The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 07-04-2017 09:45PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Since it is accepted science, peer reviewed and studied over years, you will need to provide some evidence that it is now defunct.

Natural Selection of pre-existing genetic diversity is accepted science ... but the spontaneous generation and evolution of life from pondkind to mankind has no plausible mechanisms underpinning them.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You can't use your lazy argument about a vast scientific conspiracy, as you earlier post highlighted 16 scientists which somehow managed to break away from this worldwide stranglehold to hold a meeting to discuss their views, views one can only assume came about after they had considered the evidence which they had collected using science.

I keep saying that there is no conspiracy ... just an openly proclaimed ban on the scientific investigation of the physical evidence supernatural explanations for the origins of life.
... and the Altenberg meeting was held to try and come up with alternative materialistic explanations to replace Darwinian Evolution ... which is increasingly accepted within mainstream science as defunct.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What evolution does do is to completely debunk your books 'version' of events yet you will still cling to the first first few sentences to hang your hat on.

Darwinian Evolution was devised to do this allright ... only problem is that it is now Darwinian Evolution that has been debunked ... and meetings like the one at Altenberg are being held in desperation to try and come up with a plausible replacement for Darwinian Evolution.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So we have little or no evidence for most of what in in your book and any part that is possible to check, ie how life evolved, despite all the evidence you prefer to go with the theory that everything was created at roughly the same time, that Man was created last,

The World proclaims the glory of God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

that man lived in a perfect world until he started to ask questions ...
and since then he has been cast out of the perfect world until such time as he dies and then God might let him back in, (persumably until he starts to ask questions again).

It wasn't the questions he asked ... it was the fact that Adam threw his lot in with Satan ... and brought sin and death into the World, as a result.

Leroy42 wrote: »

At which point I assume, since you don't believe in reincarnation, you must believe that they would be sent to hell.

... only if they want to be sent to Hell.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course, that begs the question, or at least it should in any thinking person, of why did he not cast Adam and Eve to hell? And if he choose to infer Adam and Eve's sin onto the rest of us, do we all get cast to hell if one of us asks questions in heaven? And since Satan, one of his own angels who therefore had actual proof of God's existence was cast out by God, why not everyone else?

... only those who reject and hate God ... who won't want to be with Him, in the first place.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And if one of his angels, which again had direct actual knowledge of god, can ask questions, why would god hold as sinful anyone, without such knowledge, of asking questions.

Why do you keep characterising Satan's rebellion against God as 'asking questions'?

Leroy42 wrote: »

You also need to explain why 'micro' evolution, as you are wont to call it, would need to exist at all given that you god created everything perfectly (one assumes given his perfection, well apart from man that is). Is your god so imperfect that he entire creation needs to continually evolve to make changes from the original plan?

God knew that Adam was going to Fall ... and introduce sin and death into the World ... and 'micro' evolution is part of God's providence to help living organisms adapt to environmental change.

Leroy42 · 07-04-2017 10:35PM

J C wrote: »

Natural Selection of pre-existing genetic diversity is accepted science ... but the spontaneous generation and evolution of life from pondkind to mankind has no plausible mechanisms underpinning them.

Which is it. Evolution does not deal with how life began, only with how it evolved once that had taken place. Nobody knows how life first started.

J C wrote: »

I keep saying that there is no conspiracy ... just an openly proclaimed ban on the scientific investigation of the physical evidence supernatural explanations for the origins of life.

You keep stating a ban which nobody in the wider world seems to be aware of. Would you not count that as a conspiracy? According to dictionary.coma conspiracy

is a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose

. Your ban is kept secret,involves multiple persons and anybody who tries to either break free or tell is shunned.

J C wrote: »

... and the Altenberg meeting was held to try and come up with alternative materialistic explanations to replace Darwinian Evolution ... which is increasingly accepted within mainstream science as defunct.

And yet they failed to come up with anything at all, and even came out with the idea that there couldn't be any theory!

J C wrote: »

Darwinian Evolution was devised to do this allright ... only problem is that it is now Darwinian Evolution that has been debunked

There you go again. Where has it been debunked? So me the evidence. There can't be a lack of evidence due to a ban as you have just given us an example of scientist breaking free. Stop making stuff up. You might not believe in it, but it doesn't mean it has been debunked. On this thread we are meant to be respectful of peoples beliefs, yet you seem to think it fair game to openly make a mockery of science without any evidence whatsoever.

J C wrote: »

... and meetings like the one at Altenberg are being held in desperation to try and come up with a plausible replacement for Darwinian Evolution.

Good grief...I have no comment on that at all.

J C wrote: »

The World proclaims the glory of God.

Certain people in the world proclaim the glory of their God, whilst at the same time ignoring his injustices and failures.

J C wrote: »

It wasn't the questions he asked ... it was the fact that Adam threw his lot in with Satan ... and brought sin and death into the World, as a result.

No he didn't. He simply tried something that he had been told not to. He didn't abandon God, God abandoned him. He simply wanted to know what was so great about the mystical, special tree and the centre of the garden.

J C wrote: »

... only if they want to be sent to Hell.

I'm going to put a bit of context on this so it doesn't get lost. The point I raised was

At which point I assume, since you don't believe in reincarnation, you must believe that they would be sent to hell.

in terms of people being kicked out of heaven. So are you stating that they only go to hell if they want to, otherwise they can stay? Does that extend to people before they get to heaven or is it like a ticket for life when you get there and you can do whatever you want? It would seem strange that you can't question him on earth but once in heaven its up to you.

J C wrote: »

... only those who reject and hate God ... who won't want to be with Him, in the first place.

Why would you mix not believing and hate? If you don't believe in something then you can't hate it.

J C wrote: »

Why do you keep characterising Satan's rebellion against God as 'asking questions'?

Well what do you think he was kicked out of heaven for. Whether it was asking questions or questioning God authority is much the same thing. He didn't hold the view that God was all that and God punished him for it.

But I know you are just avoiding the point. If one of Gods angels, with him in heaven, can reject him even though he has full knowledge, does that not raise a doubt in your mind as to how powerful this god really is. The angel didn't have to believe, God was right there and he still found fault, yet God has decided that humans, with no knowledge, will also be held responsible for not submitting to him.

J C wrote: »

God knew that Adam was going to Fall ... and introduce sin and death into the World ... and 'micro' evolution is part of God's providence to help living organisms adapt to environmental change.

Ok, this is new. So Go created the heavens and the earth, perfect in every way so that Adam could enjoy the garden of Eden. But that was all just an act as actually God knew Adam was staying so he was given a glimpse of what he could have had (although not sure why he didn't just allow him into heaven from the off). So Adam had no free will, only the appearance of it and was then banished. Basically he was a stooge for God. So you accept micro evolution, a start. Do you think man has evolved since the time of Adam?
Since Adam was in the image of God then I can't see how we could but then isn't God making us susceptible to climate change with little hope?

You keep making things up and twisting things around to try and fit back into a world view but all I'm saying that just ask your the question. Does any of it make sense without the need for interpretation, and faith?

hinault · 08-04-2017 12:09PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Evolution does not deal with how life began

That's not what Evolutionists claim.

Delirium · 08-04-2017 03:16PM

hinault wrote: »

That's not what Evolutionists claim.

"we don't know" is a claim?? Which is what Dawkins said in the video.

oscarBravo · 08-04-2017 05:07PM

J C wrote: »

... and the Altenberg meeting was held to try and come up with alternative materialistic explanations to replace Darwinian Evolution ... which is increasingly accepted within mainstream science as defunct.

From the link I helpfully provided you with earlier:

The new information includes findings from the continuing molecular biology revolution, as well as a large body of empirical knowledge on genetic variation in natural populations, phenotypic plasticity, phylogenetics, species-level stasis and punctuational evolution, and developmental biology, among others.

The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.

By incorporating these new results and insights into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves.

Not a word about replacing Darwinian evolution; not a word about it being defunct.

