The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

> Everest only arose AFTER the Flood

No, the bible doesn't say anything about Everest rising up from the plains (in fact it's strangely silent about everywhere outside the middle east. it's almost like god didn't know about it at all when he was writing the bible!) Anyhow, we can divinely know that everest must have been there from the start since its growth isn't mentioned. It's a bit like that thing about Jesus not laughing, not being married and not having kids -- never mentioned, didn't happen!

Anyhow, what about that creationist geological research. Any ideas? Shouldn't our creationists be out there digging holes and checking to make sure that Ireland is actually a big lump of granite and sandstone (etc) floating around on an underground sea? I'd hate to think that they'd be avoiding this priceless work which would prove for once and for all that the bible is right! Maybe AiG could divert a few million from their marketing budget to check this vital fact out and help to gain a few more (wealthy) souls for its Direct Marketing campaigns! With the right kind of heavenly guidance, they could even strike some over-underground-sea oil or gas and make even more millions than they can already do by selling the slack-jawed things to keep their mouths moving!

Go Ken, go!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Creationists constantly claim that scientists are blind to the possibility of Biblical truth - without noting that the majority of scientists follow a religion, many of them the Abrahamic religions.

Creationists don’t make any such claims as many leading scientists are themselves Creationists.

No, they aren't. There are only a handful, virtually none of whom would be described as "leading" by any but someone who follows them.

J C wrote:

Equally, Creation Science contains within it’s ranks members of all of the major Christian Denominations as well as Jews and Moslems

No, it doesn't....although it was very restrained of you to wait a couple of posts before making this claim.

J C wrote:

....and Sapien has just confirmed that science DOESN’T rule out the investigation of possible actions by God a priori.

No, science does not rule out God. It rules out any supernatural explanations for events - but not supernatural agents acting in a naturalistic and causal fashion. The rest of what you are claiming is not in Sapien's post - nor, by the way, is any single person in a position to "confirm" such a statement about science (again, this is your claim, not Sapien's).

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
On the scientific side, C14 is produced in carbonaceous material by incident radiation from radioisotope decay in the host rock - one of the reasons that radiocarbon dating is unreliable in older materials, where the added C14 becomes a significant source of error.

ANOTHER good reason why we can draw no reliable conclusion from the radio-carbon dating of anything in excess of about 2,000 years.

No, that's 50-60,000 years.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
So our descriptions of tectonic events are "all the springs of the great deep burst forth,”

Could I remind you that this verse is describing a worldwide 150-day process where massive quantities of water were released under pressure via the rupturing of the Earths Crust (as implied by the phrase “burst forth”).

No, you can't, because it doesn't say any such thing. It can be taken to say "massive quantities of water were released under pressure". Burst forth is one translation, "loosed" is another. In addition, the phrase continues with "and the windows of heaven were opened". Look up - do you see little square panes in the sky?

Your interpretation of this as a tectonic event is just that - your interpretation. It means nothing.

J C wrote:

Equally, the only way that the “waters returned from off the earth continually” at the end of Noah’s Flood would be after massive upthrusts produced our modern continents and their mountains with corresponding downthrusts producing our modern ocean basins and their trenches.

Massive volcanic and tectonoic processes would undoubtedly accompany such large-scale processes.

Again, no. Another, more literal translation is "And turn back do the waters from off the earth, going on and returning". Nothing dramatic at all - the waters drain away, as they do after any flood, off an otherwise unchanged earth.

You have chosen to imagine certain things. They are not in the Bible.

J C wrote:

And this was the ‘great rebuttal’ to the above correct statement by Dr Gish on talkorigins.org……………..

“As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today."

A faith based statement of unfounded hope that “transitional species must have existed” followed by an admission that nobody has ever seen them!! Sounds like the Yeti of Evolutionary Science!!!:D

See the note about Gish's failure to update his argument in the light of existing fossil transitional forms. Apply this to yourself.

J C wrote:

Equally, why would a reptile with perfectly good hearing and one auditory ossicle achieve ANY advantage from moving to three auditory ossicles?

The advantages provided by the three-bone arrangement we mammals have as opposed to the reptile arrangement are several - feel free to Google them.

J C wrote:

And finally the supposed ‘clincher’ on the talkorigins site …………..
“It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones”

To which I will merely ask, what does articulated jaws on a snake, that allows it to EAT things larger than itself, have ANYTHING to do with HEARING??

Clincher? Something described as "worthy of note" indicates a minor supporting point. The point here is that some snakes have jaws with two joints rather than one, showing that a double jaw arrangement is mechanically usable.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Sex between animals, particularly mammals in a very small containment area would not have happened

You have obviously had a very ‘sheltered’ existence Wicknight.
You should come and see a stallion ‘perform’ in a ‘small containment area’!!!:eek:

Idiot. The horse is a domesticated animal. Go read Gerald Durrell, or any zoo reports, for the immense difficulties in getting non-domesticated animals to breed in captivity, let alone in confined spaces. Heave your mind out of your AgSci rut for a change.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
So what stopped the lions (who were rapidly increasing in numbers) from simply killing all the zebras, or deer, or pigs etc. A lion will eat an animal every 2 weeks. That is much much faster than a mammal such as a zebra can reproduced. Half the animals off the ark would have been eatten in their first few weeks.

There was ‘easier meat’ available for the carnivores in the form of carrion from all of the dead animals killed by the Flood and piled up in ‘Elephant Graveyards’ all over the Earth.
The sheer volume of dead animals in these ‘putrid piles’ would have preserved most of the meat in the anaerobic environment thus created.
Something akin to anaerobic bogs that have preserved protein-rich remains for centuries.

The Lion is a lazy animal – and they only started chasing Zebra when the carrion ran out. By then the Zebra probably numbered many thousands.!!!

That's.....it's.....no, really, it's a very sad little argument. Have you forgotten that your "Flood", as well as being the prime extinction event, is also responsible for nearly all the sediments? You must have, I think, otherwise I'm sure even you wouldn't have written this pathetic tripe. "The Lion is a lazy animal" - what are you, Hilaire Belloc?

Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

You have obviously had a very ‘sheltered’ existence Wicknight.
You should come and see a stallion ‘perform’ in a ‘small containment area’!!!:eek:

And you obviously know nothing about animals in captivity. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject before you make another rather silly remark :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

There was ‘easier meat’ available for the carnivores in the form of carrion from all of the dead animals killed by the Flood and piled up in ‘Elephant Graveyards’ all over the Earth.

A lion will not eat a carcus that is a week old, let alone one that is a year old and has been rotting at the bottom of the ocean.

J C wrote:

The sheer volume of dead animals in these ‘putrid piles’ would have preserved most of the meat in the anaerobic environment thus created.

Again, educate yourself to what happens to meat in the ocean. There is a reason why if you dive down to titanic you don't see any dead bodies, or even bones. Organic sustances are broken down very quickly in the ocean due to the trillions of tiny organisms that live there. There would be no meat after a week let alone a year.

J C wrote:

The Lion is a lazy animal

I hope you are joking ... either that or your knowledge of lions is about as good as your knowledge of .. well .. anything really, ie very ill-informed.

J C wrote:

By then the Zebra probably numbered many thousands.!!! :cool: :cool:

The Zebra population would have grown to many thousand in 2 weeks ... wow, that is quite a population growth, even by YEC standard :rolleyes:

Nonsense

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Equally, Everest only arose AFTER the Flood - and ALL of the water wasn't under the surface of the Earth BEFORE the Flood.

You keep claiming that JC, but there is absolutely no biblical passage to support that claim.

The bible only says that water gushed forward from the ground. No mention of tectonic activity. No mention of land mass movement, earth quakes, mountains forming etc

Nothing in the Bible supports, or even hints at, your theory that the large mountains and land masses were formed by the flood.

condra

ugh.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

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

Science I have no problem with. By Evolution Science I mean that philosopy that claims science supports its assertions. But since it does so, and uses scienctific argument to do so, I am happy to call it 'science', not of course implying an equivalence to Science as such. I apply the same standard to Creation Science.

Science is about the natural mechanisms of life. It can - should - only describe those. It can not rule out a supernatural cause for any occurance, but can only describe the effects observed. To rule out beforehand any explanation of data that involves a supernatural cause - a global flood, for example - is a false application of science. Real science would examine the data to see if it is in accord with the alledged cause. Evolutionary Science does not want that to happen, for it knows its case is exceedingly shakey, and it is driven be an antipathy to the religion that would be supported by such confirmation.

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!

That would be a mistaken impression taken from my comments. I expect at least common sense understanding of my words. I do not think you would say something as obviously silly as 'I am correct because I am being called mad', and I expected a similar assumption from others in regard to me.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

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?

If you mean in an absolute sense, as in Roman Catholicism for example, or Mormonism, J.Ws, Etc., then, No.

My local church is independant from outside control. It is ruled by elders, who teach and direct it from the Bible. However, if it gets to the place where the elders are perceived to go so beyond the Bible in either their teaching or governance that the congregation find it unacceptable, then they would be removed from office.

There are other churches I regard as true churches, where the elders cannot be so removed. Some are presbyterian in order, the power to remove lying with the wider eldership from the associated churches. Some are independant congregations. In any event, even with these, the ordinary believer feels free to reject what he regards as serious error and to take himself to another congregation where the gospel is better lived out.

Hope that answers the question.

J C

Sapien
By "NOVEL" you mean of interest to you, or of use to you in your argument. You have no comment on the elaborations that I set out? Because, you see, I intended those to be more important.

No. I did really mean “NOVEL” (as in new)!!!

You see, this is the first time that I am aware of where the following argument has been deployed :-

“My question to all atheists – what IF God exists and DID Create the Universe and all life – then how could science establish that this actually occurred if it rules out a priori the POSSIBILITY of Creation?
It is equivalent to a Creation Scientist ruling out all consideration of a materialistic explanation for all phenomenon – and BTW Creation Scientists DON’T rule out materialistic explanations. Many phenomena ARE indeed satisfactorily explained by materialistic mechanisms – but the ‘origins question’ simply ISN’T. “

It is also the first time on this thread that the logic that Science should rule NOTHING out a priori has been accepted. :cool:


Robin
No, the bible doesn't say anything about Everest rising up from the plains (in fact it's strangely silent about everywhere outside the middle east. it's almost like god didn't know about it at all when he was writing the bible!) Anyhow, we can divinely know that everest must have been there from the start since its growth isn't mentioned. It's a bit like that thing about Jesus not laughing, not being married and not having kids -- never mentioned, didn't happen!

Not mentioning something doesn’t prove it one way or the other.

The Bible made a general statement that the “waters returned from off the earth continually” at the end of Noah’s Flood. It doesn’t mention Everest specifically and there was no reason to do so (just like there was no reason to name any of the other hills and mountains that arose out of the waters worldwide either).

BTW the Bible records that Jesus exhibited the full range of Human emotions from anger to tears – so He probably also laughed.

The fact that He was God incarnate rules out marriage and the fact that He was sinless, rules out sexual relations outside of marriage.


Robin
Anyhow, what about that creationist geological research. Any ideas?

……….Shouldn't our creationists be out there digging holes and checking to make sure that Ireland is actually a big lump of granite and sandstone (etc)

I'd hate to think that they'd be avoiding this priceless work which would prove for once and for all that the bible is right!

Maybe AiG could divert a few million from their marketing budget to check this vital fact out

Go Ken, go!

Wow!! :eek:

Robin, you’re so full of enthusiasm and ideas!!!

I particularly like your reference to “our Creationists” (it shows team building skills) and especially your new found zeal for Ken Ham as exemplifies in your final exclamation to “Go Ken, go!”


Scofflaw
it was very restrained of you to wait a couple of posts before making this claim.

That’s me all right – modest and restrained to a fault!!! :cool:


Scofflaw
science does not rule out God. It rules out any supernatural explanations for events - but not supernatural agents acting in a naturalistic and causal fashion.

Excellent, Scofflaw.

That is EXACTLY WHAT Creation Science investigates – God as a supernatural intelligent agent acting in a causal fashion during Creation Week and again during Noah’s Flood. :cool:

So now we have Sapien, Robin and Scofflaw thinking like Creationists, writing like Creationists – and do you know what – you have all become Creationists!!!! :eek:


Scofflaw

It can be taken to say "massive quantities of water were released under pressure". Burst forth is one translation, "loosed" is another.

Whether the massive quantities of water were “released under pressure” or “burst forth” the critical issue was the tectonic movements that would be required to produce such a phenomenon, in the first place.


Scofflaw

Another, more LITERAL translation is "And turn back do the waters from off the earth, going on and returning". Nothing dramatic at all - the waters drain away, as they do after any flood, off an otherwise unchanged earth.

Not only are you thinking like a Creationist but you have now become a Genesis LITERALIST!!!! :eek:

Now that’s PROGRESS!!!

The proof that the Earth WAS changed dramatically lies in all those fossil creatures that were wiped out in the Flood and the confirmation in Gen 7:21-23 that ALL terrestrial and avian creatures (except those on the Ark were drowned.


Scofflaw
The horse is a domesticated animal. Go read Gerald Durrell, or any zoo reports, for the immense difficulties in getting non-domesticated animals to breed in captivity, let alone in confined spaces.

The horse is a WILD animal that has been (somewhat) DOMESTICATED!!

If you ever saw a stallion in the presence of a mare on heat you would classify him as “wild” first and “domesticated” a very distant second!!!! :eek:

The reason that Zoos experience difficulties in breeding ENDANGERED species is due to the well-known problem of ‘Extinction Depression’.

This problem seem to affect many endangered species BOTH in the wild AND in captivity.
When numbers decline to critically low levels – many animals seem to ‘give up the ghost’ and stop breeding!!!

The reasons are not fully understood but they seem to include lack of sexual partner variety (due to the small number of potential partners) and inbreeding depression (which often affects sexual fecundity and especially libido). :cool:


Wicknight
A lion will not eat a carcus that is a week old, let alone one that is a year old and has been rotting at the bottom of the ocean.

A Lion will eat whatever comes easy – and you can’t get anything “easier” than Carrion.

Carcasses under water would be preserved due to the anaerobic conditions and the carcases in the centre of a ‘putrid pile’ would remain edible (for a Lion) for some time. :cool:


Wicknight
Again, educate yourself to what happens to meat in the ocean. There is a reason why if you dive down to titanic you don't see any dead bodies, or even bones.

Physician heal thyself!!!

The reason that we don’t find bodies on the Titanic is because :-

1. Many of them were rescued.
2. Most of those who weren’t rescued floated to the surface and/or were eaten by macro-fauna like carnivorous fish.
3. It is over ninety years ago.

However, the sheer QUANTITY of dead animals in Noah’s Flood is the real difference.

Carnivores, such as the Big Cats are also capable of living on a vegetarian diet – and during World War II, because of the scarcity of meat, the Lions in London Zoo eat a largely vegetarian diet without any ill effects. Taurine would be available by chewing on a few bones - or going deeper into piles of 'Flood Kill'.
Taurine is also present in high concentration in algae as well as insects and arthropods - so the Lions could happily 'nibble' on a few Locusts to supplement their Taurine levels - and algae would also be plentiful!!!

You should also bear in mind that we are starting off with ONLY two Lions - and a World full of algae, insects and 'Flood Kill'.

Equally, dogs would happily live on vegetable scraps and milk.

Amphibians would be available in relatively large numbers for any enterprising Carnivore looking for some variety in it's diet - and Bears would go fishing!!

In any event, Carnivores only needed to scavenge for about 10 years until normal prey numbers became established again:cool:

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

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.

They are not asking that the Bible faith be taught as fact. They are asking that any discussion of origins honestly examines the scientific arguments both for special creation and evolution, the two possibilities offered by scientific argument today.

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.

Evolution seems to better fit that description, don't you think? It is the one that refuses to contemplate any alternative; that exercises the power of censorship; that is the established view.

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.

If only it worked like that! What we see instead is a dogmatic defence of evolution as unquestionable 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.

Creation Science and the Creation Science movement are not the same thing. One is science, the other a religious movement that uses it to further its aims. We expect science taught as science. That is a matter of civil liberties and proper education for all. We are interested in more than this of course, being a Christian (in our neck of the woods) movenment. We will use the facts of science to encourage all to believe in all the assertions of the Bible. But we do not want the State to do the latter. That would be an abuse of civil liberty in a secular society.

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.

Is that a fact? I can see the scientific case for a global flood being made, but not that it involved Noah or anyone else. And the Fall is beyond scientific argument. Where have you seen Creationism demanding it be taught in schools as science? Or is that just your presumption?

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.

As I said, this seems to be a figment of your fevered imagination. But I'm open to see the proof. If it were true that Creationists were seeking non-verifiable events taught as fact, I would oppose that just as strongly as I do evolution. Let's see the proof.

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.

I dispute the lying bit. I'm sure all scientists are open to logical flaws and presuppositions. See the latest on dating for a exposure of this: The Dating Game http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

Personally I find the whole movement disgusting.

Exactly my feelings on the evolutionary movement.

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.

Or others that their anti-religious ascent-of-man tree is a mirage. But it is worth noting that the religious prisons, torture chambers, execution posts of the Inquisition were replaced in the 20th Century by the anti-religious (and evolutionist) concentration camps,gulags and execution pits of the Nazis and Communists. It is their scientific dogma that is in the driving seat of scientific academia today.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

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

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=2713
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=2611
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=2538
(etc, there are quite a few)

Some modern biologists are behaving like Nazis, not in gassing Jews, but in suppressing opposing views, as I said in post 2713 - When we see liberties being cut away without very pressing reasons, it is time to wake up. Eternal vigilance and all that.

...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!

I am not implying so narrow a scenario. Just that if you tolerate suppression of debate, you should not be suprised if society turns upon some view of yours as unacceptable for debate. It may be scientific, it may be ethical, it may be political.

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.

If that were all the Nazis did, then you would have a point. As I pointed out, suppression of dissent was one more aspect of totalitarian control.

But since you asked, here's one PhD antropologist and Medical Doctor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele#Early_life.2C_career.2C_and_education and this from: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html (3) Even Mengele (known as the Angel of Death) once boasted a respectable professional career. An article pertaining to Doctor Joseph Mengele's work at the Institute of Heredity & Racial Hygiene of the University of Frankfurt was listed in the 1938 edition of the prestigious Index Medicus.30 Mengele's earlier work in oral embryology and in the developmental anomalies of cleft palate and harelip have been cited in several texts and articles on the subject. Additionally, in recognition of Mengele's work with his mentor Von Verschuer, the German Research Society provided a generous financial grant to Mengele, enabling him to continue his work on the study of inmates with eyes of different colors.

and this from: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr18.htm Interesting, however, is that several Nazi biologists, including Lehmann, were reinstituted in the 1950s despite strong protests from their colleagues. A most glaring case is that of 1973 Nobel Prize-winner Konrad Lorenz, whose ethological research on animal behavior interested the Nazis for its potential application to humans. Although Lorenz's work established a bona fide biological field, his comments during the period 1941-1945 (analyzed in detail, 171-200) suggest that he should have been excluded from further activity. Still, he eventually won back the approval of his colleagues. The German scientific authorities' inability to clean up their own ranks may have contributed to the decline of German biology after the war.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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

Science I have no problem with. By Evolution Science I mean that philosopy that claims science supports its assertions. But since it does so, and uses scienctific argument to do so, I am happy to call it 'science', not of course implying an equivalence to Science as such. I apply the same standard to Creation Science.

Science is about the natural mechanisms of life. It can - should - only describe those. It can not rule out a supernatural cause for any occurance, but can only describe the effects observed. To rule out beforehand any explanation of data that involves a supernatural cause - a global flood, for example - is a false application of science. Real science would examine the data to see if it is in accord with the alledged cause. Evolutionary Science does not want that to happen, for it knows its case is exceedingly shakey, and it is driven be an antipathy to the religion that would be supported by such confirmation.

Ah. Let me just check you're saying what I think you're saying here: you're saying your problem is in the use of science to support an atheistic and materialistic worldview (which you refer to as 'evolutionism')? You accept that science, as a discipline, rules out supernatural explanations of phenomena, while not ruling out supernatural causes? Science doesn't rule out God as a cause, but does rule out either non-explanations or miracles (God so ordered). "Creation Science" is treatable as science as long as it observes this ruling.

Do you accept that science has to rule out simple explanations of the kind "water runs downhill because God made it so", but does not rule out the explanation "water runs downhill because of gravity, which is a property of the Universe that God created"?

If so, I have no issues with this point. Science does not support atheism any more than it does monotheism, or pantheism - it makes no statement about the supernatural at all, nor can it. People like Dawkins may believe that science supports them, but they too are taking science outside its remit.

In my own case, I find the worldview as presented by science elegant, rational, and congenial - but then, I became an atheist before I even did science at school. Certainly my atheism (or alatrism) does not depend on the scientific worldview for support.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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!

That would be a mistaken impression taken from my comments. I expect at least common sense understanding of my words. I do not think you would say something as obviously silly as 'I am correct because I am being called mad', and I expected a similar assumption from others in regard to me.

Well, the item in question was where you had more or less said exactly that - you asked "and which side of the debate is called mad?" - a question which, in the context of the post, obviously referred to the Creationist side, and implied pretty clearly that the epithet "mad" was to be taken as positive evidence of truth.

I do think more of you than that, but any claim to the effect that the "minority opinion" is more likely to be right causes a reflex condemnation - it seems to be a deeply embedded prejudice, and it annoys me intensely, since people often use it as a substitute for rational argument.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [wolfsbane] Hope that answers the question.

No it doesn't -- I should have been more clear that I was referring to your belief in creationism, as you were criticizing my current acceptance of evolution as being somehow controlled by some group.

Rephrasing my question again, it becomes:

Do *you* can recognise any hierarchicalism in how you derive *your* creationist beliefs. In the sense that there exists one or more small groups which tell much larger groups, of which you are a member, exactly what to think on each topic of creationism. Do you say that this does happen, or that it does not happen?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

They are not asking that the Bible faith be taught as fact. They are asking that any discussion of origins honestly examines the scientific arguments both for special creation and evolution, the two possibilities offered by scientific argument today.

Your point is disingenuous - for special creation to be a "scientific argument", the Bible must be assumed to be factual...and if the Bible is taught as scientific and historical fact, then it certainly doesn't leave much room for any other religious position.

Let me be quite clear - special creation is not a scientific argument. It is pseudo-science in the service of religion. It certainly should not be taught in a science classroom under any circumstances as it presently stands.

wolfsbane wrote:

Evolution seems to better fit that description, don't you think? It is the one that refuses to contemplate any alternative; that exercises the power of censorship; that is the established view.

If only it worked like that! What we see instead is a dogmatic defence of evolution as unquestionable truth.

Funnily enough, only a relative handful of people, virtually all of them Creationists, see it that way. The vast majority of people do not, including many whose businesses are reliant on correct establishment of fact - oil companies do not seem worried that their geologists are involved in a huge conspiracy to prevent more accurate research being done.

wolfsbane wrote:

Creation Science and the Creation Science movement are not the same thing. One is science, the other a religious movement that uses it to further its aims. We expect science taught as science. That is a matter of civil liberties and proper education for all. We are interested in more than this of course, being a Christian (in our neck of the woods) movenment. We will use the facts of science to encourage all to believe in all the assertions of the Bible. But we do not want the State to do the latter. That would be an abuse of civil liberty in a secular society.

And science rules out pseudo-science. To teach the kind of loose methodologies and outright falsifications that Creationism engages in as "science" will do untold damage to the idea of truth.

wolfsbane wrote:

Is that a fact? I can see the scientific case for a global flood being made, but not that it involved Noah or anyone else. And the Fall is beyond scientific argument. Where have you seen Creationism demanding it be taught in schools as science? Or is that just your presumption?

No scientific case has been made for the Flood, whether involving Noah or not. As to the Fall, as you say, it is outside the remit of science entirely - nevertheless, both you and JC have argued it as a cause for everything from disease to reduced lifespans - so you are using it as an explanation, while denying that science can address it. Pseudoscience.

wolfsbane wrote:

As I said, this seems to be a figment of your fevered imagination. But I'm open to see the proof. If it were true that Creationists were seeking non-verifiable events taught as fact, I would oppose that just as strongly as I do evolution. Let's see the proof.

If Creationists are prepared to limit themselves to requesting that schools teach that there are non-scientific explanations for the Universe, fine - but that is religion, not science. However, Creationists instead seek to support their chosen explanation as being scientific by dragging in pseudo-scientific explanations, which in turn rely on poor methodologies, falsifications, and personal attacks.

wolfsbane wrote:

I dispute the lying bit. I'm sure all scientists are open to logical flaws and presuppositions. See the latest on dating for a exposure of this: The Dating Game http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

Snelling is certainly either a liar, or grossly incompetent. Given the number of times that Creationists will cite an argument as if true after repeated factual correction, I will agree with Wicknight 100% here. "Creation Science" is characterised by lies and fabrications.

wolfsbane wrote:

Or others that their anti-religious ascent-of-man tree is a mirage. But it is worth noting that the religious prisons, torture chambers, execution posts of the Inquisition were replaced in the 20th Century by the anti-religious (and evolutionist) concentration camps,gulags and execution pits of the Nazis and Communists. It is their scientific dogma that is in the driving seat of scientific academia today.

Rubbish. The scientific dogma of the Communists, for example, precluded Darwinian evolution entirely, and the Nazis largely followed Christian dogma - Hitler thought of himself as doing God's work in eradicating Jewry.

In any case, you have no right whatsoever to compare modern scientists with Nazis, nor any good reason other than your own prejudices. It is a simple smear attempt, which trivially conflates the murder of millions with the rejection of some academic papers. Have you no sense of shame? Let the dead rest, and argue your case on its own merits.

Suppression of dissent is characteristic of "groupthink", which happens in most organisations at some level or other. It produces consensus through a subconscious suppression of opposing viewpoints and unpalatable facts. It is also a charge that may reasonably be levelled at science, whereas the charge you have chosen to lay against science is one that it can instantly dismiss - scientists do not have the power (as scientists) to send people to the gas chambers, or to the Eastern Front, or have them arrested, tortured, or locked away. To suggest so is silly - extremely silly, distasteful, and hysterical.

Scofflaw

robindch

> Some modern biologists are behaving like Nazis, not in gassing Jews,
> but in suppressing opposing views

You are quite well aware that what happened was not Nazi-like suppression of views, but a case where an editor published a paper which ignored his publication's written guidlines. The editor was rapped for doing it, because, unlike creationism, science attempts to operate to agreed and open standards and with agreed and open procedures amongst knowledgable professionals.

If your surgeon cut off your two arms because he he diagnosed some spiritual malaise for which he knew that was the cure, and was barred from practice for doing so, would you complain about "supressing opposing views"? Do you think there should be no standards in medicine and people should be allowed do anything they like? And no standards in science, so anybody can publish anything they like and get to raise merry hell if they are rapped for publishing rubbish?

Out of interest, have you ever seen or read a scientific publication? Had you, or anybody you know, ever heard of this publication before this "controversy" arose?

Scofflaw

I'll also just register that I can't be bothered commenting on JC's claim that 10 years after the Flood, his lazy lions were still digging up piles of fresh corpses to eat. There is little point in arguing with the mad.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> The scientific dogma of the Communists, for example, precluded
> Darwinian evolution entirely,

...a point which is noted by <ahem> the newest and shiniest of the rebuttals in TO's "Index of Creationist Claims" here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

I'll also just register that I can't be bothered commenting on JC's claim that 10 years after the Flood, his lazy lions were still digging up piles of fresh corpses to eat. There is little point in arguing with the mad.

Its like pulling teeth without an anesthetic.
/shakes his head in dispare and wanderes down the pub for a beer and roast beef sandwich, thank the Lord Noah brought along two cows.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

Its like pulling teeth without an anesthetic.
/shakes his head in dispare and wanderes down the pub for a beer and roast beef sandwich, thank the Lord Noah brought along two cows.

And thank the Lord that the lions couldn't be bothered eating them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

And thank the Lord that the lions couldn't be bothered eating them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed yes.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

They are not asking that the Bible faith be taught as fact.

Actually yes they are. There are a number of movements trying to get Creationism and Intelligent Design into the class room, in American and Europe.

wolfsbane wrote:

They are asking that any discussion of origins honestly examines the scientific arguments both for special creation and evolution, the two possibilities offered by scientific argument today.

As I have explained to you before Wolfsbane science did examine the Biblical concept of creationism, for a long time it was the only accepted scientific theory, but it was found to be incorrect and dropped.

wolfsbane wrote:

Evolution seems to better fit that description, don't you think? It is the one that refuses to contemplate any alternative;

Wolfsbane alternatives are contemplated. The modern theory of evolution has changed significantly since Darwins time, and it is still changing as we develop new better theories.

Your objection isn't that alternatives are not contemplated, it is that your very flawed and incorrect alternative is not contemplated. As I've explained it was contemplated but found to be very weak and very flawed. Therefore it isn't contemplated anymore.

wolfsbane wrote:

that exercises the power of censorship; that is the established view.

You are confusing censorship with rejection. Proper scientists reject the Biblical theory of creation because it doesn't hold up as a theory, it is deeply flawed and does not match the evidence.

Any flawed theory should be rejected by science once it has been shown to be flawed and incorrect. That is how science works.

wolfsbane wrote:

If only it worked like that! What we see instead is a dogmatic defence of evolution as unquestionable truth.

The mechanics of evolution are questioned on a daily basis by hundreds of thousands of biologists around the world. The theory is constantly updating as we learn more and more about the natural world.

The basic concept of evolution is still used though because it works. It is how life developed on Earth, it is how life still develops.

If you refuse to accept that because it conflicts with your religion that is fine, but do not confuse your unwillingness to accept how the world around you works with science's unwillingness to ignore how the world around us for your religion.

wolfsbane wrote:

But we do not want the State to do the latter.

I don't know who "we" are, but if you mean the Creation Science movement then that simply isn't true. The Creation Science movement has tried a number of times, over a number of years, to have creation science, from literal biblical theories, to the concept of ID, taught in public schools, in American and across Europe.

wolfsbane wrote:

That would be an abuse of civil liberty in a secular society.

Yes it would, and it is one of the reason the proper scientific community are so worried about the Creation Science movement as Christian fundamentalism gains popular support in places like America. The Creation Science movement is an attempt to have the particular religous beliefs of a religion taught as fact in a science class room.

wolfsbane wrote:

Where have you seen Creationism demanding it be taught in schools as science?

America, all the time, and throughout Europe. There was an American lecturer last year how held a lecture in Dublin calling Christians here to demand that the Chrisitan schools refuse to teach evolution.

wolfsbane wrote:

As I said, this seems to be a figment of your fevered imagination.

I suggest you read up on the Creation Science movement and its connections with the Christian fundamentalist movement, particularly in America.

A large number of Creation "scientists" that JC often quotes have been repremanded by various schools and colleges for attempting to teach Creation Science in biology and history class rooms. Of course this just fuels the rather silly claims that modern science is atttempting to censor the "truth" of God.

wolfsbane wrote:

I dispute the lying bit. I'm sure all scientists are open to logical flaws and presuppositions.

If you repeat a statement that has been shown to be incorrect you are lying. AnswersInGenesis has done this a large number of times.

wolfsbane wrote:

See the latest on dating for a exposure of this: The Dating Game http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

See this is what I'm talking about, why AnswersInGenesis is a nonsense website.

The scientists realise the date they got is in error based on a very good understanding of how radiometeric dating works, and publish such a fact. AiG then takes this fact and runs with the assumption that others scientists might not realise that their dates are in error, and therefore other dates cannot be trusted.

It is basically saying that despite the fact that these scientists knew exactly what they were doing in very complex circumstances, we believe other scientists are idiots so we are not going to accept their dates.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is their scientific dogma that is in the driving seat of scientific academia today.

Well so far modern science has improved life for everyone on the planet while Creation Science has done what exactly? Apart from made parts of America the laughing stock of the scientific community and made sure China takes a whole load of American jobs because American school children are being taught nonsense about the way biology works?

Zombrex

JC wrote:

A Lion will eat whatever comes easy – and you can’t get anything “easier” than Carrion.

No, it won't. A lion requires freash meat in its diet.

Seriously, what part of that do you not understand, the "fresh meat" or the "requires"

JC wrote:

Carcasses under water would be preserved due to the anaerobic conditions and the carcases in the centre of a ‘putrid pile’ would remain edible (for a Lion) for a number of years. :cool:

Carcasses under water begin to decomp half as fast as in the air. Which is still pretty fast.

Water does not preserve organic matter.

Once again you seem to have no clue about what you are talking about.

JC wrote:

1. Most of them were rescued.

68% of the passangers and crew died on the Titanic.

Not sure I could be arsed bothering to refute the rest of your ridiculous claims as you seem to actually know nothing about the Titanic (or lions or underwater decomposition)

Educate yourself on these topics JC, then get back to me ....

JC wrote:

Carnivores, such as the Big Cats are also capable of living on a vegetarian diet – and during World War II, because of the scarcity of meat, the Lions in London Zoo eat a largely vegetarian diet without any ill effects.

If by "no ill effects" you mean they started attacking each other and had to be sepearted, then yes I can see that working :rolleyes:

JC wrote:

Taurine would be available by chewing on a few bones - or going deeper into piles of 'Flood Kill'.

Taurine is very low concentration in bones, it is found mostly in tissue, and lions don't eat bones

Seriously, are you just taking the piss at this stage JC? If you clearly don't know what you are talking about then stop talking

JC wrote:

Taurine is also present in high concentration in algae as well as insects and arthropods - so the Lions could happily 'nibble' on a few Locusts to supplement their Taurine levels - and algae would also be plentiful!!!

If by a few you mean approx 300 a day then yes that is possible. But then remember that there were two locusts in the Ark and also lions don't each locusts, and of course locusts fly away.

Hell JC taurine is found in fish. Maybe the lions learnt how to fish!!! Or maybe God just plonked a load of fish onto the shore every day and let them eat it? While we are making things up,

JC wrote:

Equally, dogs would happily live on vegetable scraps and milk.

Not without dying.

JC wrote:

Amphibians would be available in relatively large numbers for any enterprising Carnivore looking for some variety in it's diet - and Bears would go fishing!! :cool:

"Enterprising carnivore" .... groan ...

What nonsense JC. Lion's fishing, dogs milking cows ... do you actually read back what you write. This is more plasuable that evolution?? Lions surviving on alega from the sea for decades is more plausable in your mind that evolution and old earth?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

To rule out beforehand any explanation of data that involves a supernatural cause - a global flood, for example - is a false application of science.

The Biblical flood was considered, it was considered to have definiately happened, until it was discovered that it didn't

Seriously wolfbane what part of this do you not get.

Science didn't ignore the flood, science realised the Bible is wrong about the flood. This actually took a long time, for a long time the flood was considered to have literally happened. But eventually people realised the evidence didn't add up. You can see the seeds of this realisation as early as the early 1st millineum when even the greatest thinkers of the early Christian church were explaining to their followers, the early christians, that the Old Testement is not supposed to be taken literally. The people of the 3rd and 4th centuries knew a massive biblical flood had not destroyed everything only a few centuries ago, they could see from the rich and long history and culture of the civilisations around them.

wolfsbane wrote:

Real science would examine the data to see if it is in accord with the alledged cause.

It should and it does.

So if you calim to support real science why do you refuse to accept that the Biblical flood didn't happen? Why have we spent 144 pages arguing such nonsense as lions surviving for years on microscopic marine life and the entire Egypitan civilisation and history being a lie?

You see, for all your talk about real science ignoring the evidence it is in fact the religious people like yourself who ignore the evidence because you cannot accept that your Biblic flood didn't happen, or that the universe was not created the way your holy book describes.

The very fact that the theory of evolution has changed significantly since Darwins day (along with theories about the Earth, and the nature of the universe), and that it is still changing shows that proper science, evolutionary or otherwise, is not fixed in stone, that there is no conspiricy to hold to some theory. Most biologiest today would happily accept that a large amount of Darwins original theory was flawed, either slighly flawed or greatly flawed.

On the other hand Creation Science never changes. The Bible is correct, that is it. The Bible has to be correct, all of it has to be correct. Can the theory of Noah's flood change from the Biblical description? NO! Can the story of creation be the wrong way around? NO! Can the tower of babel story be a mistake? NO!

You, just like all Creation Scientists, cannot accept that the Bible can be wrong. The evidence is irrelivent, you will always twist the evidence to support the Bible. The scientific method is irrelivent, you will always distort this method to support the Bible and throw doubt on science that contradicts the Bible.

Proper science doesn't twist evidence, it follows it. If science did twist the evidence as you claim we would all still be following the original theories of evolution, or of the earth, or of the universe. The very fact that we are not show that there is no conspiricy behind the theories of proper science, science updates as we learn more.

It is the hight of hypocracy Wolfbane to claim that the modern scientific community is fixed to the details of a theory and refuse to change when the entire basis of Creation Science is that the Bible is correct in every way and cannot be wrong.

You will probably calm that you only think this because the evidence supports that, but think what lengths creation science has to go to to get the evidence to support this. Lions eating fish? The entire Earth surface rising 7km in a few days? All radiometeric dating, all of it, being completely off? The entire nature of light and stars being wrong? Human population multiplying faster than any known possible rate? Humans living far far long than has ever been properly recorded? I could go on and on

Why do they bother? Because they have to make the evidence support the Bible, because the Bible cannot be wrong.

Or put it another way, could you just accept that Noah's flood didn't happen, until more evidence supporting it appears? You have to admit you have to ignore a lot of stuff to accept it did happen, and make a large number of rather wild assumptions as to how it could have happened (8,000 animals specialising into 2 million in a few decades? 8,000 animals surviving for nearly a year in a wooden ship build by a small handful of men?) Like the theory of black holes, people accept that even though we aren't totally sure and might be way off. Of course you cannot, because if you accept the possibility the flood didn't happen, even a little bit, you are rejecting a literal reading of your holy book, and you cannot do that, not on scientific grounds, but religous grounds.

For all your talk about following the evidence, you aren't really following the evidence, you are bring the evidence too you, fitting it piece by piece around a theory your have already decided must be true. And anything that doesn't fit you make something up, or simply use the classic "God did it" excuse. Why didn't the carnivors eat all the other animals when they got off the ark? Well God stopped them of course.

In reality scientific theories change all the time. The theory of evolution today has changed since 1976 and that theory had changed since 1876. Science is constantly changing. As part of this science is constantly realising the errors in previous aspects of theories, or even whole theories themselves. That is the very nature of science, that it must be possible to prove a theory wrong.

Creation Science never changes, and never accepts it is, or that it even can, be wrong.

Wolfsbane consider this simple question -

Has Creation Science ever, through years of study, shown that a Biblical passage simply didn't happen?


Don't you think this a bit odd? A movement that claims to be based on scientific principles that has never once proven one of its basic theories incorrect? Proper scientific theories, back here in the real world, are shown to be wrong all the time, it is one of the basis of science that theory must be falsafiable to be considered as part of science. But Creation Science has never once, ever stood up and said "A great advance in modern science, we have proven today that Biblical passage X or Y didn't actually happen"

So tell me this, who is stuck in a ritual of dogma? Who is refusing to accept possibilities? Who is infact the ones that attempt to distort and mislead?

Scofflaw

" A comparison of the human genome with that of the chimp shows the existence of a key region of man's DNA that appears to play a vital role in the growth of the human brain.

Many different animals possess the same region of DNA but it is only in humans that it has undergone a rapid change.

The difference between chickens and chimps - which are separated by 310m years of evolution - is just two mutations out of a total DNA sequence of 118 "letters" of the genetic code.

Yet the difference between chimps and humans - separated by 6m years - is 18 mutations in the same DNA region, according to a study,.

Professor Katherine Pollard of the University of California in the US, said that this region of the human genome has changed more than any other since humans diverged from apes. "

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I am unsure what you mean by "real convictions" here. All the Abrahamic religions share the same creation story - including all of mainstream Christianity. How does a Catholic come to favour the materialist explanation over the Biblical one? Are his/her religious convictions not "real"?

For many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc., their religion's formal dogmas are mallible. They can be twisted to suit one's preferences, yet one can still regard themselves as a faithful member of that religion. While a metaphorical understanding is valid where a metaphor was intended, the danger these folk have fallen into is forcing their interpretation upon their foundation text (the Bible, for the Christian) in order to match their cultural enviroment.

It may be, as you say, that the field of science is part of our civil liberties - but it remains a technical field. It is not open to all possible debate, any more than any specific field within it is - geology is not interested in aerodynamics, and claims that aerodynamics experts are being repressed because their articles do not appear in geology journals are clearly silly.

But it is the scientific argument of Creation Science that is suppressed - not the Biblical arguments.

There does not appear to be an equivalent of the "Creation Science" movement.

If you mean in size, I agree.

Not at all. No-one has to accept the "dogma" of evolution - a very silly claim indeed. It is normal for scientists working in a field that involves evolution to accept the current paradigm. Obviously, there are people constantly challenging this or that part of evolution - some of these are very broad challenges, some are very narrow. Some challenge the mechanisms, others the concepts - but they all have one thing in common that sets them apart from Creationists - their challenges are scientific, whereas the Creationist challenge is polemic. As a result, their challenges are published in scientific publications, and the Creationist challenge is published in polemical publications.

No, the thing they have in common is that they do not - nor are they allowed to - question evolution. They can debate how this or that bit happened, but it all must be in the context of evolution. The Henry Ford syndrome - any colour as long as its black.

Interesting, by the way, that you refer to evolution as "atheistic" (not for the first time) - if Creationism is not a religious matter, why is that relevant?

It is revelant as the motivator of the theory of evolution - not a dispassionate attempt to explain life, but a desperate attempt to explain it in a way that sets men free from God.

Except, as has been pointed out repeatedly, science started off with Biblical assumptions, and progressively abandoned them, rather than springing into life full-blown and atheistic.

No, the scientists who devised evolution where not faithful Christians, but men seeking to get away from their Christian heritage.

Sigh. Wolfsbane, I don't have a problem, from an atheist perspective, with the Bible being accurate! If all the apparent history in the Bible is correct, that doesn't shake my unbelief. If the Biblical account of the Flood were correct in a geological sense (ie, that there was a worldwide flood c.4000BP), that isn't a problem - it's just interesting. I can happily explain how it would be possible for a human author to write down a reasonably accurate account of a global flood without any divine intervention whatsoever.

I appreciate that. That is why I am not seeking to merely convince you that Creationism is correct or even that the Bible is true. You could believe that and still go to hell. I am seeking only to remove theses things if they are a stumbling-block to you believing the gospel, repenting and trusting in Christ.

The Genesis account of creation simply doesn't contain enough information to make it testable, and so I haven't bothered challenging the whole "six days" story as such.

I agree.

The Flood account is testable, and doesn't stand up. That's not a problem for me, because I don't expect the Bible to be inerrant. But it wouldn't be a problem for me if it did, either, because I don't expect the Bible to be completely fictional, either.

I of course say it does hold up to scientific scrutiny.

I hope you can understand what I'm saying here. Your thesis that I am forced to reject the Biblical account of the Flood because its correctness would force me to accept God's existence doesn't hold up. I can satisfactorily explain Biblical accuracy in my atheistic worldview, and therefore have no a priori reason to reject it.

Yes, I accept your point that the Flood being true would not not prove to you the truth of the rest of Scripture, especially of God's existence. It would remove one stumbling-block to that end, however.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

For many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc., their religion's formal dogmas are mallible. They can be twisted to suit one's preferences, yet one can still regard themselves as a faithful member of that religion. While a metaphorical understanding is valid where a metaphor was intended, the danger these folk have fallen into is forcing their interpretation upon their foundation text (the Bible, for the Christian) in order to match their cultural enviroment.

It is interesting, of course, that you are so certain where a metaphor was intended, and where a literal meaning is intended.

wolfsbane wrote:

But it is the scientific argument of Creation Science that is suppressed - not the Biblical arguments.

It's "suppressed" because it's bad science. At that, all that "suppressed" means here is "not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals" - a new and startlingly narrow definition of the word.

I've done my best to read all the provided links (virtually all to AiG) that set forth the 'scientific case' for Creation, and I haven't seen piece of good science - not one. It's not bad science because it's Creation Science, it's just bad science - poor methodology, over-interpretation, non-repeatability, sloppy write-up, the works. It wouldn't pass muster at the Leaving Cert.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, the thing they have in common is that they do not - nor are they allowed to - question evolution. They can debate how this or that bit happened, but it all must be in the context of evolution. The Henry Ford syndrome - any colour as long as its black.

You reckon without the enormous fame that would accrue to a scientist who could disprove evolution. There are thousands of research teams, all over the world, and they're mostly small enough that if you really had a case against evolution, you could swing the rest of the team. The funding bodies don't really care, and it would be really easy to get the work published if it was done right.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is revelant as the motivator of the theory of evolution - not a dispassionate attempt to explain life, but a desperate attempt to explain it in a way that sets men free from God.

No, the scientists who devised evolution where not faithful Christians, but men seeking to get away from their Christian heritage.

Read the history of western science, and you'll see Christians struggling not to have to ditch the Biblical account. I've pulled you up on this one before - it's a rotten lie, and a smear on men (and some women) who agonised over their faith in the light of the evidence.

wolfsbane wrote:

I appreciate that. That is why I am not seeking to merely convince you that Creationism is correct or even that the Bible is true. You could believe that and still go to hell. I am seeking only to remove theses things if they are a stumbling-block to you believing the gospel, repenting and trusting in Christ.

Actually, that's funny. The 'stumbling block' to my acceptance of Christianity is the Bible. The more true it is, the less I want to have to do with Christianity, or any of the Abrahamic religions.

wolfsbane wrote:

I of course say it (the Flood) does hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Yes, but you are not a qualified geologist, and I am. Dreadful as that sounds, it means that I am capable of examining the evidence for myself. You are wrong - there is no scientific case for the Flood, whatsoever. Not the slightest bit of it makes sense, or tallies with what's found - not the slightest bit. It's complete rubbish.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I accept your point that the Flood being true would not not prove to you the truth of the rest of Scripture, especially of God's existence. It would remove one stumbling-block to that end, however.

Wolfsbane, it's not necessary to prove your God's existence to me. I got over that kind of atheism a few years in (during my teens). I don't regard God's existence as silly, or impossible, or somehow "disproven" - which gets me into a fair number of arguments with "other atheists". I'm an alatrist - a non-worshipper.

If your God exists, if the Bible is 100% true, if I watched the Rapture - not one of these things means anything, or changes my position. I don't worship the OT God because he's a particularly vile sort of dictator. I don't accept Christianity, because it's just brown-nosing that self-centred, vindictive, insane dictator - humbling yourself before him, and grovelling out how unworthy we all are. If the Bible is correct, then I'm going to Hell - and even then, I'll still be morally better than your God. I reject him outright.

There now - if I'm going to break the forum charter, I'm going to break it good and hard.

I know how you will (must) interpret my rant above. You have to say that because God is real, and we all know that in our hearts, I secretly fear the Bible being proven true (because I truly fear God's punishment), and therefore cannot let myself see the real evidence for Creation. Whatever works for you.

nevertheless,
cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Hope you all don't mind, thought I would share this with you all.

One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species.
Surprised, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books?"
"Well," said the orangutan, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

Tar.Aldarion

It is interesting, of course, that you are so certain where a metaphor was intended, and where a literal meaning is intended.

I have often thought about this. Why do Christians decide what was a metaphor and what was literal? Does it change over time when it is learned that something makes no sense, or that it may cast god in a bad light? Etc, etc
Do you think that warrants a thread, or a simple answer here?
I think the two posts above mine are very good. Alatrists ftw. Are we the only two so far Scofflaw, or did the orangutan join us Asiaprod?

what on earth is "alatrist"

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

what on earth is "alatrist"

A non-worshipper - someone to whom the existence is a deity is irrelevant, since they wouldn't worship it anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is this a new word or something? The dictionary doesn't find it...
that would describe me perfectly anyway.


Something amusing:
http://www.train2equip.com/quiz.asp