The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Leroy42 · 18-04-2017 08:50AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is not the argument that naturalistic processes require a naturalistic precursor? A supernaturalistic process wouldn't be so bound.

And have we disproved that naturalistic processes weren't the cause? No, currently we simply do not know but there is a massive leap to say we don't understand to then invent a supernatural cause with no evidence whatsoever.

So the argument is based on something that we can neither know or understand. It is no different that the pleading that nothing can come from nothing. All that we can say, is that we don't understand how it happened.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This doesn't address the point I made in my last post. Concluding non-natural processes the best explanation would be a step. The nature of the non natural processes that did it would be a subsequent problem

But we cannot say it was non naturalistic. No doubt it is apart from anything that we can currently understand or study but if we have learned anything over the last few centuries is should be that whenever we think we know everything we will eventually find it to be far from the case and what we previously thought was impossible was actually normal.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your not for one moment supposing science one homogenous blob of agreement?

It is actually the opposite. It is the religious area that attempted to stick to one story, but even within that they cannot agree. Science is full of disagreements and it is the very people that changed the thinking that are the most famous. Galileo is famous not because he went with the prevailing thinking at the time, but because he challenged and changed the thinking. The same for Einstein, Newton etc.

The whole point of science is not to be in agreement. Nothing is sacred. What you do you, however, is some basis of your argument. you can't simply rock up and state the evolution is debunked and expect to be taken seriously. You need to provide the basis for it. Counter the arguments already accepted.

I assume, like in any walk of life, those that have invested their lives in something will be reluctant to accept their work has been in error, but over time the evidence will be overwhelming.

J C · 23-04-2017 10:29PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is actually the opposite. It is the religious area that attempted to stick to one story, but even within that they cannot agree.

... so religions don't actually have common stories that they 'stick' to.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Science is full of disagreements and it is the very people that changed the thinking that are the most famous. Galileo is famous not because he went with the prevailing thinking at the time, but because he challenged and changed the thinking. The same for Einstein, Newton etc.

That is true.
... but these disagreements are confined to disagrements over various materialistic hypotheses.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The whole point of science is not to be in agreement. Nothing is sacred.

... except scientism itself.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What you do you, however, is some basis of your argument. you can't simply rock up and state the evolution is debunked and expect to be taken seriously. You need to provide the basis for it. Counter the arguments already accepted.

What are these arguments that are already accepted by science in regard to evolution?

Leroy42 wrote: »

I assume, like in any walk of life, those that have invested their lives in something will be reluctant to accept their work has been in error, but over time the evidence will be overwhelming.

... and the evidence against the spontaneous generation and evolution of pondkind to mankind is indeed overwhelming.
... but scientists are reluctant to accept this because the only current viable alternative is special creation ... and this is defined as 'outside science'.

Nothing has fundamentally changed in regards to the validity of evolution since Dr Harrison Matthews said the following in his Introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" (however, everything has changed in relation to the Creation hypothesis ... which has now reached the point where massive levels of intelligent input in the production of living organisms has been scientifically validated) :-

"Even 'Darwin's Bulldog', as Thomas Huxley once called himself, wrote in 1863: 'I adopt Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, therefore, subject to the production of proof that physiological species may be produced by selective breeding' -- meaning species that are infertile if crossed. That proof has never been produced, though a few not entirely convincing examples are claimed to have been found. The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then science, or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

oscarBravo · 23-04-2017 11:56PM

J C wrote: »

Nothing has fundamentally changed in regards to the validity of evolution since Dr Harrison Matthews said the following in his Introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" (however, everything has changed in relation to the Creation hypothesis ... which has now reached the point where massive levels of intelligent input in the production of living organisms has been scientifically validated) :-

"Even 'Darwin's Bulldog', as Thomas Huxley once called himself, wrote in 1863: 'I adopt Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, therefore, subject to the production of proof that physiological species may be produced by selective breeding' -- meaning species that are infertile if crossed. That proof has never been produced, though a few not entirely convincing examples are claimed to have been found. The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then science, or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.7

...stopping over in England, I spoke to an elderly zoologist, L. Harrison Matthews, who wrote the introduction to Darwin's Origin in the Everyman Edition. In phrases which have been seized on by Creationists, Matthews argues that belief in Darwinism is like a religious commitment. This was going to be used by the State of Arkansas, who would argue that belief in Creation-science is logically identical to belief in evolution. Hence, since one can teach the latter, one should be allowed to teach the former. (A more rigorous conclusion would be that since both are religion, neither should be taught. But no matter.)

Would Matthews recant? He was happy to do so, and wrote me a strong letter about the misuse that he felt Creationists had made of his introduction. Reading between the lines, I got the strong impression that what motivated Matthews in his introduction was not the logic of evolutionary theory at all. He wanted to poke the late Sir Gavin de Beer in the eye. De Beer was a fanatical Darwinian, and Matthews was dressing him down for the undue strength of his feelings!

(Emphasis mine.)

Leroy42 · 24-04-2017 10:12AM

J C wrote: »

... so religions don't actually have common stories that they 'stick' to.

That is true.

You know what I meant. Each separte scism within religion absolutely has a an unbreakable 'truth'. If they were willing to take others ideas into their reasoning then there wouldn't be a reason for all the different religions. WHy do you think there isn't just one? Because there was something that somebody thought was true but not included in the current dogma and the others were not willing to accede to it.

J C wrote: »

... but these disagreements are confined to disagrements over various materialistic hypotheses.

... except scientism itself.

I had to look that word up. Apparently it means

thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

So what are you getting at? That belief in the power scientific knowledge is wrong? You do understand that it is the power of the method rather than the outcome that people believe in?

J C wrote: »

What are these arguments that are already accepted by science in regard to evolution?

Since you already believe that they have been debunked I have little point in trying to inform you of what they they are. You have been given plenty of evidence throughout this thread. The problem, as usual, is that you have made statements such as evoltuion has been debunked, yet provided no evidence (apart from some secret meetings) to back up the claim.

J C wrote: »

... and the evidence against the spontaneous generation and evolution of pondkind to mankind is indeed overwhelming.

What evidence has been provided to prove it cannot happen? At the moment we have no evidence that we understand it could happen, but to claim there is actual evidence that it cannot? I assume that the same level of evidence you think for that can also be used on the existence of your God. Nothing we understand can lead to that being real.

J C wrote: »

... but scientists are reluctant to accept this because the only current viable alternative is special creation ... and this is defined as 'outside science'.

Ah, here we are, the nub of the issue. So because we don't know the answer, or even understand it, you can confidentially claim that not only do you know the answer but it is the only possible answer. You have been able to discount ever other possibility? You are so confident that you know everything about how the universe works that you can claim that nothing, nothing at all, could have caused life to come into being only the hand of a supernatural being. This, of course, without any evidence that said supernatural being has played any part in anything else that goes on. Just life, on this planet.

J C wrote: »

Nothing has fundamentally changed in regards to the validity of evolution since Dr Harrison Matthews said the following in his Introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" (however, everything has changed in relation to the Creation hypothesis ... which has now reached the point where massive levels of intelligent input in the production of living organisms has been scientifically validated) :-

"Even 'Darwin's Bulldog', as Thomas Huxley once called himself, wrote in 1863: 'I adopt Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, therefore, subject to the production of proof that physiological species may be produced by selective breeding' -- meaning species that are infertile if crossed. That proof has never been produced, though a few not entirely convincing examples are claimed to have been found. The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then science, or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

Unlike the bible, things move on. You don't think that science has found more evidence since then? And therein lies the issue. Science continues to examine, test, review and change to take account of new information. Religion is the exact opposite. It not only must not change, it cannot even countenance change. It relies on stories from centuries ago, which only diminish with each passing year as to their relevance.

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory

Well that is not true at all though is it. There is a vast amount of evidence to back up evolution. And across many different areas as well. Fossils, DNA, matching traits of common ancestors, Vestigial Traits, bacteria, aging of rock formations, consistency of fossils in rock formation layers. It is of course, true that nothing can ever really be said to be fully proved. We live in an infinite universe after all. But as I said in my earlier post, even if evolution turns out to be false, so what? How does that make any difference to the existence of God? Everyone accepts that life is changing on the planet, so God did not make things as they are now. Whatever your God made, it has little relevance to what we see around us today.

But then even if I grant you that God did create us, the world, the entire universe. Again so what? Your parents created you, but I doubt you spend your life in constant fear of their retribution and continous praise of their very existence. This God that created the universe, why do you think that it cares what happens? Why do you think that it cares who you sleep with, and what god you pray to? If there is only one god, then what difference does it make whether you pray to it or not?

Again, you and I are not much different. You don't believe in the vast majority of gods that have been put out there across the years. The only difference is that I don't believe in your one either. Other than that we are in complete agreement.

When you can show me why you deny the existence of all the other gods, whilst believing in yours, then we can move on. Up to that point you are not even being honest with yourself.

J C · 24-04-2017 08:23PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

You know what I meant. Each separte scism within religion absolutely has a an unbreakable 'truth'. If they were willing to take others ideas into their reasoning then there wouldn't be a reason for all the different religions. WHy do you think there isn't just one? Because there was something that somebody thought was true but not included in the current dogma and the others were not willing to accede to it.

As usual, the exact opposite is the situation ... different denominations prove that there is diversity of opinion within Christianity ... unlike modern science which insists on everyone 'singing from the same hymnsheet' when it comes to Evolution (pun intended) !!!:)

Leroy42 wrote: »

I had to look that word up. Apparently it means
Quote:
thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

So what are you getting at? That belief in the power scientific knowledge is wrong? You do understand that it is the power of the method rather than the outcome that people believe in?

The power of the method is one thing ... but it is the use of science when making effectively un-scientific conclusions that I object to.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Since you already believe that they have been debunked I have little point in trying to inform you of what they they are. You have been given plenty of evidence throughout this thread.

The reason you can't or won't provide any evidence for molecules to man evolution is because there isn't any that hasn't been debunked.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah, here we are, the nub of the issue. So because we don't know the answer, or even understand it, you can confidentially claim that not only do you know the answer but it is the only possible answer. You have been able to discount ever other possibility? You are so confident that you know everything about how the universe works that you can claim that nothing, nothing at all, could have caused life to come into being only the hand of a supernatural being. This, of course, without any evidence that said supernatural being has played any part in anything else that goes on. Just life, on this planet.

... so what evidence do you have for any alternative to the Direct Creation of life then?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Unlike the bible, things move on. You don't think that science has found more evidence since then? And therein lies the issue. Science continues to examine, test, review and change to take account of new information. Religion is the exact opposite. It not only must not change, it cannot even countenance change. It relies on stories from centuries ago, which only diminish with each passing year as to their relevance.

Religions and science both change and adapt to changing knowledge and social trends.
... and science has actually found more evidence for the scientific bankruptcy of the spontaneous generation and Evolution of living orgasnisms. For example, the Human Genome project has shown the incredible levels of Complex Functional Specified Information present in the Human Genome thereby proving the source of this information to be an equally omniscent intelligence.

J C · 24-04-2017 08:53PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is a vast amount of evidence to back up evolution. And across many different areas as well.

Is there really???

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fossils,

Fossils completely disprove gradual Evolution ... they appear suddenly, fully formed and with a diversity parallelling living creatures today, don't change significantly and either are still alive and unchanged, like supposed 200 million year old crocodiles or just disappear from the fossil record, just as suddenly as they appeared.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-top-10-greatest-survivors-of-evolution-118143319/

Quote :-
Harvard paleontologist and evolutionist Prof Stephen Jay Gould:
"Darwinists’ greatest alarm stems from the fossil record, and particularly from Cambrian fossils."

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs."

Quote :-
Charles Darwin:
"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."

"For instance, I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal... Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."

Quote :-
Niles Eldredge paleontologist Harvard University:
"Then there was something of an explosion. Beginning about six hundred million years ago, and continuing for about ten to fifteen million years, the earliest known representatives of the major kinds of animals still populating today's seas made a rather abrupt appearance. This rather protracted 'event' shows up graphically in the rock record: all over the world, at roughly the same time, thick sequences of rocks, barren of any easily detected fossils, are overlain by sediments containing a gorgeous array of shelly invertebrates: trilobites (extinct relatives of crabs and insects), brachiopods, mollusks. Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the Cambrian Period (the oldest division of the Paleozoic Era) does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge.

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. ... When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang... Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."

Quote:-
Prof Daniel Axelrod professor of geology and botany at the University of California :

"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-called marine invertebrates in the lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age."

Quote:-
Prof Richard Dawkins one of the leading contemporary evolutionists::
"For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Quite !!!:)

SpikeTheGuns · 24-04-2017 09:18PM

Literally ran each and every one of those quotes through Google. The common source that came up for each was a book called "Confessions of the Evolutionists", written by a man named Adnan Oktar, or "Harun Yahya". Mr Oktar is a Turkish author very heavily rooted in creationism. Hilariously, he rejects the notion of 'intelligent design', because it specifically does not mention God, and is therefore 'another of Satan's snares'.

He is in fact the leader of a group called the Science Research Foundation (or BAV in Turkish). This group is responsible for a systematic attack on scholars in Turkey, using a campaign of intimidation, blackmail, and fear to quell protests and pro-actual science stances. Pretty amusing, considering that you yourself are banging on about this bizarre science conspiracy of yours.

His other work includes 'The Holocaust Lie' (guess what that's about). Really, if this is the sort of lad you're basing your arguments on, you should up your game a little.

J C · 24-04-2017 09:23PM

SpikeTheGuns wrote: »

Literally ran each and every one of those quotes through Google. The common source that came up for each was a book called "Confessions of the Evolutionists", written by a man named Adnan Oktar, or "Harun Yahya". Mr Oktar is a Turkish author very heavily rooted in creationism. Hilariously, he rejects the notion of 'intelligent design', because it specifically does not mention God, and is therefore 'another of Satan's snares'.

He is in fact the leader of a group called the Science Research Foundation (or BAV in Turkish). This group is responsible for a systematic attack on scholars in Turkey, using a campaign of intimidation, blackmail, and fear to quell protests and pro-actual science stances. Pretty amusing, considering that you yourself are banging on about this bizarre science conspiracy of yours.

His other work includes 'The Holocaust Lie' (guess what that's about). Really, if this is the sort of lad you're basing your arguments on, you should up your game a little.

They are accurate quotes ... so what have you to say about the quotes?

Harika · 24-04-2017 09:25PM

J C wrote: »

Quote:-
Prof Richard Dawkins one of the leading contemporary evolutionists::
"For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Quite !!!:)

I was curious at that and by looking at the quote you find that this is a quote out of his book, that in context says something different,as you would expect from Dawkins. https://books.google.ie/books?id=u4d0CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT220&lpg=PT220&dq=For+example+the+Cambrian+strata+of+rocks...+are+the+oldest+ones+in+which+we+find+most+of+the+major+invertebrate+groups.+It+is+as+though+they+were+just+planted+there,+without+any+evolutionary+history&source=bl&ots=xLcFwjCVHL&sig=ThExd-cYzglxVfaBAqbyB6RSFIs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjziYf49L3TAhUHK8AKHZF1BU4Q6AEIKDAF#v=onepage&q=For%20example%20the%20Cambrian%20strata%20of%20rocks...%20are%20the%20oldest%20ones%20in%20which%20we%20find%20most%20of%20the%20major%20invertebrate%20groups.%20It%20is%20as%20though%20they%20were%20just%20planted%20there%2C%20without%20any%20evolutionary%20history&f=false

SpikeTheGuns · 24-04-2017 09:30PM

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)

Same page, same paragraph.

"His opponents interpreted this event as the moment of creation, for not a single trace of Precambrian life had been discovered when Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. (We now have an extensive record of monerans from these early rocks, see essay 21)"

This is what we call a "quote mine". Looking back through your post history, I can see another poster humiliated you with a raft of others. Why should we engage with someone so patently dishonest? Why should we engage with someone who cites the work of a Holocaust-denying ruffian?

oscarBravo · 24-04-2017 09:34PM

J C wrote: »

They are accurate quotes ... so what have you to say about the quotes?

Sure: in the same way that this is an accurate quote from you:

J C wrote: »

Religions and science both change and adapt to changing knowledge and social trends.
... and science has actually found more evidence...

J C · 24-04-2017 09:43PM

Harika wrote: »

I was curious at that and by looking at the quote you find that this is a quote out of his book, that in context says something different,as you would expect from Dawkins. https://books.google.ie/books?id=u4d0CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT220&lpg=PT220&dq=For+example+the+Cambrian+strata+of+rocks...+are+the+oldest+ones+in+which+we+find+most+of+the+major+invertebrate+groups.+It+is+as+though+they+were+just+planted+there,+without+any+evolutionary+history&source=bl&ots=xLcFwjCVHL&sig=ThExd-cYzglxVfaBAqbyB6RSFIs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjziYf49L3TAhUHK8AKHZF1BU4Q6AEIKDAF#v=onepage&q=For%20example%20the%20Cambrian%20strata%20of%20rocks...%20are%20the%20oldest%20ones%20in%20which%20we%20find%20most%20of%20the%20major%20invertebrate%20groups.%20It%20is%20as%20though%20they%20were%20just%20planted%20there%2C%20without%20any%20evolutionary%20history&f=false

... and expanding the quote is just as damning for evolution ...

"Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

... or this:-
"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'.

Fair enough ... so both 'punctuationist' and 'gradualist' Evolutionists are both equally wrong, then !!:)

J C · 24-04-2017 09:54PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure: in the same way that this is an accurate quote from you:

Not really ... the Cambrian explosion is a major problem for gradualist accounts of Evolution ... because hypothesised 'intermediate' organisms are conspicuous by their absence:-
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467).

Evolutionists may argue that all these gaps are merely imperfections in the fossil record ... but these gaps are so widespread and systemic that the fossil record doesn't provide any evidence for the supposed intermediaries, that must have been present, if gradualistic accounts of evolution are true.

Harika · 24-04-2017 09:58PM

J C wrote: »

... and expanding the quote is just as damning for evolution ...

"Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

And in the next paragraph he then clarifies this

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

J C · 24-04-2017 10:15PM

I have no wish to misquote or twist/truncate quotes ... they are so rich in anti-evolution admissions that nothing is required but to simply quote them in full.

... for example, Prof Stephen J Gould makes a number of very interesting comments here on the invalidity of Gradualistic accounts of Evolution (which the modern synthesis assumes to be the method by which life evolved):-

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists 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 favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record."

Professor Moriarty · 24-04-2017 10:46PM

J C wrote: »

I have no wish to misquote or twist/truncate quotes ... they are so rich in anti-evolution admissions that nothing is required but to simply quote them in full.

... for example, Prof Stephen J Gould makes a number of very interesting comments here on the invalidity of Gradualistic accounts of Evolution (which the modern synthesis assumes to be the method by which life evolved):-

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists 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 favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record."

Gould was a committed advocate of evolutionary theory and despised Creationism and Intelligent Design.

J C · 24-04-2017 10:49PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Quote:
...stopping over in England, I spoke to an elderly zoologist, L. Harrison Matthews, who wrote the introduction to Darwin's Origin in the Everyman Edition. In phrases which have been seized on by Creationists, Matthews argues that belief in Darwinism is like a religious commitment. This was going to be used by the State of Arkansas, who would argue that belief in Creation-science is logically identical to belief in evolution. Hence, since one can teach the latter, one should be allowed to teach the former. (A more rigorous conclusion would be that since both are religion, neither should be taught. But no matter.)

Not teaching either Evolution or Creation would be a very defective education indeed.

Why not teach both theories ... and their strengths and any weakneses?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Quote:
Would Matthews recant? He was happy to do so, and wrote me a strong letter about the misuse that he felt Creationists had made of his introduction. Reading between the lines, I got the strong impression that what motivated Matthews in his introduction was not the logic of evolutionary theory at all. He wanted to poke the late Sir Gavin de Beer in the eye. De Beer was a fanatical Darwinian, and Matthews was dressing him down for the undue strength of his feelings!

Perhaps if we read between the lines, all kinds of things can be concluded ... but Prof Matthews did write the following about Evolution:-
"Even 'Darwin's Bulldog', as Thomas Huxley once called himself, wrote in 1863: 'I adopt Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, therefore, subject to the production of proof that physiological species may be produced by selective breeding' -- meaning species that are infertile if crossed. That proof has never been produced, though a few not entirely convincing examples are claimed to have been found. The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then science, or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
... and whether his motive was to poke Sir Gavin de Beer in the eye or not, is moot.

J C · 24-04-2017 10:56PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Gould was a committed advocate of evolutionary theory and despised Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Quite true ... and he is therefore a 'hostile witness' for Creation/ID (and a committed Evolutionist) ... so his pronouncements on deficiencies in Evolution, carry considerable weight, as a result.
For example, the following are fairly damning criticisms of gradualistic Evolution:-
"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks."
... or "Paleontologists 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 favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Professor Moriarty · 24-04-2017 11:30PM

J C wrote: »

Quite true ... and he is therefore a 'hostile witness' for Creation/ID (and a committed Evolutionist) ... so his pronouncements on deficiencies in Evolution, carry considerable weight as a result.
For example, the following are fairly damning criticisms of gradualistic Evolution:-
"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks."
... or "Paleontologists 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 favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

What point do you think he's making in those quotes? I'm referring to the entire quotes, not the parts you have selected.

Incidentally, are you familiar with his theory of non-overlapping magisteria? If so, thoughts?

J C · 25-04-2017 12:02AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What point do you think he's making in those quotes? I'm referring to the entire quotes, not the parts you have selected.

Gould is clearly pointing out that the fossil record doesn't support Gradualistic evolution ... and he is concluding that evolution proceeds via long periods of stasis punctuated by rapid change (that is so rapid that it doesn't show up in the fossil record) ... when the obvious interpretation of the fossil record is that neither punctuated nor gradual evolution has a shred of evidence in their support.

Gould is effectively saying that he believes in Evolution (like all other evolutionists) but never sees any evidence for it in the fossil record.
Who else usually say that they believe in something they can't see? ... yes, religious people, of course ... so, Gould is effectively saying that the belief in evolution is a religion of sorts!!!

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Incidentally, are you familiar with his theory of non-overlapping magisteria? If so, thoughts?

I am and I don't believe a word of it. The magesteria of religion and science do overlap on many issues, including the origins issue ... and issues of ethics, for example.

oscarBravo · 25-04-2017 12:22AM

J C wrote: »

Not teaching either Evolution or Creation would be a very defective education indeed.

Well, you're half right.

Nice wilful misreading of his point, by the way. I suppose lying to yourself is the easiest form of lying.

Why not teach both theories ... and their strengths and any weakneses?

I have no problem with the scientific method - the real scientific method, not pretendy "let's see what pseudoscientific woo we have to invent to try to prove the bible right" "science" - being brought to bear on both evolution and creationism.

J C · 25-04-2017 12:31AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, you're half right.

Nice wilful misreading of his point, by the way. I suppose lying to yourself is the easiest form of lying.

How have I misread his point? ... and was it not your point Oscar Bravo?
Anyway, here is your point (as made in the quote you put up) that you say I misread:-
Quote Oscar Bravo:-
"This was going to be used by the State of Arkansas, who would argue that belief in Creation-science is logically identical to belief in evolution. Hence, since one can teach the latter, one should be allowed to teach the former. (A more rigorous conclusion would be that since both are religion, neither should be taught. But no matter.)
Your selected quote is clearly saying that since both Evolution and Creation are claimed by Matthews to be religious beliefs, it logically follows that neither should be taught in schools .... and I'm pointing out that even if they are religious beliefs, they should be taught in school for any education to be worthy of the name.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have no problem with the scientific method - the real scientific method, not pretendy "let's see what pseudoscientific woo we have to invent to try to prove the bible right" "science" - being brought to bear on both evolution and creationism.

I agree ... the only problem is that the 'pseudo-scientific woo' is evolutionist in origin ... as a whole series of Evolutionists have been happily pointing out ... until Creationists 'copped on' to their very significant admissions ... and Evolutionists then stopped being so fortright with their reservations about evolution (at least in public anyway).:)

oscarBravo · 25-04-2017 10:39AM

J C wrote: »

How have I misread his point? ... and was it not your point Oscar Bravo?

No. It was a quote. You know it was a quote, since you go on to say:

Anyway, here is your point (as made in the quote you put up) that you say I misread:-

So, no: it's not my point, it's a point made by Professor Michael Ruse, as is clearly obvious had you followed the link I helpfully provided.

Quote Oscar Bravo:-
"This was going to be used by the State of Arkansas, who would argue that belief in Creation-science is logically identical to belief in evolution. Hence, since one can teach the latter, one should be allowed to teach the former. (A more rigorous conclusion would be that since both are religion, neither should be taught. But no matter.)
Your selected quote is clearly saying that since both Evolution and Creation are claimed by Matthews to be religious beliefs, it logically follows that neither should be taught in schools ....

On the contrary, my selected quote illustrates the absurdity of the position taken by the State of Arkansas.

The point is so obvious it almost physically hurts, but I'll spell it out anyway, if only to make you put more effort into lying to yourself:

Arkansas tried to pull the same stunt as you by quote-mining Harrison Matthews in an attempt to claim that evolution is a religion. The conclusion they drew was that, if both evolution and creationism are religions, then both should be taught as scientific theories. The more rigorous conclusion, as pointed out by Professor Ruse, is that if both are religions, then neither should be taught as science. Happily, since evolution isn't a religion - except in the fevered imaginations of those who believe that religious creation myths are science - the point is moot.

.... and I'm pointing out that even if they are religious beliefs, they should be taught in school for any education to be worthy of the name.

Is it your view that all religious beliefs should be taught in school?

Harika · 25-04-2017 01:33PM

Stumbled across this old video, that I already watched but was recently added with a comment that fuels some information to the claim that scientists with christian belief are suppressed in the scientific community.

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPyKaH09lpc (Watch if interested, point is that Mr. Humphrey only published 11 times in his career and claims to be surpressed, the video then shows that his work might not be as good as he thought) but the comment was

The scientific community doesn't care about your religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or whatever. It is a meritocratic establishment that measures a person's value by the work that they come out with. As 30% of American scientists believe in a god, but evidently have no more trouble getting published than their godless counterparts, it seems safe to assume that there's no religious discrimination taking place. But far be it from a conspiracy theorist to blame the lack of professional material that supports their position to cry "persecution!" instead of admitting to themselves that their champions just suck at science.
In any case, Mr. Humphreys here has been published 11 times, and if you think that's because he didn't go public with his belief in God at the time, then look at the academic career of Dr. Francis Collins, an open evangelical Christian and proponent of evolutionary theory. He's been made the head and director of the human genome project, a project that every geneticist on the planet aspired to join, and his citations dwarf Humphreys' by a tall margin.
There's no conspiracy here, Jesse, and you know it. That's why you disabled replies to your comment.

So if you look Francis Collins up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins or selected! publications here: https://www.genome.gov/10000646/collins-publications/ you will find that the claim that religious scientists are surpressed cannot he upheld.

antiskeptic · 25-04-2017 07:18PM

Harika's reference wrote:

"The scientific community doesn't care about your religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or whatever. It is a meritocratic establishment that measures a person's value by the work that they come out with"

Ha Ha..

You mean scientists aren't people first? Somehow science immunizes you against prejudice, greed, corruption,ladder climbing over anyone who gets in your way ?

Harika · 25-04-2017 08:33PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ha Ha..

You mean scientists aren't people first? Somehow science immunizes you against prejudice, greed, corruption,ladder climbing over anyone who gets in your way ?

You are talking about individuals with resentiments, sure no doubt that individuals have that, but good ideas/work will always trump that as shown with Dr. Francis Collins who even with being a creationist, got into one of the most prestigious positions in the scientific community.

antiskeptic · 25-04-2017 11:01PM

Harika wrote: »

You are talking about individuals with resentiments, sure no doubt that individuals have that, but good ideas/work will always trump

... as will the bad ideas

I get your point about Collins. It just struck me that it wouldn't be because science is some kind of optima-environment for anything.

J C · 26-04-2017 09:02PM

Harika wrote: »

You are talking about individuals with resentiments, sure no doubt that individuals have that, but good ideas/work will always trump that as shown with Dr. Francis Collins who even with being a creationist, got into one of the most prestigious positions in the scientific community.

Firstly, Prof Collins isn't a Creationist ... he is an Evolutionist, who also happens to be an Evangelical Christian ... and the fact that he was a Christian, caused an unholy row (from leading atheists) at the time he was nominated as Director of the NIH ... the following press article gives a flavour of the atmosphere at the time, back in 2009:-

http://everysquareinch.net/crisis-the-n-i-h-director-is-a-christian/

... and here is a quote from the above article that summarises the issue that could have cost Prof Collins his new job at the NIH, if the Atheists who objected to his appointment, had their way.

"A little over a year ago, President Obama had the responsibility to name a new (NIH) director. Would you hire a scientist whose resume included the following:

1. Universally acknowledged as one of the world’s top scientists.

2. As a young researcher at Yale he was responsible for developing strategies that significantly sped up the process of finding disease-causing genes.

3. As an assistant professor at the University of Michigan he was major player on a team that used the strategies he developed to discover the gene that causes cystic fibrosis and then a year later the genetic flaw responsible for neurofibromatosis.

4. He served as the director of the Human Genome Project bringing it to a successful conclusion 2 years early and $400 million under budget.

5. He has great relationships with the congressional leaders who are responsible for setting the N.I.H. budget.

That sounds like a pretty solid candidate for the job at NIH. The man who owns this resume is named Francis Collins and in the summer of 2009 President Obama named him to this post, sometimes referred to as “the nation’s top scientist.” The Senate quickly confirmed the appointment. No scientist questioned his professional qualifications.

But there was one problem that caused some scientists to lash out against Dr. Collins. What could possibly be wrong with him? Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian.

This led to a story in the New York Times that said that some of his colleagues in the scientific community believed Dr. Collins suffered from dementia. “Steven Pinker, a cognitive psychologist at Harvard, questioned the appointment on the ground that Collins was ‘an advocate of profoundly anti-scientific beliefs.’ P.Z. Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota at Morris, complained, ‘I don’t want American science to be represented by a clown.'”

None of these criticisms was in reference to his credentials but only to his belief in historic, orthodox Christianity. I guess that I find it somewhat hard to believe that it would be acceptable to assail a top-flight scientist on the grounds that he was a devout Muslim or Jew. But for some reason it is okay to call Dr. Collins a clown on the basis that he’s a Christian."

Indeed, Prof Collins, despite being one of the most eminent scientists in America, was called names normally reserved for Creationists, even though he was an Evolutionist, who believed in God.

J C · 26-04-2017 09:24PM

Harika wrote: »

Quote:
The scientific community doesn't care about your religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or whatever. It is a meritocratic establishment that measures a person's value by the work that they come out with. As 30% of American scientists believe in a god, but evidently have no more trouble getting published than their godless counterparts, it seems safe to assume that there's no religious discrimination taking place.

The fact that only 30% of American scientists believe in God (in a country where roughly 90% of the general general population believes in God) is prima face evidence of some kind of hostility/discrimination within the scientific community towards religion and a belief in God.
You would expect the scientific community to be religiously similar, to the general population from which it draws recruits, if the scientific community was genuinely neutral towards people who believe in God, as you claim.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/193271/americans-believe-god.aspx

People who believe in God, value education and science to the same extent as atheists ... and they have similar intelligence levels ... so why the gross disparity between the 90% of people who believe in God in the general population - and the 30% of scientists, who believe in God in America?
It is even more dramatic when we look at 70% of scientists being from 10% of the general population who don't believe in God!!!

J C · 26-04-2017 10:41PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Arkansas tried to pull the same stunt as you by quote-mining Harrison Matthews in an attempt to claim that evolution is a religion. The conclusion they drew was that, if both evolution and creationism are religions, then both should be taught as scientific theories. The more rigorous conclusion, as pointed out by Professor Ruse, is that if both are religions, then neither should be taught as science. Happily, since evolution isn't a religion - except in the fevered imaginations of those who believe that religious creation myths are science - the point is moot.

It's not just me who thinks that it is a religion ...
Prof Matthews (who was an Evolutionist) also thinks Evolutionism is a kind of 'religion':-
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then science, or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments