The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

oscarBravo · 26-04-2017 11:40PM

J C wrote: »

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.

I've linked to the debunking of that particular quote-mine already, so allow me to quote from it again:

Note that Matthews differentiates between the fact of evolution, and a theory to explain it. This is similar to the fact of gravity, and a theory (either Newton's or Einstein's) to explain it, and is a common mistake made by creationists when attacking evolution.

The author helpfully links a page entitled "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory", which quotes Gould:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

The whole article is worth a read, but one other quote from Doug Futuyma deserves a mention:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

Emphasis mine.

marienbad · 27-04-2017 04:36AM

J C wrote: »

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.

JC , you are telling porkys again

this has already been debunked , or do you regards along with with your mates the Jesuits that end the justifies the means ?

Harika · 27-04-2017 09:20AM

J C wrote: »

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:-
<-snip->

Thanks for the clarification, reading a bit more about him and his interviews it became apparently clear that there are big gaps between creationist scientists - religious scientist and atheistic scientists, while Collins and Dawkins can have a very civil chat, the likes of Ken Ham are in full attack mode on him, throwing nothing but dirt. Already in the first paragraph whines about Collins video being on Big Think where Satans like Bill Nye als are allowed to speak. :rolleyes:

robdonn · 27-04-2017 03:15PM

J C wrote: »

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!!!

Maybe the people who believed in a god went on to study science, applied the methodologies that they learned in their education and most came to a personal conclusion that they could not support the belief any more based on the evidence available?

J C · 27-04-2017 11:18PM

marienbad wrote: »

JC , you are telling porkys again this has already been debunked , or do you regards along with with your mates the Jesuits that end the justifies the means ?

It hasn't been debunked and Prof Matthews said exactly what I quoted.

He may have regretted being so frank later on ... but it was an honest assessment by him, at the time, IMO.

J C · 27-04-2017 11:25PM

robdonn wrote: »

Maybe the people who believed in a god went on to study science, applied the methodologies that they learned in their education and most came to a personal conclusion that they could not support the belief any more based on the evidence available?

The evidence is pointing towards God ... but if people of faith, who study science largely become Atheist then science, as practiced in America isn't religiously neutral ... but actively destructive of faith in God.

Creation Scientists look at the same evidence and the appliance of the scientific method by them bolsters their faith in God ... and indeed has scientifically proven His existence.

J C · 27-04-2017 11:31PM

Harika wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, reading a bit more about him and his interviews it became apparently clear that there are big gaps between creationist scientists - religious scientist and atheistic scientists, while Collins and Dawkins can have a very civil chat, the likes of Ken Ham are in full attack mode on him, throwing nothing but dirt. Already in the first paragraph whines about Collins video being on Big Think where Satans like Bill Nye als are allowed to speak. :rolleyes:

it looks very civil to me ... nobody is calling anybody names ... like often used to happen, when some Evolutionists talked about Creationists!!!

... and indeed when they talked about Prof Collins, at the time of his appointment as Director of the NIH !!!!

robdonn · 27-04-2017 11:45PM

J C wrote: »

The evidence is pointing towards God ...

Not according to at least 70% of scientists, but ok.

J C wrote: »

but if people of faith, who study science largely become Atheist then science, as practiced in America isn't religiously neutral ... but actively destructive of faith in God.

No, it means that facts are actively destructive of faith in a god, as none of them appear to point towards it's existence.

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists look at the same evidence and the appliance of the scientific method by them bolsters their faith in God

Creation Scientists go in with the conclusion ahead of time. They look for evidence to prove their existing view and try to interpret evidence in a way that supports it. That is not the scientific method.

J C wrote: »

... and indeed has scientifically proven His existence.

Oh please, do go on. This is the first I've heard of your god been proven to exist scientifically. Care to explain it to me?