Also from that link:

The Altenberg meeting was unfortunately misunderstood and deliberately distorted by creationists and intelligent design advocates. Only a few days after the meeting and hundreds of creationist anti-evolution websites and blogs were claiming the scientists at the Altenberg meeting were anti-evolution or advocating non-Darwinian evolution.
On the subject of the Altenberg meeting Nick Matzke wrote:

In real life, the meeting discussed the possibilities for an "Extended Synthesis" in evolutionary biology which incorporates development, evolvability, complexity theory, etc. into the old "Modern Synthesis" of population genetics. But in the land of cranks & ID/creationists, the Altenberg 16 meeting has become the latest bit of evidence that evolution is a theory in crisis. The primary person who got the crazy-train going was "journalist" Suzan Mazur, who has written a series of stories that mis-portray almost everyone and everything involved and, no matter what her interviewees tell her, end up with the inevitable conclusion that evolution is on its last legs.

Sounds familiar.

J C · 08-04-2017 06:28PM

Delirium wrote: »

"we don't know" is a claim?? Which is what Dawkins said in the video.

"We don't know" is a fairly weak 'claim' ... when equally eminent scientists have established scientifically that an inteligence of God-like proportions did it.

Delirium · 08-04-2017 06:43PM

J C wrote: »

It's a fairly weak 'claim' ... when equally eminent scientists have established scientifically that an inteligence of God-like proportions did it.

When did this happen?

J C · 08-04-2017 06:50PM

My comments in blue below

QUOTE:oscarBravo

From the link I helpfully provided you with earlier:
Quote:
The new information includes findings from the continuing molecular biology revolution, (the revoliution that is providing evidence for the Intelligent Design of life) as well as a large body of empirical knowledge on genetic variation in natural populations, phenotypic plasticity, phylogenetics, species-level stasis and punctuational evolution, and developmental biology, among others. (all of which are invalidating the gradualism of Darwinian Evolution).

The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.(all of which again are invalidating the gradualism of Darwinian Evolution).

By incorporating these new results and insights into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. (AKA as trying desperately to search around for something/anything to replace the now defunct idea that selected accumulated mistakes gave rise to the highly Complex perfectly Functional and tightly Specified Genetic Information we observe in life)

As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. (there is much justified panic in evolutionary biology as its main theory crumbles into 'scientific dust' in front of their eyes)
This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves. (they're trying desperately to find a plausible mechanism for the spontaneous evolution of pondkind into mankind ... and so far this has been eluding them).
Not a word about replacing Darwinian evolution; not a word about it being defunct. (nobody is speaking ill of the dead ... but they are using their energies to try and quickly replace it with plausible mechanisms that they can actually point to!!)

Also from that link:
Quote:
The Altenberg meeting was unfortunately misunderstood and deliberately distorted by creationists and intelligent design advocates. Only a few days after the meeting and hundreds of creationist anti-evolution websites and blogs were claiming the scientists at the Altenberg meeting were anti-evolution or advocating non-Darwinian evolution.
On the subject of the Altenberg meeting Nick Matzke wrote:
Quote:
In real life, the meeting discussed the possibilities for an "Extended Synthesis" in evolutionary biology which incorporates development, evolvability, complexity theory, etc. into the old "Modern Synthesis" of population genetics. But in the land of cranks & ID/creationists, the Altenberg 16 meeting has become the latest bit of evidence that evolution is a theory in crisis. The primary person who got the crazy-train going was "journalist" Suzan Mazur, who has written a series of stories that mis-portray almost everyone and everything involved and, no matter what her interviewees tell her, end up with the inevitable conclusion that evolution is on its last legs.
Sounds familiar. Dream on ... but none of this 'whistling past the graveyard' of Darwinian Evolution is fooling anybody.

Delirium · 08-04-2017 06:58PM

Just a reminder, JC, anyone on the touch site won't see blue text.

If you didn't mix your response within the quoted post if would make for better readability.

J C · 08-04-2017 07:02PM

Delirium wrote: »

When did this happen?

I'm not in a position to name names ... that must await a time when emotions have calmed down sufficiently to allow ID proponents to publish their research, without it being career suicide to do so.

J C · 08-04-2017 07:39PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which is it. Evolution does not deal with how life began, only with how it evolved once that had taken place. Nobody knows how life first started.

... and nobody knows how life could possibly spontaneously evolve from pondkind to mankind either.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You keep stating a ban which nobody in the wider world seems to be aware of. Would you not count that as a conspiracy? According to dictionary.coma conspiracy . Your ban is kept secret,involves multiple persons and anybody who tries to either break free or tell is shunned.

The ban is a publicly proclaimed part of the scientific method ... which confines science to only investigating natural explanations for natural phenomena.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And yet they failed to come up with anything at all, and even came out with the idea that there couldn't be any theory!

I don't criticise them for trying. God loves a tryer ... even Atheist ones !!:)

Leroy42 wrote: »

There you go again. Where has it been debunked? So me the evidence. There can't be a lack of evidence due to a ban as you have just given us an example of scientist breaking free. Stop making stuff up. You might not believe in it, but it doesn't mean it has been debunked. On this thread we are meant to be respectful of peoples beliefs, yet you seem to think it fair game to openly make a mockery of science without any evidence whatsoever.

The so-called Modern Synthesis of Evolution (from pondkind to mankind) ... has never been proven in the first place ... and it's so evidentially and logically challenged as to be effectively debunked.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Good grief...I have no comment on that at all.

Doesn't alter the fact that Darwinian Evolution is a theory in (terminal) crisis.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Certain people in the world proclaim the glory of their God, whilst at the same time ignoring his injustices and failures.

The Heavens and the Earth (and all things therein) proclaim the glory of their Creator.
... and God is a God of justice and mercy ... even if some people are all too Human in their actions and ideas.

Leroy42 wrote: »

No he didn't. He simply tried something that he had been told not to. He didn't abandon God, God abandoned him. He simply wanted to know what was so great about the mystical, special tree and the centre of the garden.

It is crystal clear that it was Adam who abandoned God (by rejecting His very good advice to not access Satans poisionous knowledge system of good and evil).

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm going to put a bit of context on this so it doesn't get lost. The point I raised was in terms of people being kicked out of heaven. So are you stating that they only go to hell if they want to, otherwise they can stay? Does that extend to people before they get to heaven or is it like a ticket for life when you get there and you can do whatever you want? It would seem strange that you can't question him on earth but once in heaven its up to you.

Anybody who hates God and rebels against Him and refuses his mercy will not want to be with Him in Heaven ... and would logically prefer the terrible alternative of spending eternity in Hell with the Devil and his demons.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would you mix not believing and hate? If you don't believe in something then you can't hate it.

I didn't do this, I referred to those who reject and hate God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well what do you think he was kicked out of heaven for. Whether it was asking questions or questioning God authority is much the same thing. He didn't hold the view that God was all that and God punished him for it.

Satan rebelled against God ... and wanted to be treated as God in Heaven, despite his evil inclinations.
This couldn't be countenanced by an all good and sinless God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But I know you are just avoiding the point. If one of Gods angels, with him in heaven, can reject him even though he has full knowledge, does that not raise a doubt in your mind as to how powerful this god really is. The angel didn't have to believe, God was right there and he still found fault, yet God has decided that humans, with no knowledge, will also be held responsible for not submitting to him.

I think your point does the reverse ... it proves that rebellion against God can occur using one's free-will whether we directly know of His existence (in the case of Satan) or indirectly know of His existence (in the case of Humans).

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ok, this is new. So Go created the heavens and the earth, perfect in every way so that Adam could enjoy the garden of Eden. But that was all just an act as actually God knew Adam was staying so he was given a glimpse of what he could have had (although not sure why he didn't just allow him into heaven from the off). So Adam had no free will, only the appearance of it and was then banished. Basically he was a stooge for God.

Adam had the free will to adore and love God ... or to reject and disobey God ... and he freely chose to do the latter. It was the ultimate in self-destructive behaviour ... but we see such behaviour often today as well ... as Humans engage in destructive behaviour for the sheer hell of it !!

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you accept micro evolution, a start. Do you think man has evolved since the time of Adam?

... we have de-volved from the original state of absolute perfection as our 'mutagenic load' increases with each generation that passes.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Since Adam was in the image of God then I can't see how we could but then isn't God making us susceptible to climate change with little hope?

Climate change is yet another phenomenon of our fallen world ... but it may not be as bad as the naysayers would have us believe.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You keep making things up and twisting things around to try and fit back into a world view but all I'm saying that just ask your the question. Does any of it make sense without the need for interpretation, and faith?

... and I would ask you does anything actually make any sense in the absence of God?

Delirium · 08-04-2017 08:52PM

J C wrote: »

I'm not in a position to name names ... that must await a time when emotions have calmed down sufficiently to allow ID proponents to publish their research, without it being career suicide to do so.

That's weird because I also have secret information that debunks your secret information. :P

J C · 08-04-2017 09:30PM

Delirium wrote: »

That's weird because I also have secret information that debunks your secret information. :P

There is already some information in the public domain ... and the reaction to its authors has been swift and punitive.

J C · 08-04-2017 09:38PM

Delirium wrote: »

"we don't know" is a claim?? Which is what Dawkins said in the video.

... You don't know how life came to be ... but we do

PopePalpatine · 08-04-2017 09:48PM

J C wrote: »

I'm not in a position to name names ... that must await a time when emotions have calmed down sufficiently to allow ID proponents to publish their research, without it being career suicide to do so.

It's "career suicide" for the same reason that "flat Earth" is career suicide in geology, geography, astronomy etc.

J C · 08-04-2017 10:25PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's "career suicide" for the same reason that "flat Earth" is career suicide in geology, geography, astronomy etc.

Ah ... but the difference here is twofold:-

1. There is no alternative scientifically valid theory on how life came to be ...
The current state of play is that ID proponents claim to have scientific proof for an intelligent origin to life ... and their scientific opponents say that 'we simply don't know' how life came to be, but it must have been spontaneous. The opponents of the 'flat earth' theory have a well proven (and repeatably observable) alternative hypothesis that the earth is spherical.

2. There are eminent conventionally qualified scientists on both sides of the ID v Spontaneous generation of life debate. No eminent conventionally qualified scientist believes in a flat earth.

The 'flat earth' argument is simply a 'red herring' and 'strawman argument' in the context of the current scientific arguments over the origins of life.

... and, ironically, if there are any parallells with the flat earth idea, it is in the spontaneous evolution idea ... whereby somethings that are locally observable (relatively flat local earth surface and Natural Selection/mutation) are extrapolated way beyond validity, to result in beliefs that the entire earth is flat ... and that NS / mutation can account for the development of life from pondkind to mankind.

... and the fact that it is career suicide to scientifically investigate an intelligent origin to life (when a majority of the population believes precisely this) ... says something very profound about the stranglehold that anti-religious and anti-God ideas have on science ... even in countries that have majority Christian populations.

J C · 08-04-2017 11:12PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's "career suicide" for the same reason that "flat Earth" is career suicide in geology, geography, astronomy etc.

The Intelligent Design of life is admitted by Professor Dawkins to be "an intriguing possibility" ... which places it in a very different league to a 'flat earth' !!!
He even admits that you might find a signature of some kind of designer of life in the details of biochemistry/molecular biology.

I can say that such a signature has been found ... but amazingly this vary profound discovery is little talked about in the supposedly 'fearless investigative' media ... and its discoverers continue to have their scientific papers refused publication.

oscarBravo · 08-04-2017 11:26PM

J C wrote: »

The Intelligent Design of life is admitted by Professor Dawkins to be "an intriguing possibility" ... which places it in a very different league to a 'flat earth' !!!

He said it's possible that life on Earth was designed by an advanced alien species. He didn't say it's possible that goddidit six thousand years ago.

Why do you pretend that Dawkins agrees with anything whatsoever you believe? You have to know for a fact that he thinks everything you believe in is arrant nonsense. It's like your out-of-context quotes from him in your signature: you can't possibly be so stupid as to believe they mean he agrees with you, which means that you're posting something that you know for a fact doesn't mean what you're trying to imply it means.

It's really hard to escape the conclusion that your entire life consists of desperately lying to yourself.

hinault · 08-04-2017 11:32PM

J C wrote: »

Ah ... but the difference here is twofold:-

1. There is no alternative scientifically valid theory on how life came to be ...
The current state of play is that ID proponents claim to have scientific proof for an intelligent origin to life ... and their scientific opponents say that 'we simply don't know' how life came to be, but it must have been spontaneous. The opponents of the 'flat earth' theory have a well proven (and repeatably observable) alternative hypothesis that the earth is spherical.

2. There are eminent conventionally qualified scientists on both sides of the ID v Spontaneous generation of life debate. No eminent conventionally qualified scientist believes in a flat earth.

The 'flat earth' argument is simply a 'red herring' and 'strawman argument' in the context of the current scientific arguments over the origins of life.

... and, ironically, if there are any parallells with the flat earth idea, it is in the spontaneous evolution idea ... whereby somethings that are locally observable (relatively flat local earth surface and Natural Selection/mutation) are extrapolated way beyond validity, to result in beliefs that the entire earth is flat ... and that NS / mutation can account for the development of life from pondkind to mankind.

... and the fact that it is career suicide to scientifically investigate an intelligent origin to life (when a majority of the population believes precisely this) ... says something very profound about the stranglehold that anti-religious and anti-God ideas have on science ... even in countries that have majority Christian populations.

Another Palpatine strawman "argument" - best ignored, JC.

J C · 08-04-2017 11:35PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

He said it's possible that life on Earth was designed by an advanced alien species. He didn't say it's possible that goddidit six thousand years ago.

... and ID proponents don't claim that God did it either ... they merely have presented the results of their research which points towards an intelligently designed origin for life ... but this hasn't saved them from the wrath of the scientific establishment ... nor has it prevented their papers being suppressed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why do you pretend that Dawkins agrees with anything whatsoever you believe? You have to know for a fact that he thinks everything you believe in is arrant nonsense. It's like your out-of-context quotes from him in your signature: you can't possibly be so stupid as to believe they mean he agrees with you, which means that you're posting something that you know for a fact doesn't mean what you're trying to imply it means.

Prof Dawkins seems to think that everything every Christian believes is nonesense.
What I'm establishing is what Prof Dawkins says he believes ... and what I believe ... and I leave it to the reader to decide on where there are parallels and differences between what we believe ... and indeed where there are inherent contradictions between different things that Prof Dawkins says himself. For example, his admission that a signature of an intelligent designer could be found in life ... whilst refusing to countenace the evidence for just such a signature, which has been presented by ID proponents.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's really hard to escape the conclusion that your entire life consists of desperately lying to yourself.

Why so?

J C · 08-04-2017 11:48PM

hinault wrote: »

Another Palpatine strawman "argument" - best ignored, JC.

It's an argument that many people erroneously believe ... so I don't think that it deserves to be ignored ... but instead should be robustly rebutted, like I have done.

... and there are real scientists having their careers ruined because of beliefs such as the one expressed by Pope Palpatine ... that ID proponents are intellectually equivalent to 'Flat Earthers'.

hinault · 08-04-2017 11:53PM

J C wrote: »

It's an argument that many people erroneously believe ... so I don't think that it deserves to be ignored ... but instead should be robustly rebutted, like I have done.

... and there are real scientists having their careers ruined because of beliefs such as the one expressed by Pope Palpatine.

I wasn't referring to the veracity, or lack thereof, concerning the flat Earth argument.

I was instead referring to the deliberate strawman tactic of trying to compare two completely separate issues.

J C · 08-04-2017 11:58PM

hinault wrote: »

I wasn't referring to the veracity, or lack thereof, concerning the flat Earth argument.

I was instead referring to the deliberate strawman tactic of trying to compare two completely separate issues.

It was much more than merely conflating two unrelated issues to gain a debating advantage ... it was also a clear attempt by Pope Palpatine to smear valid scientific research by eminent ID proponents, by comparing it with the clearly debunked and derided theory, that the Earth is flat.

hinault · 09-04-2017 12:01AM

J C wrote: »

It was much more than conflating two unrelated issues ... as it was also a clear attempt by Pope Palpatine to smear valid scientific research by ID proponents by comparing it with a clearly debunked and derided theory, that the Earth is flat.

In essence a strawman "argument".

By replying to that strawman, you lend credence to it. Ignore it!

J C · 09-04-2017 12:08AM

hinault wrote: »

In essence a strawman "argument".

By replying to that strawman, you lend credence to it. Ignore it!

I agree that by replying to a strawman argument I may lend some credence to it ... but equally, by ignoring it ... it can also gain credence ... and in this case there are many people who do believe that ID is equivalent to myths, such as a flat earth.

The fact that ID papers are refused publication is proof of this.

I did think along your lines initially ... but I then concluded that, on balance, it was best to robustly challenge it,

Delirium · 09-04-2017 07:11AM

J C wrote: »

... and ID proponents don't claim that God did it either ... they merely have presented the results of their research which points towards an intelligently designed origin for life ... but this hasn't saved them from the wrath of the scientific establishment ... nor has it prevented their papers being suppressed.

Yes they do, and quite dishonest to suggest otherwise. ID is creationism rebranded due to legal cases as a result of them trying to sneak religion into the science class.

PopePalpatine · 09-04-2017 08:56AM

hinault wrote: »

In essence a strawman "argument".

By replying to that strawman, you lend credence to it. Ignore it!

Oh, it's so surprising for hinault to say this. :rolleyes:

Leroy42 · 09-04-2017 09:01AM

Sorry JC, you've confused me again. You have appeared to suggest that ID proponents do not profess to have proof that God created life, but that the current evidence points to it being a probability. And given a lack of evidence from any other source you believe this this position to offer the best theory?

Is that your position?

Lets just have a quick recap of you recent postings

You posted about the Arenberg 16, stating it as proof of an attempt of science to break away from evolution. This turns out to be false.

You have stated that there is a ban on counter evolution scientific work, despite telling us that creationist are constantly working on it and despite not being able to offer any proof. Not one whistle-blower, that isn't directly connected to a religious movement has ever come forward. You also that, a point I refer to below, that some scientists have actually proved God existence.

You mention some vague notion of career suicide. Why would anyone stay in a career to which they fundamentally disagree? Surely you cannot count these people of religious of believers in God when they are so willing to live a lie just to enjoy the benefits on money and prestige. Jesus died on the cross, the disciples suffered to spread the word, and countless millions have suffered persecution due to their faith. But some scientists can't speak up for fear they will lose their jobs in an industry that is actively working against the truth of God. Yet you are placing your faith in these people?

You stated that evolution had been debunked - this turns out to be, at best, made up.

You stated when equally eminent scientists have established scientifically that an intelligence of God-like proportions did it. This was false.

It is very hard to have a considered discussion with anybody who can, being generous, change their position with such regularity.

So, if I could ask for clarity again, as above. Do you believe that God created man. I think I am safe to say you do. Do you have any proof, scientifically, to make this belief anything more than faith?
If it is based on scientific evidence, as opposed to lack of evidence of something else, can you provide links to it and where it has been accepted?
If is based on faith, then can I assume that that faith is based on the bible? And if so do you therefore have faith in everything that the bible says?

drdidlittle · 09-04-2017 01:36PM

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm also curious: has Creation Science ever demonstrated anything in the Bible to be untrue?

Bump this question as I dont see it any answer. Very curious about the views of ID or Bible scholars

J C · 09-04-2017 01:42PM

Delirium wrote: »

Yes they do, and quite dishonest to suggest otherwise. ID is creationism rebranded due to legal cases as a result of them trying to sneak religion into the science class.

ID is a valid branch of scientific enquiry ... that is falling foul of the anti-theist bias present in science.

This bias has lead to claims that 'Creationists' are everywhere ... even when the people involved are theistic evolutionists.

... and the claim is that ID is trying to sneak religion into science itself (and not just into science class) ... again proof of the bias against religion and religious people within science.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments