, then I think it would be best to retract your assertion that "elite" biologists are behaving like Nazis.

robindch

> [Scofflaw] Virtually everything JC said in his post is in conflict with observation.

...and not even just one or two observations, but observation all the time. This one turned up on BBC news today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5245950.stm

Sapien

robindch wrote:

> [Scofflaw] Virtually everything JC said in his post is in conflict with observation.

...and not even just one or two observations, but observation all the time. This one turned up on BBC news today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5245950.stm

Hmmm. So would that be "uphill", "downhill" or "caution: loose gravel" evolution?

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

This one turned up on BBC news today:

Nice one, I missed that, thanks. Also interesting to note that this all happened at the University of Utah. Is that not Mormon Central!

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

Hmmm. So would that be "uphill", "downhill" or "caution: loose gravel" evolution?

And does it "INCREASE genetic information"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

J C's 'Theory of Devolution'
Well here is (almost) a testable theory, all creatures were created perfectly (of course) 7000 years ago, and have been losing genetic information (devolving) ever since.

J C, has this loss of genetic information ever been measured? I mean how much is being lost, and how long before it all is lost?

Also, I'll ask again, would you consider penguins to be 'devolved' birds, of did God create them just as we see them today. Either way, how can you tell is a species has devolved from another since creation, or whether God created them as 2 different species?

5uspect

pH wrote:

J C's 'Theory of Devolution'
Well here is (almost) a testable theory, all creatures were created perfectly (of course) 7000 years ago, and have been losing genetic information (devolving) ever since.

Shouldn't DNA taxonomy show this?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> it comes down to trust, I trust that the Bible is the word of God. I trust
> that He made it how He said He did. I don't trust forensic scientists who
> I think are not even counting the possibility of God existing

I'd like to stand up in support of Brian here (genuinely) -- his position is completely consistent: which is that he believes that his own particular interpretation of the first few pages of the bible is perfect and infallible and therefore that anything which suggests that his own interpretation is wrong, is automatically wrong, simply because it suggests that he might be wrong. It's as unarguable and as simple as that.

Our other creationists colleagues are running into evidential trouble because they're attempting to map the physical world (and its physical evidence) to their own meta-physical interpretations. The logic is similar to BC's, but differs in that the evidence presented by the physical world is permitted to be mildly relevant, rather than irrelevant.

Started off well enough there Robin. After that it looks like a bit of an insult?

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Started off well enough there Robin. After that it looks like a bit of an insult?

Does he misrepresent your position?

robindch

> it looks like a bit of an insult?

Apologies if it seemed like an insult, it wasn't intended to be one, but just a sentence summarizing what I understand your position is: that your interpretation of the the text of the bible is the final authority on just about everything and that anything that indicates that this interpretation could be incorrect (ie, physical evidence indicating that Genesis is a myth) can be ignored because it is wrong, de facto.

If that's not your position, then I have indeed misrepresented you -- for which I sincerely apologize -- and hope to be put right on exactly what you believe!

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> it looks like a bit of an insult?

Apologies if it seemed like an insult, it wasn't intended to be one, but just a sentence summarizing what I understand your position is: that your interpretation of the the text of the bible is the final authority on just about everything !

This is correct. But I would add that as I learn more and more about who God is, my interpretation gets refined. There are areas that are not dogmatic and areas that have to be.

robindch wrote:

[and that anything that indicates that this interpretation could be incorrect (ie, physical evidence indicating that Genesis is a myth) can be ignored because it is wrong, de facto.!

This bit I can see where you came to this conclusion. I would disagree because I don't see that the evidence presented is conclusive. (And this is the staement that will frustrate you )

robindch wrote:

[If that's not your position, then I have indeed misrepresented you -- for which I sincerely apologize -- and hope to be put right on exactly what you believe!

All apologies accepted, but I wasn't insulted at all. I knew where you were coming from.

I know that there was no intent to insult and I wasn't insulted. That's why I've got the and the . I actually chuckled.



I don't discount based on my desired interpretation. I discount a creation theory that does not include a creator. Mainly because I can't get over the idea that everything just happened by chance.

robindch

> There are areas that are not dogmatic and areas that have to be.

That's where we differ: I believe that only the rules for dealing with information should be dogmatic (ie, honesty, completeness and accuracy), while the facts and conclusions which are derived from the rules are non-dogmatic and up for constant re-evaluation.

Believing in unchangable, dogmatic conclusions is reduces one to the level of a recording machine, or a piece of paper.

> I would disagree because I don't see that the evidence presented
> is conclusive. (And this is the staement that will frustrate you )

No, it won't frustrate me, because I think I'm fully aware at this stage of most of the environmental conditions which made you arrive at this conclusion.

> I don't discount based on my desired interpretation. I discount a creation
> theory that does not include a creator.

Bzzzt. Contradiction! You can't demand a pre-condition, then say that you're not skewing your interpretation. What was the old ironic line: "Lets have a fair trial, then hang him!"?

> Mainly because I can't get over the idea that everything just
> happened by chance.

Well, all I can suggest again is that you read up on evolution (or ask here) because it claims that the diversity of life arose with chance as a one small component working within a very simple meta-framework. To say that you don't like it because "everything just happened by chance" is arguing with the wind, because evolution specifically does *not* say that; whereas your own faulty understanding of evolution makes you think that it does.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

That's where we differ: I believe that only the rules for dealing with information should be dogmatic (ie, honesty, completeness and accuracy), while the facts and conclusions which are derived from the rules are non-dogmatic and up for constant re-evaluation.

Believing in unchangable, dogmatic conclusions is reduces one to the level of a recording machine, or a piece of paper..

Depending on the dogma. In math 2+2=4 is dogma. You can't waver from that.

In Christianity you can not waver from the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of scripture, the trinity among a few. The problems arise when one attempts to make a conviction a dogma, ie. drinking of alcohol, playing of cards, dancing, to name a few.

robindch wrote:

> I don't discount based on my desired interpretation. I discount a creation
> theory that does not include a creator.

Bzzzt. Contradiction! You can't demand a pre-condition, then say that you're not skewing your interpretation. What was the old ironic line: "Lets have a fair trial, then hang him!"? .

Depending on the pre-condition. The question here is: does God exist? I would say Yes, He does because science does not adequately provide an answer otherwise. The idea that everything came about by accident just does not wash. When building our plane we have a pre-condition called gravity. One needs to take that into account while designing the aircraft. Now you would argue that gravity has been proven whereas God hasn't been. I will argue that God hasn't been disproven, whereas He has been proven through the Bible and the life of Christ. So it is no longer a precondition but a fact that isn't taken into account.

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote:

Depending on the dogma. In math 2+2=4 is dogma. You can't waver from that.

Okay, I don't get this maybe its a but too subtle for me, can you explain further? If gravity has been proven using the same mathematical logic that gives us 2+2=4 and we know gravity exists how is it just a dogma?

BrianCalgary wrote:

When building our plane we have a pre-condition called gravity. One needs to take that into account while designing the aircraft. Now you would argue that gravity has been proven whereas God hasn't been. I will argue that God hasn't been disproven, whereas He has been proven through the Bible and the life of Christ. So it is no longer a precondition but a fact that isn't taken into account.

Yes it is a fact that god hasn't been disproven and is not taken into account during the design of an aeroplane (but perhaps during the odd takeoff by a few passengers). But by that same reasoning you can claim just about anything your imagination can come up with, hence the FSM. Your faith in the bible is just relying on the imaginations of those who went before you.

Can you elaborate a little on your logic:

-Science can prove the existence of gravity.
-Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of supernatural phonomena.
-The bible is a book wrien by other people originating several thousands of years ago.
-It describes a god who created the world and who later sent his son to us.
-This book must be literally true because (insert reasons here)
-God exists, scientific evidence is wrong

BrianCalgary

5uspect wrote:

Okay, I don't get this maybe its a but too subtle for me, can you explain further? If gravity has been proven using the same mathematical logic that gives us 2+2=4 and we know gravity exists how is it just a dogma?

I would define dogma as something that is factual. Gravity is factual. Mathematical equations are factual. God's existence is factual. Jesus being God is factual.

5uspect wrote:

Yes it is a fact that god hasn't been disproven and is not taken into account during the design of an aeroplane (but perhaps during the odd takeoff by a few passengers). But by that same reasoning you can claim just about anything your imagination can come up with, hence the FSM. Your faith in the bible is just relying on the imaginations of those who went before you.

Disagree. FSM=?. My faith in the Bible is based upon the following: It was written over 1500 years by 40 different people on three continents in three languages. In times of peace and war, prosperity and famine, by kings and paupers; and they all agree on the main theme: God's plan of salvation.

Also all the prophecies from the OT have come true with an accuracy rate of 100%, only God could have done that.

Can you elaborate a little on your logic:

-Science can prove the existence of gravity.
-Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of supernatural phonomena.
-The bible is a book wrien by other people originating several thousands of years ago.
-It describes a god who created the world and who later sent his son to us.
-This book must be literally true because (insert reasons here)
-God exists, scientific evidence is wrong[/QUOTE]

robindch

> In math 2+2=4 is dogma. You can't waver from that.

I most certainly can, because what you have written is wrong. You are misusing the word 'dogma' (a statement which is held to be undisputably true) and you are misunderstanding maths. "2+2=4" is a statement in one particular variation of symbolic logic. If you work in base-3 arithmetic, you get "2+2=11", in boolean arithmetic, you get "1+1=1". There are plenty of other variations.

Do you accept that "In math 2+2=4 is dogma" is wrong?

> In Christianity you can not waver from the deity of Christ, the inerrancy
> of scripture, the trinity among a few. The problems arise when one
> attempts to make a conviction a dogma, ie. drinking of alcohol, playing
> of cards, dancing, to name a few.

I don't see any difference between you declaring the "deity of christ" and somebody else saying that a dance is the first step on the road to hell. Both statements are accepted as true and neither seem to be criticized much by the people who hold the beliefs. Who's to say that the other guy doesn't view your conviction that dancing won't lead to hell as a 'dogma' too?

When you can't agree on what you're talking about, how is it possible to agree on any conclusion about it?

> Depending on the pre-condition. [...]

I have read the last para several times and I really haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Could you try to rephrase it so that it could be more clearly understood?

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote:

I would define dogma as something that is factual. Gravity is factual. Mathematical equations are factual. God's existence is factual. Jesus being God is factual.

Do you mean something you believe is factual? Something that required no more than personal credulity? We know to a very high level of certainity that science is factual - the very fact that we are using computers to communicate is evidence of this. How does your definition of dogma affect the more mainstream interpretation of dogma when applied to other religions. Are their views just lies?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Disagree. FSM=?.

FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster

BrianCalgary wrote:

My faith in the Bible is based upon the following: It was written over 1500 years by 40 different people on three continents in three languages. In times of peace and war, prosperity and famine, by kings and paupers; and they all agree on the main theme: God's plan of salvation.

Okay, however I cannot accept that this can be a reason to accept a literal understanding of the bible of even to accept it as evidence for god. There are thousands of people writing an equivalent if not greater amount on the internet about star wars, it doesn't make it true. The difference here is time, but i don't feel this helps your arguement, long periods of time introduce (to borrow from evolution) copying errors, mutations (and yes J C an increase in information). The mulitple religous faiths in the worls show this.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Also all the prophecies from the OT have come true with an accuracy rate of 100%, only God could have done that.

Okay I'm sure this has been discussed to death elsewhere, maybe post a link and i'll go read that before starting it all again.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Can you elaborate a little on your logic:

Sure

-Science can prove the existence of gravity.
We can observe the effects of different masses on each other. Using maths we can accurately predict the movements of planets and stars as well as the trajectory of an aircraft as it flies through the air.


-Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of supernatural phonomena.
If someone claims that an aeroplane lifted from the runway in a manner that aerodynamics say are impossible then either our understanding of aerodynamics are incorrect or the person is wrong. However if the same effect cannot be repeated according to the original claim science must assume that the claim is incorrect or misinformed. We cannot prove that the effect did or didn't happen only that by our understanding of fluid mechanics such an event could not have happened.

-The bible is a book wrien by other people originating several thousands of years ago.
Explains itself really...

-It describes a god who created the world and who later sent his son to us.

It claims that everything was created by god etc.

-This book must be literally true because (insert reasons here)
This book, or the series of claims in the book are built like a house of cards. If you accept the Jesus Claim, you must accept the Moses Claim and so on through Babel, the flood, adam and eve and the six day creation.

-God exists, scientific evidence is wrong
You personally believe that Jesus is your saviour and he died for all of us sinners. For you to accept this claim you must maintain this house of cards. Since science is never 100% sure about anything then anything it says is open to interpretation and can still potentilly be proved wrong. Religion is 100% sure about its facts and cannot be questioned.


Thats my understanding of your view anyway.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> In math 2+2=4 is dogma. You can't waver from that.

I most certainly can, because what you have written is wrong. You are misusing the word 'dogma' (a statement which is held to be undisputably true) and you are misunderstanding maths. "2+2=4" is a statement in one particular variation of symbolic logic. If you work in base-3 arithmetic, you get "2+2=11", in boolean arithmetic, you get "1+1=1". There are plenty of other variations.

Do you accept that "In math 2+2=4 is dogma" is wrong?

Oh man Robin. What a disappointment. Bringing various bases into the mix. So next time I purchase something I'll switch the base to my advantage? :rolleyes:

robindch wrote:

[> In Christianity you can not waver from the deity of Christ, the inerrancy
> of scripture, the trinity among a few. The problems arise when one
> attempts to make a conviction a dogma, ie. drinking of alcohol, playing
> of cards, dancing, to name a few.

I don't see any difference between you declaring the "deity of christ" and somebody else saying that a dance is the first step on the road to hell. Both statements are accepted as true and neither seem to be criticized much by the people who hold the beliefs. Who's to say that the other guy doesn't view your conviction that dancing won't lead to hell as a 'dogma' too?

When you can't agree on what you're talking about, how is it possible to agree on any conclusion about it??

You mean just as mathematicians can't agree on what 2+2 equals?

robindch wrote:

I have read the last para several times and I really haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Could you try to rephrase it so that it could be more clearly understood?

Which paragraph?