Leroy42 · 28-04-2017 10:24AM

J C wrote: »

The evidence is pointing towards God ... but if people of faith, who study science largely become Atheist then science, as practiced in America isn't religiously neutral ... but actively destructive of faith in God.

Creation Scientists look at the same evidence and the appliance of the scientific method by them bolsters their faith in God ... and indeed has scientifically proven His existence.

I think you'll find that science really couldn't give a toss about god. For most scientists it is nothing more than an annoyance, something that people bring up to try to take part in debates that they have no real knowledge of. They use god to cover up the fact that they have no actual clue what happened and can't even think of a reason outside of what they have been told.

J C wrote: »

The evidence is pointing towards God

Go on then...what is this evidence? Now pointing towards, that is a lot different than actually proving. I mean most scientists in the world would say that the evidence points towards evolution but apparently that is not sufficient in that case.

I get it, you don't accept evolution. And thats fine. But what is not fine is your intellectual dishonesty. The very arguments that you use against evolution; there are gaps in the fossil evidence, it doesn't explain the start of life etc; these very same arguments can be leveled far more at religion. yet this doesn't seem to be an issue. How can you have such double standards?

The difference between religion and science is that religion starts with an answer and then tries to mould evidence to fit that answer. Science is the exact opposite. Science didn't start out with evolution, the evidence led it to that.

Everything that we understand about genetics, disease, migration, rock formations, the age of the earth, the evolution of the human race, all this can be explained using evolution.

For it to make sense within religion it needs so many twists and turns, caveats, special pleading, interpretations. God made the world in six days, took a day off on the 7th as we was so pleased with his work, and since then as been busy making changes? I mean a more half arsed job you couldn't get.

Since his perfect creation, the continents have moved, the human race has evolved from two black people to white, black, red, different eye colours, hair colours. We cannot survive in a majority of the planet that was created for us. There are many animals that can kill us, the only way we can seemingly survive is to kill them. There are plants that if we eat them will kill us? Weather events can kill us. Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions. There are worms than burrow into peoples eyes to blind them.
I mean come on! We can't survive on any other planet within the solar system.

99.9% of all species have become extinct. Religion itself has fallen apart. His great reveal, himself to the world through Jesus, was not even accepted by the majority of people that knew of him. His chosen people didn't even believe it! These are the people God crossed his own commandments to protect. And yet God continues to do nothing. He is watching as the world falls away from religion, whilst at the same time some people are using their interpretation of religion to inflict pain onto others. And still God does nothing.

He sent Jesus down to Palestine +2000 years ago, when it is calculated that just 300 million people were on the planet. Now we have 7 bn, yet God doesn't think now, or any point in the past, that it would be a good time to reset the thinking? He sat by when the plague hit europe, famines ravaged Africa. He sat by when aids caused terrible hardship, fear and intolerance. Evolution shows us that a species will evolve to take account of changing circumstances, They have to, because god isn't too keen on helping any of us it would seem

And you, and creationists, seem to think that once Darwin wrote his book that that was it. Evolution was just accepted. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even Darwin stated that he wished he had never written it due to the abuse he received. You don't think the church went hell for leather to disprove him? That every effort wasn't made to discredit him and his work? You seem to be of the impression that only now is religion 'fighting back' against evolution, that it is being left down to people like Ken Ham to stage a comeback.

Did you ever ask yourself why the main religions of this world allowed such a heretical notion to cement itself? I mean, of all the ideas put forward, this one did more to reduce the requirement of a god than pretty much anything else (certainly in terms that 'normal' people could understand unlike quantum physics and the like). Religion didn't just accept evolution, it fought against it, did everything it could to debunk it. Yet, here we are, some 140 years later, and you have a few quotes taken out of context a few isolated items only serve to prove the rule.

Religion has been given every possible advantage to promote itself and yet still is facing falling numbers. Why is that? It seems that the more people understand the less they need a god. Religions are given tax breaks, access to the very young, a reverence not afforded to others, places on boards to allow their views to be heard. Religions are given all this and more and yet come on here claiming that science is actively against religion? When most funding from science comes from governments, run in the main by people of religion.

And sure I accept that having a security blanket is nice. When things are going bad we all want an arm around the shoulder to tell us everything will be better. There is the innate comfort of religion. But when you look at it, it is nothing more than a selfish wish that you be treated special. That you be given the keys to a magical kingdom. If you really believed in god, the loving god that you profess to, then you would want, nay demand, that everyone be welcomed into his kingdom. Forgive them all their sins, regardless of what they believed or not.

But that is exactly the opposite of what religion teaches us. It teaches us that only us, the chosen ones, the ones born into the belief in Jesus have any hope of going to heaven. All those babies that die before they even have a chance to learn to read, never mind learn of Jesus, they are straight to hell to pay for the sins of Adam and Eve. If you really believe that, then everyday you are living with the belief that all the people that die not being christians are condemned to an eternity in hell. How can can possibly live with that feeling, that lack of empathy for the rest of the human race? How can meet someone of another/no faith and not just fall down in agony and the reality of what awaits them?

But somehow you are able to carry on, and if you are honest with yourself it is because you think that you are fine. It is nothing more that selfish and arrogant thinking that you are better than everyone else. And that is about as far from your christianity that you can get

antiskeptic · 28-04-2017 12:11PM

robdonn wrote: »

Not according to at least 70% of scientists, but ok.

How often do we hear Science being held up as the optimal true giver. How can it be that 30% of scientists think the evidence (from all the available-to-them evidence sources) point to God and 70% think the evidence points otherwise.

What does that say about the true giving ability of science?

How can it be that evidence can be read in polar opposite directions?

From the above, if worldview / philosophy causes differences in the way evidence is read or permits categories of evidence to become available to some but not to others ... then what does this say about the conclusions of science generally?

Harika · 28-04-2017 12:25PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

How often do we hear Science being held up as the optimal true giver. How can it be that 30% of scientists think the evidence (from all the available-to-them evidence sources) point to God and 70% think the evidence points otherwise.

What does that say about the true giving ability of science?

How can it be that evidence can be read in polar opposite directions?

From the above, if worldview / philosophy causes differences in the way evidence is read or permits categories of evidence to become available to some but not to others ... then what does this say about the conclusions of science generally?

There is no evidence for god, as god is outside of reality/physical world and cannot be tested. Neither is evidence for absence of god, as negatives cannot be tested. So the decision on it, is not based on facts and scientists are "allowed" to have their own feelings or opinions. They will say, that they looked at all the data and decided that they think that there is some higher being or whatsoever.

oscarBravo · 28-04-2017 01:37PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

How often do we hear Science being held up as the optimal true giver. How can it be that 30% of scientists think the evidence (from all the available-to-them evidence sources) point to God and 70% think the evidence points otherwise.

Very, very few scientists would claim that there is evidence of God's existence, and those who do tend to abuse the term "scientist" to include "creation scientist".

I don't know many scientists, but any engineers I know who profess a belief in God make a clear distinction between what they can prove, and what they believe; they don't muddle the two.

It's the attempt to claim that science can prove the existence of a being that necessarily exists outside of spacetime that leads to some of the silliness that's on display in this thread.

MrPudding · 29-04-2017 02:59PM

J C wrote: »

...but if people of faith, who study science largely become Atheist then science, as practiced in America isn't religiously neutral ... but actively destructive of faith in God.

Utter nonsense, so just the usual JC post then. Let's try something...

but if people that believe in a flat earth, who study science largely become of the belief that the earth is not flat then science, as practiced in America isn't flat earth neutral ... but actively destructive of faith in a flat earth.

Hmmm... what you seem to think of as a negative, that science debunks nonsense, is actually it purpose and strength. I do appreciate that it must be annoying that science shows that your idiotic, nonsense beliefs are, well, idiotic and nonsense, but that does not mean science is wrong. And you can't just declare it wrong without providing evidence. Actual scientific evidence. And on the decade + you have been posting here you have yet to provide any.

MrP

Professor Moriarty · 29-04-2017 05:04PM

'Belief' definition:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction:
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
3. confidence; faith; trust.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith.

'Fact' definition:

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth.
2. something known to exist or to have happened.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

antiskeptic · 29-04-2017 05:37PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

'Fact' definition:

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth.

It's interesting that the mechanism by which truth and reality is arrived at isn't defined. Naturally, this question depends on one's philosophy for deciding what is true and real.

And the truth-generating ability of philosophies, as we know, are a matter of belief. Not fact.

You've merely kicked the can down the road.

Professor Moriarty · 29-04-2017 05:54PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's interesting that the mechanism by which truth and reality is arrived at isn't defined. Naturally, this question depends on one's philosophy for deciding what is true and real.

And the truth-generating ability of philosophies, as we know, are a matter of belief. Not fact.

You've merely kicked the can down the road.

Nope. Unless you're using the Humpty Dumpty defence.

antiskeptic · 29-04-2017 06:13PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nope. Unless you're using the Humpty Dumpty defence.

I note you haven't actually addressed the point made. Another sort of kicking the can down the road.

Can you do better than "nope"?

oscarBravo · 29-04-2017 07:21PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's interesting that the mechanism by which truth and reality is arrived at isn't defined. Naturally, this question depends on one's philosophy for deciding what is true and real.

That sort of appeal to philosophy is rarely useful for anything beyond omphaloskepsis.

Either you agree that some things can be agreed upon as objectively true, or you don't. If you don't, then there's no point attempting to have a conversation.

antiskeptic · 29-04-2017 09:30PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That sort of appeal to philosophy is rarely useful for anything beyond omphaloskepsis.

Another way of saying you'll kick the can down the road too.

Either you agree that some things can be agreed upon as objectively true, or you don't. If you don't, then there's no point attempting to have a conversation.

Setting the boundaries of the discussion to your liking is a way of avoiding the problem.

Plenty of people agree Gods existence is true. Many more agree that night follows day.

You've got a numbers game going thus far. Which doesn't add up to a whole lot in itself.

oscarBravo · 30-04-2017 12:35AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Setting the boundaries of the discussion to your liking is a way of avoiding the problem.

Are you disagreeing that some things are objectively true? I'd like to know at an early stage, because - as I said - if you disagree with that, the basis for a useful discussion literally doesn't exist.

Plenty of people agree Gods existence is true. Many more agree that night follows day.

That's a bizarrely false equivalence. Some people agree that they believe in God's existence; it's a shared belief system. Everyone agrees that night follows day, because it's an objective fact, with absolutely no evidence to the contrary and literally daily evidence in its favour.

Some people believe in God. Some people believe in Ganesh. Some people believe in alien abductions. Some people believe in the Loch Ness monster. None of these things are objective facts.

Night follows day. That's an objective fact.

At the risk of being repetitive, if you disagree with any of the foregoing, you might as well try to argue that 2+2=5, because if you disagree with it, we don't share a common language with which to communicate.

You've got a numbers game going thus far. Which doesn't add up to a whole lot in itself.

I recognise those as two sentences in the English language, but I'm buggered if I can parse a meaning out of them that fits into this conversation.

J C · 30-04-2017 08:34PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Utter nonsense, so just the usual JC post then. Let's try something...

but if people that believe in a flat earth, who study science largely become of the belief that the earth is not flat then science, as practiced in America isn't flat earth neutral ... but actively destructive of faith in a flat earth.

I'm getting a little tired of your personally insulting and strawmanning debating style!!!
... this includes the unsubstantiated and repeated use of the word 'nonesense' and the conflation of valid scientific conclusions (about the massive intelligent input in the origins of life) with what everyone agrees to be fallacious (a flat earth).
Another variety of this carry-on by Evolutionists is the often repeated comparison of Evolution (which has neither evidence nor logic supporting its assertion that pondkind spontaneously evolved into Mankind via selected mistakes) ... and gravity (which everyone agrees to be a well substantiated fact).
There are two logical fallacies wrapped up in these arguments ... 'proof by assertion' and 'argument from repetition'.

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm... what you seem to think of as a negative, that science debunks nonsense, is actually it purpose and strength. I do appreciate that it must be annoying that science shows that your idiotic, nonsense beliefs are, well, idiotic and nonsense, but that does not mean science is wrong.

An unsupported assertion that science shows something considered by the assertor to be idiotic to be idiotic is just an unsupported circular argument and therefore yet another logical fallacy.

MrPudding wrote: »

And you can't just declare it wrong without providing evidence. Actual scientific evidence. And on the decade + you have been posting here you have yet to provide any.

MrP

The reverse is actually true, you cannot claim that spontaneous evolution is valid without presenting evidence for your assertion.
... but I'm not holding my breath that this will be presented anytime soon ... because there is no such evidence.

looksee · 01-05-2017 04:37PM

Could you explain please what 'spontaneous evolution' is, and who here suggested that it was a possibility?

MrPudding · 01-05-2017 05:45PM

J C wrote: »

I'm getting a little tired of your personally insulting and strawmanning debating style!!!
... this includes the unsubstantiated and repeated use of the word 'nonesense'

Well, you have three choices, suck it up, stop posting nonsense, or report me.

J C wrote: »

and the conflation of valid scientific conclusions (about the massive intelligent input in the origins of life) with what everyone agrees to be fallacious (a flat earth).

Both the assertions here are flat out wrong. First, the YEC contains valid scientific conclusions, it is plainly made up almost in it entirety of nonsense. Secondly, everyone does not agree that the claim of the earth being flat is fallacious, there are plenty that believe it to be true...

J C wrote: »

Another variety of this carry-on by Evolutionists is the often repeated comparison of Evolution (which has neither evidence nor logic supporting its assertion that pondkind spontaneously evolved into Mankind via selected mistakes) ... and gravity (which everyone agrees to be a well substantiated fact).
There are two logical fallacies wrapped up in these arguments ... 'proof by assertion' and 'argument from repetition'.

I guess if you hold the idiotic belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then you obviously going to have problems with evolution. if you dogmatically believe young earth nonsense then it is simply impossible for you to believe in evolution. That you can't believe in it for dogmatic and idiotic reasons does not, however, stop it from being true, nor does it invalidate the massive amounts of evidence that exists to support it.

If you approach everything from the starting point that everything in the bible is correct, take a very literal view of the bible and then dismiss anything that contradicts the bible, then you are going to be in a position where you must reject actual scientific evidence. That does not mean the evidence is wrong, it does not mean that science does not work. It simply means that, intellectually you are incapable of seeing the validity of of the evidence. Please note, when I say intellectually incapable in this context, I am not saying you are intellectually challenged, but simply that, from an intellectual perspective, you can't accept the evidence. Your world view can't survive this evidence, so you must dismiss it, and because ti is so plainly correct, you have to use nonsense to try to dismiss it, but anyone with anything approaching normal mental faculties can see that pretty much everything you post, and certainly everything you post with respect to evolution or YEC is utter, complete and total nonsense.

Where evidence contradicts your book you must reject it. That isn't science, it can't be science. Ever.

J C wrote: »

An unsupported assertion that science shows something considered by the assertor to be idiotic to be idiotic is just an unsupported circular argument and therefore yet another logical fallacy.

People have been present you evidence for years. I have not made an unsupported assertion, i have simply repeated an assertion that has been made over and over again, by person after person, providing thousands of pages of evidence, all of which are dismissed by you. And dismissed, I might add with nothing approaching a non-nonsense rebuttal. Again, you have to do this. You have to reject it becuase you world view requires is and you have to rebutt it with nonsense (when you bother to even try) because that is all you have, nonsense.

J C wrote: »

The reverse is actually true, you cannot claim that spontaneous evolution is valid without presenting evidence for your assertion.
... but I'm not holding my breath that this will be presented anytime soon ... because there is no such evidence.

LOL. Are you serious? Just becuase you are unwilling or unable to understand the evidence, does not mean it has not been provided. It has been provided, lots of times. What has not been provided is your proof of god's existance, which you repeatedly claim you have.

Seriously JC, I am sure you are a nice guy, but you really need to cop on. You are wasting you life with this nonsense. I feel so sorry for you.

MrP

J C · 01-05-2017 07:32PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, you have three choices, suck it up, stop posting nonsense, or report me.

As a Christian, I'll forgive you.

MrPudding wrote: »

Both the assertions here are flat out wrong. First, the YEC contains valid scientific conclusions, it is plainly made up almost in it entirety of nonsense. Secondly, everyone does not agree that the claim of the earth being flat is fallacious, there are plenty that believe it to be true...

... and there are plenty who believe that we evolved spontaneously from pondkind ... and this doesn't make it true either !!!:)

MrPudding wrote: »

I guess if you hold the idiotic belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then you obviously going to have problems with evolution. if you dogmatically believe young earth nonsense then it is simply impossible for you to believe in evolution. That you can't believe in it for dogmatic and idiotic reasons does not, however, stop it from being true, nor does it invalidate the massive amounts of evidence that exists to support it.

It would be much nicer (and just as effective) if you simply said that you thought I was in error (rather than engaging in nasty un-parliamentary language about me and my beliefs) ... parliamentary language won't hurt your case ... and basic civility makes life more pleasant for everybody, including yourself ... so, I'd ask you to please try it sometime. It could also be good PR for Atheism ... of which you are a representative, whether you may like to be ... or not.

Anyway, your basic premise that I can't believe in evolution because I believe in Creation isn't actually true, certainly in my case. I actually started out as an Evolutionist ... and I resisted the evidence against evolution and in favour of creation for many years.
In some ways I'm a reluctant Creationist ... so, if you can provide the evidence for the spontaneous evolution of pondkind to mankind I could be convinced.

MrPudding wrote: »

If you approach everything from the starting point that everything in the bible is correct, take a very literal view of the bible and then dismiss anything that contradicts the bible, then you are going to be in a position where you must reject actual scientific evidence. That does not mean the evidence is wrong, it does not mean that science does not work. It simply means that, intellectually you are incapable of seeing the validity of of the evidence. Please note, when I say intellectually incapable in this context, I am not saying you are intellectually challenged, but simply that, from an intellectual perspective, you can't accept the evidence. Your world view can't survive this evidence, so you must dismiss it, and because ti is so plainly correct, you have to use nonsense to try to dismiss it, but anyone with anything approaching normal mental faculties can see that pretty much everything you post, and certainly everything you post with respect to evolution or YEC is utter, complete and total nonsense.

Repeatedly asserting that there is evidence for Pondkind to Mankind evolution (without providing any) and repeatedly saying that Creation is nonesense (without providing any reasons) are the logical fallacies of 'proof by assertion' and 'argument from repetition'.

MrPudding wrote: »

Where evidence contradicts your book you must reject it. That isn't science, it can't be science. Ever.

If I was a church minister or priest, doing as you say, you might have a point ... but I'm not a minister or priest ... I am a conventionally qualified working scientist ... and I'm saying that there is physical, observable evidence for my contenation that an intelligence of Divine proportions created life ... and the spontaneous evolution of the Complex Functional Specified Information (CFSI) found in living organisms is a mathematical impossibility.

MrPudding wrote: »

People have been present you evidence for years. I have not made an unsupported assertion, i have simply repeated an assertion that has been made over and over again, by person after person, providing thousands of pages of evidence, all of which are dismissed by you.

And dismissed, I might add with nothing approaching a non-nonsense rebuttal. Again, you have to do this. You have to reject it becuase you world view requires is and you have to rebutt it with nonsense (when you bother to even try) because that is all you have, nonsense.

Assertions based on other assertions ... evidence does not make!!!:)
... equally, calling something nonesense ... without providing a reasoned argument for why you are doing so, carries not logical weight either.

MrPudding wrote: »

LOL. Are you serious? Just becuase you are unwilling or unable to understand the evidence, does not mean it has not been provided. It has been provided, lots of times.

Please provide this evidence.

MrPudding wrote: »

Seriously JC, I am sure you are a nice guy, but you really need to cop on. You are wasting you life with this nonsense. I feel so sorry for you.

MrP

I am a nice guy ... and I'm sure that you are also a nice guy ... but there is no need to feel sorry for me ... I am very confident that Creation happened and God exists and has Saved me ... and I will spend an eternity of absolute bliss in Heaven with Him.
... and it is an absolutely wonderful summer's evening here, where I am ... with God's beautiful creation all around me, along with my family ... so I'm getting a tiny taste of what Heaven will be like, this evening.

... and if you willfully persist in your rejection of God, He will grant you your wish to not be in Heaven with Him ... and I would be very sad for you, if this were to happen ... genuinely.

... that is why I spend great time and effort, trying to Save people just like you ... I could just selfishly enjoy my Salvation without sharing my joy with other people ... but that wouldn't be the loving (or Christian) thing to do.

Professor Moriarty · 01-05-2017 08:00PM

Did dinosaurs really exist? If so, do they disprove the Bible? Thoughts anyone?

J C · 01-05-2017 08:09PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Did dinosaurs really exist? If so, do they disprove the Bible? Thoughts anyone?

Dinosaurs did exist (and we have their fossils to prove it). Actually, the name Dinosaur (or 'terrible reptile') was coined by Sir Richard Owen KCB FRMS FRS, who was an English Creation Scientist specialising in biology, comparative anatomy and paleontology.

Dinosaurs lived up to relatively recent times ... and some were hunted to extinction by man, because they were very dangerous animals.
The many stories of 'dragons' are based on accounts of these hunts.

The Bible also presents an account of two dinosaurs ("Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34))...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-dinosaurs-mentioned-in-bible.htm

Professor Moriarty · 01-05-2017 08:15PM

J C wrote: »

Dinosaurs did exist. They lived up to relatively recent times ... and some were hunted to extinction by man, because they were very dangerous animals.
The many stories of 'dragons' are based on accounts of these hunts.

The Bible presents an account of two dinosaurs ...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-dinosaurs-mentioned-in-bible.htm

Which dinosaurs lived until recent times? How long were dinosaurs extant?

J C · 01-05-2017 08:23PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which dinosaurs lived until recent times? How long were dinosaurs extant?

The term 'dinosaur' isn't a precise scientific term ... it is a general term for large extinct creatures, originally thought to be all cold-blooded reptiles ... but nowadays also thought to include warm-blooded creatures as well:-
http://www.livescience.com/51162-dinosaurs-warm-blooded-growth-rates.html

Professor Moriarty · 01-05-2017 08:25PM

J C wrote: »

The term 'dinosaur' isn't a precise scientific term ... it is a general term for large extinct creatures, originally thought to be all cold-blooded reptiles ... but nowadays also thought to include warm-blooded creatures as well:-
http://www.livescience.com/51162-dinosaurs-warm-blooded-growth-rates.html

Ok. So did T Rex (the animal, not the band) exist? If so, when? When did they become extinct?

J C · 01-05-2017 08:45PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ok. So did T Rex (the animal, not the band) exist? If so, when? When did they become extinct?

T-Rex did exist. Date of extinction unknown.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments