The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

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

It's a neologism derived from monolatrist:

Noun 1. monolatry - the worship of a single god but without claiming that it is the only god

By a small stretch, we get a-latrist : someone who doesn't worship any god but without claiming they don't exist.

neologistically,
Scofflaw

Ah, wonderful!

Tar.Aldarion

Well monoalatrist exists. Scofflaw just adapted it, if it was him who originally came up with it? and found a name for me on my, 'what am I' type thread. Suits very well.

We must make it to the dictionary with it.

EDIT: I really should refresh pages

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

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

This is possibly even more amusing than the quiz: 20 Logic errors used by evolutionists when discussing origins

cordially,
Scofflaw

bmoferrall

bluewolf wrote:

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

1. According to the Bible how old is the earth?
A. 6-8 thousand years
B. Billions of years
C. The Bible does not say
Answer C

2. Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?
A. Yes
B. No
Answer B

3. Does the Bible teach how God created the universe and everything in it?
A. Yes
B. No
Answer B

4. Carbon-14 is a reliable dating method for dating fossils up to 60,000 years.
A. True
B. False
Answer A

5. The big bang (beginning of the universe) is a known fact.
A. True
B. False
Answer C. Don't know

6. Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
A. True
B. False
Answer A

7. The fossil record is good evidence for evolution.
A. True
B. False
Answer C. Don't know

8. Did God use evolution as part of His creation process?
A. Yes
B. No
C. The Bible does not say
Answer C

9. Geological evidence supports an old earth (billions of years).
A. True
B. False
Answer A

10. Life originated in the oceans about 3.5 billion years ago.
A. True
B. False
Answer C Don't know!

0/10 - Fail (miserably)!

Note: This student has poor prospects and will probably amount to nothing (recommend extended stay in YEC boot camp for inoculation/indoctrination).

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

Have you forgotten my post about all those diseases that also had to survive the flood? [carrying all the diseases that only affect humans such as measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea, i mean someone had to have all of these diseases (or at least their common ansestor) or else they would have dies out in the flood. And that doesn't include all the diseases particular to the different animal species.]

You seem to think all diseases had to originate at the same time as man. Most are just mutations and adaptions of existing bacteria and viruses. No need for anyone to carry them all.

And why is this not an assumption?

Today's underdeveloped countries are unlike the ancient societies in that they are not dynamic and empire-building. The folks coming from the Ark went out and built organized societies. I'm not saying that a quiet nomadism is bad, just that one should not equate it with 'primitive' man. History tells us what man achieved 4000 years ago.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

The normal understanding of genesis is that it is one of an allegory - it is only a minority of fundamentalist christians that believe it to be true

By 'normal' I meant the commonly held, historic understanding of the Christian faith. That modern religionists have departed from that is undoubted - but their position is the heresy, not the literal creation c.6000 tears ago.

Experimentally verifying hypothesises about the origin of organic replicators are a work in progress. Presuming that an old book contains all the answers without the need to even consider that may be wrong is foolish.

A work in progress - just like alchemy, then.

As for believing the Bible, far from foolish, Christians know it to be God's truth, as I've said before.

I don't need to but all the information you need on genome size can be found here
You are the one claiming that adaption results in loss of genetic "information", now prove it.

I thought you were the scientist? For a related question see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_25November2002.asp
and more on genomes: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0309_genome.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp

Science looks at the evidence, makes a hyopthesis based on either a new idea or existing theories that have been proven. Your bible stories are dismissed because they simply don't stand up scientifically.
Creationism assumes that the bible is infallible then takes evidence and distorts, lies about it and willfully ignores other evidence so as to fit the original assumption. Who is being dishonest?

You are arguing in circles. You start with the assertion - that we lie and distort, and then you justify suppression of scientific debate. Let evolution and creation be debated in the scientific media, then we will be better able to judge who is blinkered or even lying about their theories.

You know the truth? I can say that I know I see pink elephants. All this means is that I am either making it up or I am mentally ill. Just because you get a warm fuzzy feeling inside doesn't make the bible true. This is a blind leap of faith and you want this gut feeling to be the basis of science? Utter nonsense.

This is indeed nonsense. How can you know that I do not know?
Yes, believing you saw pink elephants can mean you are mentally ill. And a warm fuzzy feeling inside indeed is no proof of anything. But the spiritual knowledge of God the real Christian has is something you cannot say is not real - you may believe it is not real, but you cannot know it. He may be deluded, he may be right, but you cannot know either way.

So who told you about God? And who told him?...

God did, via the Bible. His Holy Spirit opened my spiritual eyes to see the truth and to embrace it. And of course, no-one told Him - He is self-existent, eternal, the source of all knowledge.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

You agree that you force evidence to fit your assumed views without any scientific proof?

My apologies for being unclear - no, just that I don't accept their dating process, and therefore the alleged DNA age does not cross my argument. I misread your statement, so that did not answer it. To reply to your statement, The problem is you don't accept their dating process so you can fit the age of this DNA to suit yourself., I of course deny that. I don't accept their dating process first of all because it contradicts the Biblical account. But before Creationists can question the scientific basis of the process, they have to show scientifically that the process is based on unproven assumptions and is self-contradictory (delivering different dates that cannot both be true if the assumptions are true). That creation Science has done.

I'm referring to your insistence that the flood is the prime fossilisation event.

Prime, certainly. But not sole. Many other species would have died off subsequent to the Flood if the climate had changed significantly, and also from man's predation.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

Thats funny, in the world today it is terrorism resulting from the conflicts between secular western society and fundamentist islam that is accelerating the erosion of civil liberties. How can converging to a common understanding be a threat?

The problem comes when those converging become a big majority, and those not converging are regarded as trouble-makers, disturbers of the peace, etc. Those who won't bow to the new god/ideology will be jailed, 're-educated' or murdered - and society will think it all a regretable necessity, for the greater good.

Pluralism works well when there are many 'isms'. But one big 'ism' quickly makes sure it is the only one.

I cannot understand how you get your literal interpretations. It makes perfect sense for Noah to build a huge boat to hold two of each of all the worlds animals - an enormous feat, then you water down the babel story because it seems impossile. You're just picking what suits you.

There is nothing impossible about Noah's ship. All it had to do was float, not navigate. And he had 120 years to built it.

You haven't shown how a unified language or the internet has caused evil? Sure paedophelia etc gains from the internet but it didn't create it. Has there been an internet war or a language war? No, but there have been millions killed in the name of god. It is the differences that people label themselves with that cause hatred and violence.

Certainly a common language or the internet are not the causes of evil. They are the innocent facilitators of evil. Just like surveilance cameras or phone-taps: perfectly legitmate uses, but great tools for totalitarian regimes.

The point is modern technology will enable unbelievable control to be exercised over all mankind, come the man and the moment.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Raising my hand tremulously, I would suggest that the USA's foreign policy is driven at least as much by the "end-times" fixations of the christian fundamentalist lobby, as it is by any specifically secular interests! With both sides in the conflict propelled towards the edge by their own lunatic, messianic interpretations of their own doo***ay books.

There is a Christian Zionist lobby - but I doubt it has much effect. I think the Jewish lobby is much more powerful. And Capitalism, of course.

But leaving aside any unworthly motives, surely the right to existence of the Jewish people was a big factor that led to the existence of the State of Isreal. What then should the Western democracies do in regard to guaranteeing Israel's survival? Nothing? Had they not a big responsibility for the Holocaust?

And what's religion? Well, a system which provides a fundamental dogma that you and people like you are good and will go to heaven, everybody else is bad and will go to hell, and that you should never question your fundamental dogmas; defend them to the death, even! Pffff -- I'm surprised humanity has lasted as long as it has with religious mind-contagions

Defending the truth to the death doesn't necessitate the death of one's opponents. Read the New Testament and you will see that defending the faith to the death meant the Christian holding faithful in the face of execution. True Christianity (the Bible sort) is utterly opposed to using the sword to spread itself, and even to defend the faith. Therefore if my neighbour is an unbeliever (and so going to hell), I am not to oppress him, but rather be kind to him and also tell him about God's offer of salvation.

It was apostate Christianity that began the use of the sword to enforce 'Christianity'. It has taken a long time for that broad and easy road to be abandoned, even by some true Christians.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

The problem comes when those converging become a big majority, and those not converging are regarded as trouble-makers, disturbers of the peace, etc. Those who won't bow to the new god/ideology will be jailed, 're-educated' or murdered - and society will think it all a regretable necessity, for the greater good.

Pluralism works well when there are many 'isms'. But one big 'ism' quickly makes sure it is the only one.

