The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Ha, the 500th thread posting -- will we ever reach a conclusion?

It's logically impossible captain. We're playing chess, and they're playing soccer, in different places, quite possibly at different times.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Morbert

pH wrote:

I'd have thought it's obvious, people who *believe* in evolution are evolutionists in the same way that those who believe in creation are creationists.

They're both just beliefs aren't they, why should evolutionists beliefs get taught in Science class, and not creationists beliefs ?

No. Evolution is not just a belief. It is a well substantiated scientific theory which addresses the fact that life changes and evolves over time.

---

BrianCalgary.... Once again, your post is misleading. Many of the scientists in the list you provide are from an era long before evolution was as rigorously studied as it is today. And many of them are involved in non-evolutionary study. The number of creation scientists is 0, as there is no scientific theory of creation. And the number of creation-ist scientists is vanishingly small. Whereas the number of Evolutionary biologists is huge. Less than 1% of scientists in the relevant fields* are creationists.

*Biology and geology.

----

And regarding the claim that God created the light "en route" to our planet... What evidence is there to suggest this, and how can it be tested using the scientific method.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

And regarding the claim that God created the light "en route" to our planet... What evidence is there to suggest this, and how can it be tested using the scientific method.

1. It's there. 2. He created all things some several thousand years ago.

It cannot be proved or disproved by any scientific method I can think of. Doesn't make it any less true/untrue.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

Humanity (and I'm assuming that the prospering of humanity is what you mean by the universe "work[ing]") would have gotten along just as well with a pitchy night sky and freshly solidified rocks. Any other reasons you can posit for this bizarre subterfuge by the creator?

Regarding the stars, man would have gotten on OK physically, but Scripture suggests the reason for such a magnificent display was spiritual. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [underlining mine]. Also
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Regarding rocks, could they have all the varieties of ore from freshly solidified rocks? What is a one second old rock composed of?

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:


1. It's there. 2. He created all things some several thousand years ago.

It cannot be proved or disproved by any scientific method I can think of. Doesn't make it any less true/untrue.

That is not evidence, that is a contention. Your failure to produce scientific evidence or support for the claim renders it irrelevant as a description of the natural world.

i.e. Give me a reason to believe what you say.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Your failure to produce scientific evidence or support for the claim renders it irrelevant as a description of the natural world.

I've told you how I think the starlight came to earth originally. You might not want to accept that, but given the concept of instantaneous creation of the universe, the physics of that is just as solid as those for an old universe. Same light, same distances, just a different snapshot in time. Nothing about the measurements of the light or the stars themselves would be different. So I could just as easily say to you, prove to me that it happened your way and not mine. It can't be done.

i.e. Give me a reason to believe what you say.

Because God says so. Neither you nor I were there, so it all comes down to believing Him or not.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

I've told you how I think the starlight came to earth originally. You might not want to accept that, but given the concept of instantaneous creation of the universe, the physics of that is just as solid as those for an old universe. Same light, same distances, just a different snapshot in time. Nothing about the measurements of the light or the stars themselves would be different. So I could just as easily say to you, prove to me that it happened your way and not mine. It can't be done.

Exactly, so we go with Occum's Razor.
The observational evidence fits General Relativity and QFT and both of those can predict and retrodict, so the scientific community goes with what they say.

If God created an old universe which looks exactly like what GR and QFT predict, then how are we to know any different?

robindch

> prove to me that it happened your way and not mine. It can't be done.

Don't you think it's a bit strange that quite a lot of evidence points in the direction of an old universe? For example, it's not just the light in transit, but also the cosmic background microwave radiation, the radioactivity of rocks on earth (and on the moon and in other cosmic debris), the distribution of the continents, the variation in magnetic particles on the seabed, the redshifting of distant stars, the existence of cool planets, moons and second- and third-cycle stars, the existence of black holes, and so on and so on.

I would like to hear why you think that god would go to the bother of creating all of these separate pieces of evidence which disagree with your interpretation of the bible? Wouldn't he be lying? Or could it be possible that your interpretation is wrong?

BTW, Brian -- I'm still waiting for you to reply to the second half of my posting from yesterday.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:


I've told you how I think the starlight came to earth originally. You might not want to accept that, but given the concept of instantaneous creation of the universe, the physics of that is just as solid as those for an old universe. Same light, same distances, just a different snapshot in time. Nothing about the measurements of the light or the stars themselves would be different. So I could just as easily say to you, prove to me that it happened your way and not mine. It can't be done.



Because God says so. Neither you nor I were there, so it all comes down to believing Him or not.

Again... This is what you claim, but I have no reason to believe what you say because you have not presented evidence for what you say.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Well, apparently not. Apparently it shows his trickery and sense of inadequacy with what he had actually created.

wolfsbane wrote:

Regarding rocks, could they have all the varieties of ore from freshly solidified rocks? What is a one second old rock composed of?

Oh dear. Metallic ores do not result from the ageing of rocks Elements can only be formed by nuclear processes. All metals found on Earth, with very few exceptions, were formed inside ancient stars that went nova aeons before the planet was formed from a great swirling cloud of stellar dust. Seems like a much simpler way of doing things.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

If God created an old universe which looks exactly like what GR and QFT predict, then how are we to know any different?

I think we are meant to take Him at His word. He said He created Adam as fully mature. I take that also for all the plants and animals. Why should it be differnet for the heavenly bodies?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I would like to hear why you think that god would go to the bother of creating all of these separate pieces of evidence which disagree with your interpretation of the bible? Wouldn't he be lying? Or could it be possible that your interpretation is wrong?

I don't think they do confict with a recent creation. It only conflicts if you insist such a creation must start with a year 0 apparent age.

Yes, He would be lying if they were meant to say they were old; but they only mean a fully formed and functioning universe.

My interpretation could be wrong, but in that case everything I believe about what the Bible says would be wrong; indeed I might only be imaginging I'm discussing this. My inner being assures me I'm not.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Again... This is what you claim, but I have no reason to believe what you say because you have not presented evidence for what you say.

OK, then ditto to you. Can you prove the universe is as old as you say and that it was not created fully mature as I say? Of course not. All you can produce is the same facts I can. Both our interpretations are equally possible, logically.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

Well, apparently not.

Apparent to you, or so you say. It spoke very clearly to me.

Oh dear. Metallic ores do not result from the ageing of rocks Elements can only be formed by nuclear processes.

I'm ignorant of the physics of such things. My point was that we need the rocks and minerals we have - not one second old rock. So if God wanted to give us iron ore, you insist He should do it by forming a pile of such as a separate entity? Also, does not lead, for example, result from the aging process of other elements? To have instant lead would require apparent age, would it not?

Only nuclear processes? - what of Divine command?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

I think we are meant to take Him at His word. He said He created Adam as fully mature. I take that also for all the plants and animals. Why should it be differnet for the heavenly bodies?

And the Qu'ran has a God saying something different and the Vedic scriptures say something else and e.t.c., e.t.c.
So as a scientist, wouldn't it just be more natural to assume the universe is as old as it looks, without making some bizarre extrapolation.

Maybe it was created on October 3rd 1896 fully formed, maybe another random date. Or maybe it's as old as it looks.

UU

Or maybe it might be practical to observe solid evidence. The universe is so unbelievably ancient and large beyond knowledge. It is estimated though that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old - not a few thousand years like it is said in the Bible or whatever. The rocks of the Earth can truly help in the estimation of its age. The oldest rock ever found was 3.9 billion years old.

Also, why should Evolutionism conflict with Christianity? I know Christians who accept the Darwin-Wallace theory to be very valid. They say that God created the Earth and Evolution of species which is a rather good way of looking at things.

Before the theory of Evolution came about, people needed an explanation for existence and how the Universe was formed so they created the book of Genesis and other such stories as a possible explanation. I'm not ignorant - I've studied both Creationism and Evolutionism and I think Evolutionism is much more valid. Although, I like the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis for its imagery and hidden metaphorical meanings but it isn't valid in my terms.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm ignorant of the physics of such things. My point was that we need the rocks and minerals we have - not one second old rock. So if God wanted to give us iron ore, you insist He should do it by forming a pile of such as a separate entity? Also, does not lead, for example, result from the aging process of other elements? To have instant lead would require apparent age, would it not?

Only nuclear processes? - what of Divine command?

A bit of advice, Wolf' old man. Best not to venture into the science of things. One might say it's your bane. How can you reject the theses of scientists when you are so terrifyingly ignorant?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

And the Qu'ran has a God saying something different and the Vedic scriptures say something else and e.t.c., e.t.c.

So? How does anyone opinion invalidate anyone elses's? It is either so or it is not.

So as a scientist, wouldn't it just be more natural to assume the universe is as old as it looks, without making some bizarre extrapolation.

As a scientist you could assume either. One is a purely materialistic explanation, one is spiritually informed. Both are natural to their own presuppositions. One is bizarre to you not because you are a scientist but because you have materialistic presuppositions. Yours is bizarre to me because I do not.

Maybe it was created on October 3rd 1896 fully formed, maybe another random date. Or maybe it's as old as it looks.

We have plenty of records to the contrary. Unless you are suggesting that a 1896 creation involved implanted memories. Which of course I would have to deny due to its conflict with the Bible.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

A bit of advice, Wolf' old man. Best not to venture into the science of things. One might say it's your bane. How can you reject the theses of scientists when you are so terrifyingly ignorant?

I can reject them on the testimony of other scientists. And some of it on what I do know of science. I would not classify myself as 'terrifyingly ignorant'. For you to do so would better be described as terrifyingly arrogant.

That is the big problem with many evolutionists - their arrogance stops them listening even to their peers in science, and certainly to non-scientists who might point out that the king has no clothes.

wolfsbane

UU said:

The rocks of the Earth can truly help in the estimation of its age. The oldest rock ever found was 3.9 billion years old.

UU, this is the thing debated. Actual maturity or apparent maturity.

Also, why should Evolutionism conflict with Christianity? I know Christians who accept the Darwin-Wallace theory to be very valid. They say that God created the Earth and Evolution of species which is a rather good way of looking at things.

Some Christians certainly do. But you will find their attempt to reconcile both very strained. In fact, the principle of interpretation they must use to embrace evolution allows fundamental Christian doctrines to be denied. The need to make what appears to be straight forward narrative in Genesis into metaphor can just as well be used to make the virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death and physical resurrection of Christ metaphor also.

Although, I like the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis for its imagery and hidden metaphorical meanings but it isn't valid in my terms.

Let me ask you, have you studied the references Jesus and the apostles made to the Genesis account? Do you think they meant us to understand they took it all metaphorically?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I can reject them on the testimony of other scientists. And some of it on what I do know of science. I would not classify myself as 'terrifyingly ignorant'. For you to do so would better be described as terrifyingly arrogant.

That is the big problem with many evolutionists - their arrogance stops them listening even to their peers in science, and certainly to non-scientists who might point out that the king has no clothes.

Wolfsbane, we've been over this. You are equating a very small number of scientists (a few hundred), mostly outside the life and earth scientists, mostly working for Creationist foundations, and who believe in Creationist 'science', with a couple of million scientists who don't. This is pretty much the same level of claim as people who claim that Elvis is alive because some scientists share that belief. You are, again, ignoring facts to suit yourself.

And while it is possible for non-scientists to point out that the king has no clothes, it is not particularly impressive for them to do it by simply pretending that the clothes don't exist, or that they 'equally well fit with nakedness'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

UU said:


UU, this is the thing debated. Actual maturity or apparent maturity.



Some Christians certainly do. But you will find their attempt to reconcile both very strained. In fact, the principle of interpretation they must use to embrace evolution allows fundamental Christian doctrines to be denied. The need to make what appears to be straight forward narrative in Genesis into metaphor can just as well be used to make the virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death and physical resurrection of Christ metaphor also.



Let me ask you, have you studied the references Jesus and the apostles made to the Genesis account? Do you think they meant us to understand they took it all metaphorically?

It seems you are consistently wrong. Everything you have said so far paints a nihilistic "apparent age" version of christianity which is far far more strained than the correct interpretation used by christians who accept evolution.

So let me put it succinctly... I do not believe anything you say Wolfsbane, nor do I believe anything BrianCalgary says, and you have not given me reason to do so. Furthermore, and I should thank you for this, you have highlighted the sheer removal from reality that creationism requires. Talk about apparent age till you're blue in the face, you're only revealing the stupidity of creationism.

You are wrong... Incredibly so. And unless you provide evidence to the contrary, that will remain so.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

So? How does anyone opinion invalidate anyone elses's? It is either so or it is not.

My point is different religous texts say many different things, why would a scientist pick one and say "this literal reading of this particular religous text is what happened".

As a scientist you could assume either. One is a purely materialistic explanation, one is spiritually informed. Both are natural to their own presuppositions. One is bizarre to you not because you are a scientist but because you have materialistic presuppositions. Yours is bizarre to me because I do not.

If by "materialistic presuppositions" you mean I think that things actually are as old as they look, then yes. I have very strong materialistic leanings in that sense.

wolfsbane wrote:

We have plenty of records to the contrary. Unless you are suggesting that a 1896 creation involved implanted memories. Which of course I would have to deny due to its conflict with the Bible.

Sure why not?
He didn't implant memories, he just created the universe with a history, as if the previous centuries has existed.
This is where I'm going with this, it's nihilism to a useless extreme.
The universe could have been created at any time for all we know.
In fact does it even matter what age it is then, since it would look the same anyway. Why even bother going with YEC or OEC or anything, it'll be the same no matter what. For all intensive purposes it is old.

As a scientist, in order to be confident that you can predict and retrodict you have to assume the observations are honest which is why it's the explanation a scientist will go with.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Elvis is alive because some scientists share that belief.

Really? Who are these scientists and what evidence do they produce to support their claim? Creationist scientists do produce the evidence, even if most scientists reject their interpretations. So I think your analogy won't stand.

it is not particularly impressive for them to do it by simply pretending that the clothes don't exist, or that they 'equally well fit with nakedness'.

And of course that is not what we do - but that is the debate.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:


Really? Who are these scientists and what evidence do they produce to support their claim? Creationist scientists do produce the evidence, even if most scientists reject their interpretations. So I think your analogy won't stand.


And of course that is not what we do - but that is the debate.

What debate? What evidence? What established contentions? There is no debate. It's been over for a long time. And if the only way you can revive the debate is by claiming reality is an illusion, then you should switch off your computer right now. It's the God of Creation that's an illusion, as has been demonstrated by the absurdities of creationist claims and the rigorous study of evolution. Give it up... It's over.

It's no longer a case of Christianity vs. Evolution.... It's a case of Christianity and Evolution vs. Creationism.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

far far more strained than the correct interpretation used by christians who accept evolution.

You didn't show how it was so strained. The 6, 24hr Day Creation I present is the historic view of the Church. A tiny minority differed, usually heretics. Now I can understand unbelievers rubbishing Creation and the Bible, but I find it poor scholarship to suggest that one is straining the Bible to make it teach a 6, 24 hr Day Creation. Better to say the Bible writers were ignorant of the facts and made up stories to account for it all. That is what any impartial reader of the Bible would conclude, that or it really did happen just as I've said.

I do not believe anything you say Wolfsbane, nor do I believe anything BrianCalgary says, and you have not given me reason to do so.

I'm sorry you remain in unbelief. One day you will believe it all - I pray that it is this side of eternity.

Furthermore, and I should thank you for this, you have highlighted the sheer removal from reality that creationism requires.

I understand how you feel. I feel exactly the same toward you and evolutionism. This whole debate has been refreshing in that it reminded me how blinkered and 'pc' modern man can be. There is great hope for the coming World Order when so many so willing fall in line with the received 'truth'.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

What debate? What evidence? What established contentions? There is no debate. It's been over for a long time.

You should check out the media for the hot contention on this throughout the world. You might like to say the opposition has no case, but it is being vigourously argued and debated daily.

Son Goku

I understand how you feel. I feel exactly the same toward you and evolutionism. This whole debate has been refreshing in that it reminded me how blinkered and 'pc' modern man can be. There is great hope for the coming World Order when so many so willing fall in line with the received 'truth'.

Blinkered and PC? The coming world order? Such extreme imagery.
Man, you said yourself the evidence would be identical, so its not being blinkered and its certainly not being "PC", I don't even understand how that applies.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:

You didn't show how it was so strained. The 6, 24hr Day Creation I present is the historic view of the Church. A tiny minority differed, usually heretics. Now I can understand unbelievers rubbishing Creation and the Bible, but I find it poor scholarship to suggest that one is straining the Bible to make it teach a 6, 24 hr Day Creation. Better to say the Bible writers were ignorant of the facts and made up stories to account for it all. That is what any impartial reader of the Bible would conclude, that or it really did happen just as I've said.

It seems you do not understand what it means to be a Christian. But few creationists do. The writers of the Bible, and the Church in the past, did not have the sheer amount of data at their disposal that you or I do, they have an excuse, but you, and all other modern day creationists don't. Christianity is about an acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God and saviour of mankind. So your claim that an acceptance of an old universe strains christianity reveals a misunderstanding of what it means to be Christian.

I'm sorry you remain in unbelief. One day you will believe it all - I pray that it is this side of eternity.

Stop handwaving... Stop jumping around with ambiguous statements and back up what you say.

I understand how you feel. I feel exactly the same toward you and evolutionism. This whole debate has been refreshing in that it reminded me how blinkered and 'pc' modern man can be. There is great hope for the coming World Order when so many so willing fall in line with the received 'truth'.

Again... This amounts to nothing more than false handwaving. If you want to debate creationism, then back it up with evidence. I have repeatedly asked you and others to do so. So far you have not.

Actually, keep doing what you're doing, because other people reading this will then be able to make up their own minds, as they witness the emptiness of creationism.

So, my friend, if you can't back up your claims of apparent age with evidence, then it appears you are the one who is blinkered, and it is plain for all to see.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:


You should check out the media for the hot contention on this throughout the world. You might like to say the opposition has no case, but it is being vigourously argued and debated daily.

Again... I say: What debate? What evidence? What established contentions? There is no debate. It's been over for a long time.

Don't make me repeat myself again. Either back up what you say or don't post.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

My point is different religous texts say many different things, why would a scientist pick one and say "this literal reading of this particular religous text is what happened".

He could come to a creationist conclusion from his scientific research, but of course that would not tell him Who had done it and in what circumstances. It takes God to convince Him of that.

Why even bother going with YEC or OEC or anything, it'll be the same no matter what. For all intensive purposes it is old.

I agree. But the reason we go with the YEC is that it is what the Bible teaches. We are called to proclaim His truth, so we teach YEC. It is not the most important doctrine of Scripture. In fact it is not fundamental - Christian may err on this and still be saved. But to deny YEC is to leave defenceless many fundamental truths because it alters the very way we interpret Scripture.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Again... I say: What debate? What evidence? What established contentions? There is no debate. It's been over for a long time.

Don't make me repeat myself again. Either back up what you say or don't post.

Are you too lazy to google? See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_vs._evolution_debate

Evolutionists say their is no debate, yet the scientists you concede are creationists continue to deny evolution and publish against it. That used to be called debate and controversy. Today's elite find it better to pretend there is no debate, that no-one questions their dogma. Would I not be a fool to make the same claim, to say because of what creationist scientists believe the debate is over, we have proved our case beyond dispute?

The arrogance of the majority is truly blinding.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:


Are you too lazy to google? See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_vs._evolution_debate

Evolutionists say their is no debate, yet the scientists you concede are creationists continue to deny evolution and publish against it. That used to be called debate and controversy. Today's elite find it better to pretend there is no debate, that no-one questions their dogma. Would I not be a fool to make the same claim, to say because of what creationist scientists believe the debate is over, we have proved our case beyond dispute?

The arrogance of the majority is truly blinding.

Have you actually read the article?

"Accusations of misleading formulations, incorrect or false statements, and inappropriate mixing of ideas are fundamental points of disagreement."

"The controversy is usually portrayed in the mass media as being between scientists, in particular evolutionary biologists, and creationists, but as almost all scientists do not consider the debate to have any academic legitimacy, it may be more correctly described as a conflict over a conflation of science and religion."

The article goes on to explain that it is not, in fact, a debate, but rather a convoluted battle to keep creationism out of the science classroom. The actual scientific debate ended a long time ago.

So heh... I looks like you've provided evidence *against* what you claim.

[edit]-Sidenote: heh... Anything they *publish* misdirection and misapplication of science (I can provide references if you like)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Evolutionists say their is no debate, yet the scientists you concede are creationists continue to deny evolution and publish against it. That used to be called debate and controversy.

There is no scientific controversy, just as there is no scientific controversy over Lamarckianism - there are still a tiny number of Lamarckianists, because the USSR was unable to accept Darwinian evolution (too Western), and adopted Lamarckianism instead. Nevertheless, because Lamarckianism is not scientifically credible, there is no scientific controversy, nor was there much at the time, since the USSR's denial of Darwinian evolution was clearly ideologically motivated. The position with 'creation science' is identical.

wolfsbane wrote:

Today's elite find it better to pretend there is no debate, that no-one questions their dogma. Would I not be a fool to make the same claim, to say because of what creationist scientists believe the debate is over, we have proved our case beyond dispute?

The arrogance of the majority is truly blinding.

Make up your mind - elite or majority? The words have opposite meanings.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

...

twentycentshift

nothing in the bible matters, if you don't believe in the bible.

at least science is willing to say "prove it. if i'm wrong, give me proof, and i will agree with your proof." creationists will never say " if you can show me anything different, i will change my mind."

just the closed-mindedness of bible believers makes them suspect....refusal to see other perspectives is a sure sign of insecurity.

robindch

> Evolutionists say their is no debate yet the scientists you concede
> are creationists continue to deny evolution and publish against it.

Firstly, as everywhere in this controversy, the same word means different things to different people.

To evolutionists, there is no scientific debate because there is no competing theory to the Theory of Evolution which explains the observed facts more comprehensively. You can't have a scientific debate with only one theory; you need at least two. Creationism/ID is not a theory, it is a religion.

To creationists, there is a 'debate' because the Theory of Evolution is in conflict with one specific interpretation of their specific holy book. This is not a debate based upon evidence, but based upon belief, consequently, it is not a scientific debate, but a religious one.

Secondly, to date, there have been no -- zero, zilch, nada, none -- scientific papers based upon original research published in any scientific journal which suggests that ID explains the world better than Evolution (see here). Your claim that proponents of ID "publish against" evolution is false.

> The arrogance of the majority is truly blinding.

I would be careful saying thigs like this if you're trying to insult evolutionists -- recall that in the USA, around 85% of people have creationist beliefs of one form or another.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

To creationists, there is a 'debate' because the Theory of Evolution is in conflict with one specific interpretation of their specific holy book. This is not a debate based upon evidence, but based upon belief, consequently, it is not a scientific debate, but a religious one.

Are there not two debates? There is one debate over whether creationism has enough evidentiary support, intellectual coherence, and testability to be considered scientifically - this is the one that most scientists think they are having with creationists. Creationists, on the other hand, think they are debating whether evolution or creationism is the better scientific theory - in other words, they act as if the first debate is either irrelevant, or has been concluded in their favour.


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Blinkered and PC? The coming world order? Such extreme imagery.
Man, you said yourself the evidence would be identical, so its not being blinkered and its certainly not being "PC", I don't even understand how that applies.

The facts are the same; its the interpretation, the inferences drawn from those that differ. If one rules out a particular line of argument as 'not for debate', then blinkered is a suitable description. 'PC' applies because of the fear amongst scientists who are open to debate to publically reveal themselves lest they lose their employment.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

It seems you do not understand what it means to be a Christian. But few creationists do.

I'm happy to be called a heretic by one so evidently ignorant of the Bible.

The writers of the Bible, and the Church in the past, did not have the sheer amount of data at their disposal that you or I do, they have an excuse, but you, and all other modern day creationists don't.

Ok, so you believe they were in ignorance and so spun us a tale. You have just denied the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. That puts you outside the pale of Christianity.

Christianity is about an acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God and saviour of mankind.

And all that goes with it. One of those fundamentals is believing Him when He says Scripture cannot be broken, that it is the word of God.

Again... This amounts to nothing more than false handwaving. If you want to debate creationism, then back it up with evidence. I have repeatedly asked you and others to do so. So far you have not.

Sigh... JC has produced abundant evidence but you are in denial. I could be as dishonest and say you have produced no evidence for evolution - but I respect anyone who puts up an argument, even if I disagree ontheir conclusions. I don't pretend it doesn't exist.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Have you actually read the article?

Yes.

The article goes on to explain that it is not, in fact, a debate, but rather a convoluted battle to keep creationism out of the science classroom. The actual scientific debate ended a long time ago.

You are defining debate in a very particular way. You seem to be saying once an overwhelming majority agree on something the debate has ended. I would content that so long as any expert in the field puts forward contrary propositions, the debate continues. And I'm not talking of the debate as to whether creationism should be taught in schools, but the actual arguemt amongst scientists about the viability of creation/evolution.

An analogy is the Roman Catholic Church of the 16th Century. It could be said the overwhelming majority of the experts agree it was right. Some weirdo expert then nails 95 points of contention to the church door, initialing a debate. Was there no real debate? Had it all been settled long ago? Just look at the outcome.

BTW, Christians are not realy interested in persuading folk of the truth of creation as such. They first of all want to defend the integrity of Scripture to their fellow Christians. Then also they use the debate to remove a stumbling block (that the Bible is in error) to unbelievers whom they seek to bring to Christ. If it wasn't important to these people, it would hardly be discussed by Christians.

J C

Quote Morbert
You yourself have admitted that the deus ex machina is outside the realm of science, yet you then go on to claim we can scientifically infer such a mechanism from natural evidence.

What I have said is that that the ‘deus ex machina’ putative Act of Creation, is outside of science because it is not repeatably observable.
I went on to point out that all putative Abiogenesis processes are also not repeatably observable and Abiogenesis is therefore strictly outside of science as well.

Divine Creation and Abiogenesis are therefore BOTH strictly outside of science. They are faith-based positions, so to speak – Creation because it CAN’T be observed and Abiogenesis because it has NEVER been observed.

I do however believe that science HAS a vital role to play in relation to helping answer the ‘origins question’. It is certainly capable of assessing any repeatably observable evidence for EITHER Creation or Abiogenesis.


Quote Morbert
So far you're simply relied on incredulity to support creationism, yet such an approach is nowhere near adequate enough to lift creationism to the status of a science. Even if evolution were found to be completely absurd (which it isn't). This would not mean anything regarding the acceptance of creationism as a science.

’Incredulity arguments’ as you have styled them are made by both sides.

Creationists point to, for example, the mathematical impossibility of the purposeful information present in living systems arising by undirected, essentially random or repeating processes.

Evolutionists point to the possibility of numerous attempts being made throughout the Universe, over incredibly long periods of time as likely to lead to the spontaneous emergence of life somewhere in the Universe.

Could I point out that the ‘incredulity arguments’ of Creationists about the information present in living systems IS repeatably observable and is therefore within the competence of science to evaluate it.

On the other hand, the ‘incredulity arguments’ of Evolutionists which claim inordinate amounts of time, numerous attempts and the spontaneous emergence of life are NOT repeatably observable and therefore outside of the competence of science to evaluate.
That ironically is one of the reasons why macro-evolution has not been more vigorously challenged by science – because most of it’s claims haven’t been proven by observation, it is therefore difficult to disprove them by science.

The recent scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of living processes that have occurred with Molecular Biology, in particular, show that the evidence is now dramatically favouring Creation and effectively ruling out natural processes as the originators of life.


Quote Morbert
Even if the flood was responsible for a fraction of today's limestone, enough heat would be generated to boil the flood waters. Geological processes need huge amounts of time which allows the heat to be radiated gradually. Creationism, of course, does not address any of this.

The primary exothermic reaction of limestone occurs with the addition of water to 'burned' (or oxidised) limestone and it indeed does generate considerable heat.
However, the putative underground waters of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ would have been saturated with HYDROLYSED Calcium Carbonate – which wouldn’t produce exothermic reactions in water.
In any event, even if some exothermic processes accompanied the formation of limestone, the massive relative difference in volume between the water in the World’s Oceans as compared with the volume of the World’s Limestone deposits would ensure that any heat would be rapidly dissipated.


Quote Morbert
The standard geological model has no problem with limestone formation.
The great PURITY of most Limestones rules out the standard model of gradual deposition, which would have produced significant contamination with organic matter and other materials – which is not observed in commercial Limestone quarries.
It also WASN’T produced by animal bone breakdown – the fossils that are found in Limestone are generally very well preserved – and therefore they were rapidly entombed. Because these fossils weren’t chemically eroded, there is no reason to believe that the rest of the crystalline Calcium Carbonate found in these rocks came from chemically eroded bone or shells either.


Quote Morbert
The inner canyon is carved into strongly metamorphosed sediments …………

Basically, the Grand canyon does not exhibit features associated with a massive flood. We'd expect to see, such as boulders/gravel, wide shallow beds, "braided" river systems, slumping at the sides of the canyon etc. Instead we see meanders and tributaries and layered rock (Which was apparently simultaneously deposited and eroded by the great flood) etc.

Noah’s Flood was an on-going process that lasted for roughly a year. There were three main phases to the Flood.
The First Phase was the flooding process itself caused by the subsidence of the ante-diluvian landmasses accompanied by the explosive release of subterranean waters as well as the deluge of rainfall from the collapse of the water canopy above.
The Second Phase involved massive tectonic movements, and huge underwater currents, which transported and sorted out the sediment generated during the first phase as well as generating further sediment itself.
The Third Phase involved huge up-thrusts and down-thrusts leading to the emergence of sediment-covered land that dried out as the waters ran-off it back into the oceans. The sediments then petrified into sedimentary and metamorphic rocks.

The sedimentary rocks observed in the Grand Canyon Plateau were probably laid down under water during the Second Phase of Noah’s Flood and a water-carved canyon was made into these sediments by waters running off the newly-emerging North American landmass as they made their way towards the ocean, during the Third Phase. The metamorphic rock was probably formed by localised volcanic heating during the Third Phase, or indeed even more recently.


Quote Morbert
If we follow generation history along the mother's path, we come to a very different woman than if we travel along the father's path, or if we mix the two.
The first woman was by definition, the common ancestral mother of all men AND women.


Quote Morbert
The truth is the woman could only be considered common ancestors along specific genetic descent. But the fact that our history lies in 2 parents, and therefore 4 grandparents etc. means we can't call them "Eves".

Yes, as we go back through our immediate ancestors, we find that each generation expands exponentially viz 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.
However, the fact that science has established that we are all ultimately descended from a very SMALL population of people, means that our 'ancestral tree' approaching the so-called ‘population bottleneck’ begins to narrow back in numbers again, to the point where only a few women (I believe them to be four i.e. Noah’s wife and her three daughters-in-law) are the common female ancestors of all of Mankind.


Quote Morbert
Originally quoted by J C
“Palaeontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study”.‘Evolution’s erratic pace’, by Prof. Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p14.

Could you please provide the surrounding text to this quote?

The following are the lead-in paragraphs to the above quote (which are equally devastating to the case of gradual evolution):-

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

‘The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.’

Darwin’s argument still persists as the favoured escape of most palaeontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little evolution. In exposing it’s cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks.

Palaeontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”


As a scientist, I have nothing to add to the above words of Professor Stephen Jay Gould on this issue, other than to express my admiration for his frankness and integrity, as a great Evolutionary Scientist who wasn’t afraid to critically evaluate the evidence for his own beliefs.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

There is no scientific controversy

Again, how can you say that when some experts challenge the received understanding on evolution/creation? How can you just dismiss these scientists' arguments? If they argue the case, be they right or wrong, there is a scientific debate.

Make up your mind - elite or majority? The words have opposite meanings.

As in Hitler's Germany, both an elite and a majority.

J C

Quote Morbert
Evolution is indeed established as both objective, repeatable, reputable mechanism supported by evidence (which is of course available on demand if you're interested).

I have no issue with the scientific validity and strong evidential support for micro-evolution aka Natural Selection – which is also completely accepted by Creation Science.

However, if you have “objective, repeatable, reputable mechanisms supported by evidence” for macro-evolution from primordial chemicals to advance life forms, I would certainly like to see it.

Quote Morbert
We know very little about abiogenesis, but we do not know nothing about it, and the behaviour of organic chemicals suggests it is a worthwhile field of study.

Science already knows enough about abiogenesis to declare it to be impossible – and all recent breakthroughs in our understanding of living systems have ‘copper-fastened’ the Law of Biogenesis.


Quote Morbert
And science does indeed require leaps of faith... So long as you're willing to turn around and start building a bridge from that leap using empiricism and experimentation, so that others may cross it with confidence and make leaps of their own. It's why science is so immensely powerful.

Any so-called scientific bridge built on a ‘leap of faith’ is on a very shaky foundation indeed.

The reason why science is so immensely powerful and rightly trusted by society to deliver reliable knowledge and useful ideas is because it is built on repeatably observable phenomena and it’s theories (in general) are under constant scrutiny and subjected to intense debate and re-evaluation by professional scientists in each particular field as new evidence emerges.

Macro-evolution is unique, in that it is not based on repeatably observable phenomena and any critical scrutiny or debate by professional scientists appears to be about as welcome as a Porcupine in a Balloon Factory.


Quote Morbert

Why don't SETI consider pulsars to be evidence of extra terrestrials?

If you wish to claim intelligence as an agent of our design, then you will need to rigorously support such a claim with reference to information theory.

Information Theory describes two types of information – syntactic and semantic.
Syntactic information is raw data with no meaning. A good example is a snowflake, or indeed any crystalline structure. A snowflake is a complex arrangement of hexagonal ice crystals. There is information there, but it is syntactic – or meaningless. A snowflake is a reasonably complex and ordered hexagonally based structure, often of great beauty, but it doesn’t contain any discernable message or meaningful information.
Equally, the information from a repeating or random pulsar is also syntactic, or meaningless – and therefore it is correctly classified by SETI as being from a natural as distinct from an intelligent source.

Semantic information is meaningful. The software in a computer is an example of purposeful, meaningful information and Computer Science therefore classifies it as semantic. The computer will not run without meaningful, precisely specified information, which has been designed and inputted, into the machine by an intelligence outside of the computer.
The information in DNA is also semantic or meaningful, precisely specified information. Whenever the ultimate source of semantic information has been identified, it has always been observed to be an intelligent agent.
Equally, the development of semantic information by undirected processes has been proven to be a mathematical impossibility. Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE semantic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst pre-existing semantic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate semantic information – they merely degrade it. The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is to conclude that DNA had an external intelligent source. Science cannot identify this source – but it can validly conclude that such intelligence existed at some point in the past when life originated.


Quote Morbert
Multiple radiometric dating methods yield the same results with an error margin of 1%, this supports the "assumption" that the rocks are closed systems regarding the addition of radioactivity.

If the nuclear decay rates were altered, then we would not be here, as the necessary radiation would have obliterated all life on the planet.

Rock samples taken from submarine lava flows, which are known to have occurred in the 1950’s, have been radiometrically ‘dated’ at 4 million years old.

The 'apparent' nuclear decay rates in rocks can be ‘altered’ dramatically if the radioactive component being measured in the rock is differentially water soluble. For example the leaching of water soluble potassium salts within a rock can confound the potassium/argon test.


Quote Morbert
But mutations can account for increase in diversity. Be they beneficial or simply neutral. Harmful mutations are indeed destroyed by natural selection.
The only problem is that the ‘diversity’ provided by mutations is predominantly observed to be deleterious and even the very rare beneficial mutations are always observed to result in a loss of genetic information. The ‘big need’ of macro-Evolution is for a mechanism to provide INCREASED genetic information – and no plausible mechanism to meet this need has ever been identified.

It seems that Evolution is engaged in it’s very own “survival of the fittest” struggle at present.
It’s refusal to ‘cross breed' with Intelligent Design – is one of it's most immediate survival issues.


Quote Bluewolf
I know of a creationist doing a degree in biology/biochemistry, I'm sure that would be quite interesting to discuss...

And I know of hundreds of conventionally trained scientists, many with doctorates and professorships in mainstream universities who are creationists.

Another piece of evidence for Creation entering the ‘mainstream' was evident at this years Young Scientist Exhibition, where the Evolution / Creation issue was the subject of one of the exhibits.

The exhibit presented the results of a survey of 200 twelve to sixteen year olds on their knowledge and views of Creation and Evolution.

The data presented indicated significant confusion among young people about the issue with 40% of the respondents claiming that they didn’t understand the concepts.
The 60% who did claim to understand evolution and creation, were split 50:50 on whether they believed that the ‘origins mechanism’ was creation or evolution.
Of the people who believed in evolution 22% didn’t know what caused it, 30% believed it to be by natural processes and 48% believed it to be controlled by God.

The 50:50 split on the Creation / Evolution issue among this group of young people, is not as high as in America, where up to 80% are Creationists.

wolfsbane

twentycentshift said:

at least science is willing to say "prove it. if i'm wrong, give me proof, and i will agree with your proof." creationists will never say " if you can show me anything different, i will change my mind."

But so many secular scientists are very reluctant to put it into practise. Even in lesser matters where their pet theory is under attack, just look at how much scheming and dishonesty prevails. They are just men, not gods.

Also, I'm sure many creationists do say they will change their minds if real proof is presented. I would abandon my faith if it were proved false. I don't beleive it can be - but let's see what you've got. But the fluctuating interpretations of science cannot be trusted to determine such a matter. Real hard facts are required.

just the closed-mindedness of bible believers makes them suspect....refusal to see other perspectives is a sure sign of insecurity.

Surely that applies to my opponents? I do see their perspective, though I don't agree with it. They refuse even to concede any other possibility for our being here than evolution.

robindch

Scofflaw -

> Are there not two debates? There is one debate over whether
> creationism has enough evidentiary support, intellectual
> coherence, and testability to be considered scientifically - this
> is the one that most scientists think they are having with creationists.

Yes, that's the scientific debate -- evidence and logic.

> Creationists, on the other hand, think they are debating whether
> evolution or creationism is the better scientific theory - in other
> words, they act as if the first debate is either irrelevant, or has
> been concluded in their favour.

Some few might seriously do that -- Behe springs to mind as a possible candidate -- but I don't believe that most do. See some of the postings above where not only do creationists suggest that any evidence for evolution has simply been planted by god, but also, that even if it wasn't planted, well, it's not there anyway (ie, no fossil support etc). When your religious worldview allows you to *know* with full confidence that the opposition have either lots of fake evidence, or no evidence at all, it's hardly any wonder you end up believing whatever you're told to believe.

This parable is worth reading:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_parable.htm

robindch

> 'PC' applies because of the fear amongst scientists who are open to
> debate to publically reveal themselves lest they lose their employment.

Aren't christians supposed to stand up and be proud of their beliefs, and not hide their "light" under a bushel?

If you're right and there actually are plenty of "christian" scientists who are too scared to go public with their beliefs, doesn't it suggest to you that, as good christians, they must be a pretty worthless lot?

> there is a scientific debate.

Wolfsbane, my friend, I really wish you would read what I write. To date, there have been no -- zero, zilch, nada, none -- scientific papers based upon original research published in any scientific journal which suggests that ID explains the world better than Evolution (see here). Your claim that there is a scientific debate is false.

If, as you claim, there are piles of "christian" scientists, then why aren't they publishing anything? Even creationists can't produce a list of publications...

wolfsbane

robindch said:

This is not a debate based upon evidence, but based upon belief, consequently, it is not a scientific debate, but a religious one.

I beg to differ. The motivations of creationist scientists may be spiritual, but their argument is science. Have you read their papers on any of the areas of biology, geology, astrophysics, etc?

Secondly, to date, there have been no -- zero, zilch, nada, none -- scientific papers based upon original research published in any scientific journal which suggests that ID explains the world better than Evolution (see here). Your claim that proponents of ID "publish against" evolution is false.

I note your qualification - ' in any scientific journal'. By which you mean those journals recognised and controlled by the evolutionists. Do you think any of these magazines would dare to publish, even for debate, any of the many papers published by creationist scientists? I've heard the testimony of scientists who 'came out' as creationists and how they were treated.
There are scientific journals published by creationist scientists, setting out many scientific arguments in support of creation rather than evolution. JC should be able to refer you to an extensive list of such papers.

I would be careful saying thigs like this if you're trying to insult evolutionists -- recall that in the USA, around 85% of people have creationist beliefs of one form or another.

My point is that the majority is not always right - and being a majority brings with it real dangers of blindness to the truth. That applies to everyone.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Aren't christians supposed to stand up and be proud of their beliefs, and not hide their "light" under a bushel?

If you're right and there actually are plenty of "christian" scientists who are too scared to go public with their beliefs, doesn't it suggest to you that, as good christians, they must be a pretty worthless lot?

I agree, they should. But we have weak and fearful amongst the sheep too. The threat of losing your job, maybe your house, etc. is pretty intimidating. But not all non-evolutionists are Christians. They have even less to depend on if they speak up.

The thought-police in the Soviet Union kept most of their academics saying the right things. Those in today's democracies don't use the gulag (yet) but economic pressures work pretty well on their own. See modern Stalinism at work: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

Son Goku

I note your qualification - ' in any scientific journal'. By which you mean those journals recognised and controlled by the evolutionists. Do you think any of these magazines would dare to publish, even for debate, any of the many papers published by creationist scientists? I've heard the testimony of scientists who 'came out' as creationists and how they were treated.
There are scientific journals published by creationist scientists, setting out many scientific arguments in support of creation rather than evolution. JC should be able to refer you to an extensive list of such papers.

This is a generic response to everything you've written.

There is no evolutionist/materialist conspiracy in the scientific community.
99.99% of scientists are not creationist and it has nothing to do them being against Christianity.
There is also Vedic creationists, who believe that there is evidence of Brahma's creation in scientific findings. Their papers aren't accepted for the same reason creationist ones aren't.
They're badly written.
I've seen creationist Astrophysics papers, they use Newtonian Theory badly and whenever the use anything more advance the paper contains almost no mathematical content and whats used is evidently poorly understood.

There will always be a group who disagree with some "conventional wisdom".

There are people who think that computer coding doesn't work and that computers work through some undisclosed method kept secret by Turing since World War II.
This opinion isn't represented anywhere in Computer Science litrature and these guys say the same thing creationists do, that "[Computer] Scientists are being biased because they won't publish their material and that they're blind to the truth".
Should we start representing every single unconventional opinion from now on every major subject branch?