Interesting to wonder how pluralism will manage that particular trick...

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Asiaprod
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."

Very witty!!

Good JOKE!!

I laughed TOO!!!:)

Unfortunately, for evolutionists, this scenario is NEVER going to happen as the Orang-utan doesn’t have the capacity for interpreting symbolic language (reading) nor is it able to vocalise language (speak).:eek:

However, the Zoo Keeper SHOULD read both The Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species - and then make HIS mind up on whether he is the Orang-utan’s brother or it’s KEEPER.

I think that the answer will be OBVIOUS !!


Tar.Aldarion
I have often thought about this. Why do Christians decide what was a metaphor and what was literal?

I can confirm that all Christians accept that metaphors, poetry and allegories ARE employed in the Bible – but they also believe that there are many passages that describe LITERAL EVENTS.

I think that BOTH Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists would accept that the parables of Jesus Christ were ALLEGORICAL.
Equally, within Genesis, Creationists accept that the ‘Tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ is clearly a metaphor for some deeply sinful occult system of Satan and it certainly isn’t a literal tree. The “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil” IS still around AND it brings death - but Creationists do not expect to find it growing at the bottom of their gardens!!!

I also think that both Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists would agree that the words of Jn 19:30 LITERALLY mean that Jesus said “It is finished” and equally, that He LITERALLY “bowed His head and gave up his spirit”. Similarly, all Christians believe that the scriptural accounts of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension are LITERAL accounts of these events.

In summary, Creationists support the PLAIN reading of Scripture – interpreting it LITERALLY when the passages describe obvious literal or historical events and ALLEGORICALLY when metaphors are being clearly deployed.

The only aspect of the Bible that Theistic Evolutionists and Creationists substantially disagree about is the Genesis accounts of Creation and Noah’s Flood. Theistic Evolutionists believe that Genesis 1 is a largely ALLEGORICAL account of the Evolution of life – while Creationists believe it to be a SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL account of Special Divine Creation and the early history of the Earth. This difference in interpretation is actually the main reason for the debate among Christians on the ‘origins issue’.

I think that BOTH Genesis and the Gospels ARE written as SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL HISTORY.
Something like Genesis 1:1, which starts with the words “In the beginning God…..” certainly gives the impression that what will follow will be a SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL ACCOUNT of what God actually did – and NOT something veiled in allegory, as Theistic Evolutionists maintain.

Gen 1:27 confirms that the sequence of the creation of Mankind was firstly a single man Adam “in the image of God He created HIM” and subsequently Eve “male and female He created THEM. This sequence is also confirmed in Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:21-22.
Genesis 2:7 says “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground” – and NOT many men from a population of Ape-like ancestors – as Theistic Evolutionists would have us believe.

Jesus is referred to as “The Last Adam” in 1 Cor 15:45 – and without a LITERAL First Adam this would be meaningless. In fact, without the Fall of Adam and Eve from grace, there would not be any reason for God to send his only begotten son Jesus Christ to save humanity from their sin, which according to Rom 5:12, “entered the world through ONE MAN and death through sin”.
Any form of Evolution, either “theistic” or “secular”, requires death millions of years before the emergence of Mankind – which is in straight contradiction of Rom 5:12 – which confirms that Man came first followed by sin and then death.

Anyway, why would God take “the long way around” to create Humans, using death and cut-throat competition as indispensable ingredients of so-called “evolutionary progress” on the way?
If He did so, why didn’t He say so?

The Bible makes it clear that death is a direct result of the FIRST Man and a Woman’s DECISION to misuse God’s gift of free-will to defy God – and not because God deliberately decided to use death and competition to perfect his original creation (as implied by Evolution).
Death is destructive and it is confirmed by Genesis to be the result of Man’s folly and NOT God’s instigation.

Theistic Evolution also implies a ‘meddling God’ who continues to DIRECTLY intervene in the World via some (unobserved) evolutionary ‘tweaking’ mechanism to perfect His Creation. This idea is directly contradicted by Genesis 2:2 which states that “by the seventh say God had finished the work he had been doing” i.e. He FINISHED his Creation activity.


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

It does indeed provide a good test of comprehension for all thread participants at this, the half-way point, in the debate!!:D


bmoferrall
0/10 - Fail (miserably)!

Note: This student has poor prospects and will probably amount to nothing

You are very critical of yourself B M.

Can I reassure you that IF you stick with the thread for another 3,000 posts and THEN repeat the test, you WILL (probably) pass with flying colours!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

bmoferrall
0/10 - Fail (miserably)!

Note: This student has poor prospects and will probably amount to nothing

You are very critical of yourself B M.

Can I reassure you that IF you stick with the thread for another 2,000 posts and THEN repeat the test, you WILL (probably) pass with flying colours!!

By then it is just possible he will be deranged enough to pass...

amused,
Scofflaw

Diogenes

Just on an aside can creationist explain for example the fossils of giant dragonflies and millipides and other insects that are found?

Frankly I'm eager to read the tortured logic of how you can explain how species shrunk in 4,000 years.

Scofflaw

Diogenes wrote:

Just on an aside can creationist explain for example the fossils of giant dragonflies and millipides and other insects that are found?

Frankly I'm eager to read the tortured logic of how you can explain how species shrunk in 4,000 years.

Oh, that one's easy - loss of genetic information. Consequence of the Fall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

They were put there as a test of faith, Earth was created old.
Genetic information, where?!!111

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Defending the truth to the death doesn't necessitate the death of one's opponents. Read the New Testament and you will see that defending the faith to the death meant the Christian holding faithful in the face of execution. True Christianity (the Bible sort) is utterly opposed to using the sword to spread itself, and even to defend the faith. Therefore if my neighbour is an unbeliever (and so going to hell), I am not to oppress him, but rather be kind to him and also tell him about God's offer of salvation.

It was apostate Christianity that began the use of the sword to enforce 'Christianity'. It has taken a long time for that broad and easy road to be abandoned, even by some true Christians.

Hmm. If we look back to the recorded beliefs of very early Christians, they were not only opposed to using the sword to enforce Christianity, but to using the sword full stop. It's one of the reasons that many who would be expected to perform military service (or other public services likely to involve sinning) often delayed baptism until the end of their lives.

To be fair to the "apostate church" (by which I take it you mean the Roman Church), the theory of crusading was that the secular nobility conquered the lands of the pagans (to which they were given title by the Papacy), but in exchange had to allow the Church access to the conquered pagans. In addition, there were generally (theoretically) strong constraints on the secular conqueror by way of not killing or mistreating these potential converts.

All of the above often more honoured in the breach, of course!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Diogenes

Scofflaw wrote:

Oh, that one's easy - loss of genetic information. Consequence of the Fall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So they forgot they were much larger? Why haven't we seen evidence of this occuring in the past millenium? Elephants forgetting they can fly? Tigers spontaniously turning into kittens and so forth?

Asiaprod

Diogenes wrote:

So they forgot they were much larger? Why haven't we seen evidence of this occuring in the past millenium? Elephants forgetting they can fly? Tigers spontaniously turning into kittens and so forth?

So it would seem. And don't forget the lazy lions who went from being top predators requiring fresh meat, to carrion feeders.
Its kinda like the Twilight Zone.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

There is nothing impossible about Noah's ship. All it had to do was float, not navigate. And he had 120 years to built it.

Oh it was quite easy for Noah to build the Ark, it was only 120 meters long after all.

The hard part was getting all the animals into it, since it clearly would not fit them.

Now, using some hidious perversion of biology that they use I suppose a Creationist could claim that all modern species of animals could "specalise" (ie evolution for people who don't understand evolution) from 8,000 animals to 2-5 million in a few decades, but that doesn't stop that fact that 8,000 animals would not have fit on the Ark described in the Bible.

The Ark was much smaller than the Hong Kong International Trade and Exibit Centre, which can hold nearly 5,000 people sitting down packed in beside each other. The idea that the space on the Ark could hold 8,000 animals, including the larger ones like elephants, rhinos, hippos, is clearly not possible. The Bible even says it only had 3 decks, so the arguement that Noah could have filled it with a large number of low roofed desks in increase the floor space for the small animals isn't possible

So really, the Bible is, ironcially, the bit of evidence that proves that the Noah story is not a literal story that Creationists have to accept.

This ignores the fact that 8,000 species cannot develop into 2-5 million in a few decades anyway, with is possibly the stupidest idea I've ever heard

Zombrex

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.

Anyone can question evolution. The very fact that the theory of evolution has changed so much since Darwin's time shows that evolution can be questioned.

The reason Creationists arguments are ignored (not suppressed, but looked and briefly and then ignored) is because they are (so far) rather stupid and silly

Look wolfbane, you and the other creationists are claiming such ridiculous things like lions surviving on ocean microscopic life, or the bones of dead animals for decades, 8,000 animals "specialising" into 2 million in a few years, land masses raising 7 km in a year, population growth 10 times faster than normal, a tardis shaped ark holding more than its size could etc etc

These are all rather ridiculous theories and arguments, created to attempt to bend reality around something that clearly could not happen. Creation Science isn't surpressed by proper science, it is laughted at for being so silly and then ignored. And like anyone who is ignored by the mainstream you guys start coming up with ridiculous conspiricy theorys. No one will listen to the guys who claim the mafia shot JFK, so obvious the government is supressing the truth! No one will listen to the guys who claim alien spaceships are being flown at Area 51, so obviously the army is suppressing the truth! No one will listen to the guys that claim the earth is only 10,000 years old and a biblical flood destroyed all land creatures, so obviously the scientific community is suppressing the truth. None of these people stop to think that maybe they are the ones with the problem

Creation Science is half religous silliness, half conspiricy theory. You guys are so convinced you are right that when people just ignore you, or say "No that is clearly wrong, and quite silly" you can't stop for a minute and ask yourselfs the question is this wrong? is this clearly silly.

Because you have convinved yourselfs it has to be right!

As I asked in my previous post, when has Creation Science ever proved itself wrong? Science proves previous scientific theories wrong all the time, that is half the point of science. Yet Creation "Science" has never once, ever showed a Biblical passage, or even idea, to actually be wrong. Rather odd for a group that claims to be interested in "science"

If you want to prove evolution is wrong then prove it. There has never been a single post on this thread by a Creationist that hasn't been easily rebuked a good number of times by the people here who understand science. Just look at JC's posts, he states some earth shattering post about the flaws in evolution that is then easily responed to and shown to be either flawed itself or based on an incorrect understanding of evolution to start with.

It is hard to take the anti-evolution theories seriously when these theories them selves are based on such bad and missunderstood science.

The simple fact is that the reason evolution, in general, is accepted by the vast majority of biologists is that it is the closes theory and model to the way life develops on Earth. So far no one has been able to show it isn't the way life develops on earth, least the Creationists with thier ridiculous theories and silly science. Creation Science doesn't refuse to accept this because it is wrong, they refuse to accept this because of religous beliefs.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

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')?

Well, I don't mind anyone using it to do so, just that I mind them preventing creationists from getting a hearing for the scientific argument for special creation and the Flood.

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.

Yes, I think that covers it. Science cannot address how God would have created the universe ex nihilio, but it can address the evidence to see if it tends to confirm a recently created universe or a very ancient one. It cannot explain miracles, but it can test the evidence to see if something unexplainable has occurred.

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"?

Yes, provided one doesn't move that from explaining observed behaviour to rule out miracles in the past. Or even today - if fire came down from heaven and consumed everyone who, for example, blasphemed, science would have to admit something supernatural was going on and not insist there must be a 'scientific explanation'.

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.

It can be used to support religious or philosophical assertions, but science itself is only about the facts.

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.

See, this is where the facts move to 'world-view'. The facts that support an ancient universe are disputed. The selection of which interpretation of the evidence to believe may well be unbiased and the best estimate of truth that one is able to reach; but it may also be informed by peer pressure or religious/philosophical presuppositions.

Certainly my atheism (or alatrism) does not depend on the scientific worldview for support.

OK. Mine neither. But we both think science does in fact support our beliefs.

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.

It implied only what DJ said. I'm sure you agree he did not mean that to be mad is evidence of the truth of one's argument. No, just that majority-held, well-ingrained belief will cause those who rise up to oppose it to be viewed as mad. That was my point: DJ did have another pertinent observation:
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."Hmm, which side on this debate has been branded as raving lunatics?

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.

I agree with you on that. I was not suggesting otherwise. Minority status has no more call on the truth than has majority status.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

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.

I don't recall ever suggesting you were being controlled by any group. I respect your intellect and have no reason to doubt you have come to your own conclusions. What I did say was that the scientific establishment elite are attempting to control what the masses believe by feeding them selective arguments and gagging opposing ones. Propaganda in other words. Obviously that cannot blind scientists, but it does influence them and encourages them to think in fixed lines.

Rephrasing my question again, it becomes:
Quote:
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?

No, it does not happen. Anymore than any experts bringing their knowledge to an argument. They say, this is how we see it. They raise alternative explanations from time to time.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

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.

The Bible need not come into it. Pure common sense suggests special creation as an alternative to evolution. Special creation is how we get all the machines and ordered growth around us, so it is a natural conclusion when we ask how all the complexity of nature came about.

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.

That is begging the question. Evolution is the only explanation, therefore no other explanation must be considered.

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.

I'm not sure how Flood geology would find oil better than evolutionary geology. They both see the same strata. Most businesses do not rely on evolutionary science - they rely on science. Evolutionary science should not be confused with fact.

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.

Scientists who are creationists disagree with your accusations.

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.

Scientists have made a scientific case for the flood. And I'm not arguing that the Fall can be addressed by science, only the observed consequencies.

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.

It would be religion.

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.

That is your opinion of their scientific work, but it is the science that they want presented alongside the evolutionary model, not the religion.

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.

Evolution did not arise with Darwin, and in any event evolution provided the scientific cover for communism's atheism. Nazism was not theist let alone Christian in ideology. Himmler's final plan involved the extermination of all other faiths, including Christianity. The master-race concept was entirely evolutionary.

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.

Your comment below gives the clue to your error.

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,

I now see where our differences on my Nazi comments arise. You regard suppression of dissent as a minor weakness. I regard it as a deadly seed that if allowed to develop will destroy society.

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.

My point was not that today's scientific elite are sending people to the gas-chambers (though the abortion industry is the exception), but that suppression of argument today will lead to suppression of people eventually. You obviously see no such danger.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

Evolution did not arise with Darwin, and in any event evolution provided the scientific cover for communism's atheism.

It did not. Communists rejected Darwinian Evolution. They believed that it ran counter to Marx's Historical Materialism. Stalinist Russia formally denounced Darwin's theories, and adopted the long debunked Lamarckian Adaption theory as the official Communist doctrine. The doctrine was propounded by Trofim Lysenko, a crackpot with no scientific education, and state-appointed expert in biology. The policies he recommended to his government caused lasting damage to Russian agriculture, and many geneticists were executed at his behest as peddlars of a "burgeoise pseudoscience".

wolfsbane

robindch said:

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.

I am aware that a lot of accusations and counter accusations are made by the man and the institution. I am also aware that the guidelines themselves are designed to exclude non-evolutionary argument. I am further aware of other scientists who testifiy to the same suppression of dissent in their careers - indeed that some of them engaged in it before the Lord converted them.

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?

No, there should certainly be standards. But should 'standards' preclude scientific arguments by scientists just as qualified as those who oppose them? You will say, "they were not good science", but how can we know without them being published and exposed? What is to fear, if they are junk? Why not publish them and a response? Looks like something to hide.

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?

Nothing too advanced. 'A-level' stuff. Read a copy of Scientific American once, as I recall. I do not subscribe. Yes, I saw other references to it before this controversy, to the best of my recollection.

But nice to see some truth get through at times.:) This from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/195.asp
Even the journal Science, itself known to refuse to publish creationist views, wrote:
Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.

wolfsbane

Sapien said;

It did not. Communists rejected Darwinian Evolution. They believed that it ran counter to Marx's Historical Materialism. Stalinist Russia formally denounced Darwin's theories, and adopted the long debunked Lamarckian Adaption theory as the official Communist doctrine. The doctrine was propounded by Trofim Lysenko, a crackpot with no scientific education, and state-appointed expert in biology. The policies he recommended to his government caused lasting damage to Russian agriculture, and many geneticists were executed at his behest as peddlars of a "burgeoise pseudoscience".

Aren't you being economical with the truth? My point was that biological evolution was a given in the Soviet system, supporting their world-view.

That they had other mechanisms of societal development is certain, but they did not remove biological evolution as a pillar of their belief.

S.J. Gould (1979): "Cultural evolution has progressed at rates that Darwinian processes cannot begin to approach. Darwinian evolution continues in Homo Sapiens, but at rates too slow that it has no longer much impact on our history. This crux in the Earth's history has been reached because Lamarckian processes have finally been unleashed upon it. Human cultural evolution, in strong opposition to our biological history, is Lamarckian in character. What we learn in one generation, we transmit directly by teaching and writing. Acquired characters are inherited in technology and culture. Lamarckian evolution is rapid and accumulative. It explains the cardinal difference between our past, purely biological mode of change, and our current, maddening acceleration towards something new and liberating - or towards the abyss."

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

Sapien said;

Aren't you being economical with the truth? My point was that biological evolution was a given in the Soviet system, supporting their world-view.

That they had other mechanisms of societal development is certain, but they did not remove biological evolution as a pillar of their belief.

No, Wolfsbane, I am not. You were simply wrong, uninformed, incorrect. Communist Russia officially rejected Darwinian Evolution as being wrong. They rejected genetics. They rejected genetic inheritance of any kind. They did not believe that Lamarckian adaption operated in, or merely in the mechanisms of social change. They accepted Lamarckian adaption as the mechanism by which biological organisms change, and rejected Darwinian evolution. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Darwinian evolution was not a "given" in Soviet Russia - it was denounced and rejected. They did not believe that it supported their world-view, they believed it was fundamentally in conflict with it.

I would not recommend you pursue this - history cannot be fudged so easily as the myriad complexities of science, and there doesn't yet exist a comprehensive Creationist re-telling of 20th Century history for you to pick from. You might just demonstrate in a categorical way your unwillingness to be corrected or convinced - to relinquish a precious facet of your own world-view - if you don't concede your mistake adroitly (or at least pretend this didn't happen. I shan't make a fuss). Shouldn't bother you too much - it's not really a stumbling block to your faith, merely a stick with which to beat your opponents occasionally. You can do without that I think, especially when the alternative is to embarrass yourself horribly.

Of course, this is troubling for you in another way. Lysenko demonstrates how a deranged crackpot with enough conviction can steer an entire nation into an era of false science, and how rejection of Darwinism resulted in the crippling of an entire, self-contained and independent scientific community, with ramifications persisting to this day. Look up Lysenkoism. It might make an impact.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Aren't you being economical with the truth? My point was that biological evolution was a given in the Soviet system, supporting their world-view.

It was a given every where else too, since it is a fact.

But as Sapien points out the USSR completely rejected Darwinist evolutionary theory and all modern theories of genetics and natural selection.

They embrassed the Lamarckian theory of evolution, that change happens as a direct responce to an species attempt to adapt to an enviornment instead, that this desire to adapt and change is some how passed on to other generations, despite that fact that genetics had proven Lamarckian theory incorrect. The classic Lamarckian example is the early girraffes spend their lives stretching to reach the trees, so this action lead to their off spring gaining slightly longer necks and so on until they could easily reach the trees.

Lamarckian theory is actually very similar to the Young Earth Creationist theory of "specialisation", so why you are blasting the USSR I've no idea, since the USSR government and scientists offically held similar views to YECs with regard to how animals can rapidly adapt to an enviornment, and the USSR rejected Darwinist and neo-Darwinist evolutionary theories. I would expect you to be quoting the USSR scientists from the time, not blasting them. Yet that might not sit will with the Creationist view that atheist = evil

It is also a rather silly argument to state the the big bad evil atheist communist supported evolution as if to suggest a link between evolution and evil empires. The shinny happy God fearing Americans after all developed atomic weapons and boiled to death an entire city in Japan around the same time.

wolfsbane wrote:

S.J. Gould (1979): "Cultural evolution has progressed at rates that Darwinian processes cannot begin to approach.

Absolutely no idea what that quote, about social and cultural evolution (which is quite distinct from biological evolution) has to do with this topic ....

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

The Bible need not come into it. Pure common sense suggests special creation as an alternative to evolution. Special creation is how we get all the machines and ordered growth around us, so it is a natural conclusion when we ask how all the complexity of nature came about.

Ah, you mean that "pure common sense" would suggest a designer as one option to explain nature - Intelligent Design sensu stricto. Yes, that's true. As I've noted before, it was the original scientific position, which had to be progressively abandoned in the face of the evidence.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

That is begging the question. Evolution is the only explanation, therefore no other explanation must be considered.

Not at all. I can see why you have to assume this, but special creation is not developed as a scientific theory, which is the reason for its exclusion. Insofar as one can put it forward as an explanation without involving specific religious doctrine, all one can do is note that it is a suggestion - and it is then left entirely to the student to decide where the designer fits into the picture.

As usual, you attempt to present a dichotomy - special creation or evolution. There are thousands of creation stories, and several scientific theories, which attempt to explain the world around us. There are currently no good competing theories to genetic evolution - although I myself expect to see some backtracking towards Lamarckianism over the next couple of decades.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how Flood geology would find oil better than evolutionary geology. They both see the same strata. Most businesses do not rely on evolutionary science - they rely on science. Evolutionary science should not be confused with fact.

Hmm. I'm afraid there's a lot more to geology than just looking at strata. 99% of oil research is interpretation, exactly the thing that would be most affected by the framework used. The geology of an oil reservoir will be hugely affected if what is thought to be a shallowing-up sequence from an ancient seashore is actually a flood deposit.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

Scientists who are creationists disagree with your accusations.

Very few of them, and most of them the perpetrators- a jury of the accused doesn't impress me much as objective. You have kindly pointed us to the work of these scientists, and I have read it, and as a scientist I tell you straight out that it's rubbish. You won't accept my word, of course, because I'm not a Christian - but to be a Christian, by your lights, I'd have to accept Genesis as true, and therefore could do nothing but agree with you.

Logically, you have made it impossible for you to accept the evidence of anyone who does not agree with you. A Creation Scientist who discovers the Bible to be in error immediately ceases to be a Creation Scientist. Perhaps you can tell me where I'm wrong about that?

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

Scientists have made a scientific case for the flood. And I'm not arguing that the Fall can be addressed by science, only the observed consequencies.

Nope, see above with respect to the Flood. As to the Fall, if it cannot be addressed by science, and yet is used as an explanation, then it constitutes a supernatural explanation of the type prohibited - we might as well say (leaving the Bible aside) that Fairies did it.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

It would be religion.

Well, congratulations then. Outside the public schools in the US, there are RE classes, and it is normal for science teachers to at least bring up Creation, if only to note that it is a religious explanation, not a scientific one.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

That is your opinion of their scientific work, but it is the science that they want presented alongside the evolutionary model, not the religion.

If they ever do some science, they might have a better chance of having it presented. Why would anyone present polemic and sophistry in science class? Evolution is perfectly respectable science, for all you dislike it.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

Evolution did not arise with Darwin, and in any event evolution provided the scientific cover for communism's atheism. Nazism was not theist let alone Christian in ideology. Himmler's final plan involved the extermination of all other faiths, including Christianity. The master-race concept was entirely evolutionary.

Not at all - the master-race concept was entirely racist. And, Heavens, but racism predates Darwin! I also thought it was common knowledge that Darwin was considered absolutely heretical in the USSR, but I see it isn't.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

Your comment below gives the clue to your error.

Scofflaw wrote:

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,

I now see where our differences on my Nazi comments arise. You regard suppression of dissent as a minor weakness. I regard it as a deadly seed that if allowed to develop will destroy society.

Yes, I do, because it simply isn't the same thing as suppression. Groupthink can affect a group, although it doesn't affect all groups. Not only that, but groupthink is only relevant to the particular (smallish) group it's found in - the next group's groupthink may be entirely different. Suppression of dissent means the imposition of a gagging order - it's not the same thing.

In plain language, groupthink is "oh, we didn't think of that way", whereas suppression of dissent is "well, Billy suggested that way, and they shot him, so we don't talk about that except in secret any more". You're claiming that the two are the same, for dramatic effect - a bit like claiming being polite requires shooting those who swear.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

My point was not that today's scientific elite are sending people to the gas-chambers (though the abortion industry is the exception), but that suppression of argument today will lead to suppression of people eventually. You obviously see no such danger.

Actually, I see such a danger if you have your way. I don't see you as being on the side of light at all - I see you as being on the side of unreason.

You believe that you, and only you, are possessed of truth - an eternal, unchangeable truth. After a bit, we get back to where someone says "all truth is in the Bible, no other books are needed, as they either agree with it, and are superfluous, or disagree with it, in which case they are lies". No thank you.

Your beliefs about science are no more rational than those of any other conspiracy-theorist. I'm not aware, for example, that the scientific elite orders mass abortions - I always thought it was the legislators who made the law, and individual people who made the decisions. Perhaps you have some evidence, though....a sort of Protocols of the Elders of Science?

regards,
Scofflaw