Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…2021232526…232

Comments

  • #662
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You didn't get the point of my post. I think most of the non-physical 'gender roles' are entirely social constructs.
    I agree that many roles are cultural constructs. If the culture is not informed by God's word, great evil can result. Where it is so informed by the word, it may not be conformed to it. People twist the truth to accommodate their evil desires. Women especially suffer from exploitation and abuse.

    The Biblical account of woman's nature is that of a natural emotional tenderness/vulnerability beyond that of men. That's the norm - but the individual may well be a hard-hearted Lady Macbeth. Or a valiant Queen Elizabeth I.

    *******************************************************************
    Hebrews 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.


  • #663
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Today's scientific classifications are examined in its light, not the other way around. The specific meaning - where exactly on the classification list 'kind' falls - is for science to discover.
    This is exactly where your argument falls apart in a heap of non-scientific and entirely subjective interpretations.

    The scientific disciplines of taxonomy, natural history and genetics have mapped the "tree of life". Science has discovered the relationships of species to genus to family and so on. I have attached a nice picture to illustrate (I'm sure there are some mistakes in there but you get the idea).
    The 'tree of life' is a story, not an established fact. It is how the modern consensus thinks the evidence fits together - but like any forensics investigation, the evidence may have another explanation.

    The creationist objection to the tree of life (on a popular level):
    A major problem with phylogenetic trees and other related models is the lack of evidence that supports the links between known organisms and their supposed fossil relatives. The lines that connect an ancestor to the living organism are mostly imaginary. Very little fossil evidence supports the lines on the diagrams that connect the different kinds of organisms over millions of years, but the lines are often presented as fact. Darwin expected the fossils to show a progression of form, from fish to amphibian, for example, but that progression is missing. The term “missing link” is often used to refer to these gaps and the missing fossils that supposedly fill them. Whenever you see one of these trees, ask, “What direct evidence supports the lines on the tree?” In some cases there are examples of fossils that fit in the sequence, but the vast majority are missing the evidence. The reliability of such a model is called into question when it is based on so many assumptions. The fossil record is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
    Creationists disagree with the idea of a “tree of life” as evolutionists see it—all life originating from a single, unknown, common ancestor. If we consider the created kinds from Genesis, the picture of life would look more like an orchard—distinct groups of animals showing variety within a kind. The trees in this orchard do not overlap one another or cross one another, representing the limits of variety within the DNA of the created kinds. This view (developed by Dr. Kurt Wise) is confirmed by the evidence from operational science.

    http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/classifying-life
    So, how can science have anything to say about the application of boundaries of "kind"? It is, as far as taxonomy goes, an entirely arbitrary threshold, determined not via any scientific discipline but by the personal preferences of creation scientists.
    As I said before, man's classifications are fragile, but the actuality of what is a 'kind' is not.
    Are a lion and a tiger the same "kind"?
    Yes, since they interbreed.
    Genetics can't determine if that's the case - genetics simply maps the DNA relationship between lions and tigers to X%, with a divergence around 5m years ago*.
    Just shows the limitations of genetics. And the presuppositions of those involved - that molecular clocks are proof of evolution.
    So creation scientists are left with saying they are the same "kind" simply because it fits a story in a book
    Correct.
    or fits their intuition - after all, they look a bit similar, don't they?
    Similar appearance is not a criteria, as far as I have read. It may suggest a relationship, but is no proof of it. Interbreeding is the proof.
    *Whether you accept that timescale or not, the "relative" timescales of divergence of living creatures will be proportional and therefore the point is valid.
    The flaw is in the assumption it has occurred.
    Are humans and chimps the same "kind"?
    No.
    Again, genetic studies simply say that they are X% similar and diverged 5-10m years ago. The same techniques that map the relationship between tigers and lions were applied to map the relationship between chimps and humans. Are you willing to accept the techniques or reject the wholesale?
    Are you saying humans and chimps have been shown to be as genetically similar to one another as lions are to tigers?
    In fact, chimps and humans occupy the same taxonomical subdivision (tribe) as all foxes occupy (in relation to other foxes) - do you think fox species are different "kinds"?
    You say taxonomical - does that mean chimps and humans can be seen to be as genetically close as one type of fox from another?
    Nothing more than arbitrary. It perplexes me.
    Attached Images
    Evo_large.gif (359.8 KB, 12 views)
    Thanks for the tree. But it seems as arbitrary as the rest:
    Huge Genome-Scale Phylogenetic Study Of Birds Rewrites Evolutionary Tree-Of-Life
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626141117.htm


    ********************************************************************
    Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.


  • #664
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    doctoremma said:

    The 'tree of life' is a story, not an established fact. It is how the modern consensus thinks the evidence fits together - but like any forensics investigation, the evidence may have another explanation.

    The creationist objection to the tree of life (on a popular level):
    A major problem with phylogenetic trees and other related models is the lack of evidence that supports the links between known organisms and their supposed fossil relatives. The lines that connect an ancestor to the living organism are mostly imaginary. Very little fossil evidence supports the lines on the diagrams that connect the different kinds of organisms over millions of years, but the lines are often presented as fact. Darwin expected the fossils to show a progression of form, from fish to amphibian, for example, but that progression is missing. The term “missing link” is often used to refer to these gaps and the missing fossils that supposedly fill them. Whenever you see one of these trees, ask, “What direct evidence supports the lines on the tree?” In some cases there are examples of fossils that fit in the sequence, but the vast majority are missing the evidence. The reliability of such a model is called into question when it is based on so many assumptions. The fossil record is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
    Creationists disagree with the idea of a “tree of life” as evolutionists see it—all life originating from a single, unknown, common ancestor. If we consider the created kinds from Genesis, the picture of life would look more like an orchard—distinct groups of animals showing variety within a kind. The trees in this orchard do not overlap one another or cross one another, representing the limits of variety within the DNA of the created kinds. This view (developed by Dr. Kurt Wise) is confirmed by the evidence from operational science.

    http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/classifying-life

    Again, such a claim has been refuted repeatedly on this thread. The tree of life traced out by fossil distribution matches the tree of life traced out by geographical distribution, which matches the tree of life traced out by genetics. If evolution were not true, this would be a massive coincidence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

    So it is not a case of an arbitrary interpretation of the evidence. It is a case of the evidence being precisely what we would expect if Darwinism was true.
    <Stuff about Kinds>

    So it has been established that there is no scientific evidence for the hypothesis that there is any more than one kind of life on earth.


  • #665
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    oldrnwisr said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I stand corrected then on Family being the boundary of 'kind'. I assumed that was where interbreeding did not extent to. Interbreeding is the Biblical mark of 'kind'.
    Well, not really. The Baraminology Study Group which purports to be the expert group of creationists on "kinds" still maintain that family is the best analog of a "created kind".
    The Baraminology Study Group is not the Bible, so its scientific views are not what I meant by the Biblical mark.


    The original mark of 'kind' is clearly given in Genesis 1:21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Does inability to breed prove they are not the same kind? That's different from the ability to breed being proof of their kindship.
    Creationists, for the record, are the ones attempting to prove that kinds exist. They do so on the basis of interfertility. Specifically, they claim that members of a kind are considered to be so if they are continuous with at least one other member. So not every member has to be interfertile with every other, just at least one other. However, the evidence of such breeding in some groups outlined by creationists such as the baramin Felidae is so scant that you cannot reasonably make that determination.
    I agree. In the absence of interbreeding, informed speculation is all that can be claimed. Levels of information will vary.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Proof that humans have a common ancestor with 'other' apes? It's just another story.
    No, it's a testable scientific fact. I'm amazed I keep having to explain this to people. Here is one short example.

    Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Therefore, if common descent is true then at some point two pairs of chromosomes in our most recent common ancestors with other apes must have become fused. Evidence of this could then be found using comparative genomic analysis. Guess what? That's exactly what we found.
    So finding a requirement for common descent is proof of common descent??? Like paternity by blood group, it is only absence of requirement that proves anything.
    This fusion event was confirmed by comparing the banding patterns on the chromosomes. Additionally, the genetic sequence in the telomeres of the chimp chromosomes is found near the centromere of the human chromosome.


    Research:

    Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion

    Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2

    The origin of human chromosome 2 analyzed by comparative chromosome mapping with a DNA microlibrary


    In the meantime, we have gathered numerous other pieces of evidence which confirm our common ancestry with other apes.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=8932
    They at best confirm the possibility.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    You are confusing our theological beliefs with our scientific claims. They are not the same. We do not advance our beliefs as scientific proof. The scientific argument is quite separate - no dishonesty is involved. You just need to pay closer attention.
    Not really. The quote in my last post from "Understanding the Pattern of Life" is quite clear.

    "Clearly when the Bible claims discontinuity, any other evidence is unnecessary. As a result, the quality of the Australopithecine or whale series is overruled by the biblical claims of discontinuity between humans and apes and whales and land creatures."

    I'm not confusing anything. Your theological beliefs and your scientific claims are not separate.You have an a priori position that the bible is true. This is not how science operates. The quote above and the creationist position is unscientific and dishonest.
    You still miss the point: the quote is not advancing any scientific claims. It is a theological point. Our theology tells us where science will lead on origins, but it is not the scientific defence itself.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The word 'kind' was used to describe the original created organisms. Today's scientific classifications are examined in its light, not the other way around. The specific meaning - where exactly on the classification list 'kind' falls - is for science to discover.

    The offence is denying Genesis teaches a mature creation. It takes a lot of twisting to make it say anything else. You might not believe the assertions Genesis makes, but you ought not to deny it makes them.
    No, as I said previously, the word kind as used in the Hebrew bible doesn't carry any specific meaning in a scientific context.
    It carries the meaning of one sort of bird or animal as distinct from another. What science does to put detail onto that is another matter. The use of 'kind' in Genesis cannot be made to refer to the supposed original self-replicating bits of life.
    The word kind in Hebrew is:

    מִין

    which is almost identical to the Hebrew word min, meaning from:

    מִן

    Furthermore, the adherence of creationists to the idea of the word kind in Genesis as a barrier to variation is weakened by the bible itself. The word kind is again used in Leviticus when establishing dietary laws. In particular:

    "These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat." Leviticus 11:13-17.

    An analysis of the Hebrew text shows the same textual form of kind, namely:
    לְמִינֵ֔הוּ

    (lə·mî·nê·hū)

    used in both Genesis and Leviticus. Additionally, the structure of the text in Leviticus suggests that the little owl, cormorant, great owl etc. are listed so as to be examples of the hawk kind, something not supported by even the loosest creationist definition.
    You are mistaken concerning the structure of the text in Leviticus suggests that the little owl, cormorant, great owl etc. are listed so as to be examples of the hawk kind. The little owl, etc. are listed as separate from the hawk kind. This is made clear when we look at other parts of the list using the same structure:
    any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull,
    any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat

    Unless you think it is making the raven kind to include the screech owl and the gull, or the heron kind to include the bat. No, it means only the hawks, the little owl, the herons and the bats are among the unclean birds.

    *****************************************************************
    Leviticus 11:13 ‘And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, 14 the kite, and the falcon after its kind; 15 every raven after its kind, 16 the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; 17 the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl;


  • #666
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The debate can only be settled - or at least ended - when one of these occurs:
    A. Evolution beyond the Family level is demonstrated.
    Demonstrated in what way?

    By definition if we could observe in a lab in one or two generates an evolution beyond "family level" that would in fact disprove Darwinian evolution.
    Yes, so it can't be demonstrated. It remains in the realm of forensics, a story-telling that seeks to fit the evidence into what might have happened. Valuable, but not proof.
    You reject, I assume, historical evidence for these evolutions (such as genetic markers, fossil record etc?) You want to actually see it in real time?
    I don't reject them as such - just the tale that is told about them.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    B. Christ returns and brings all mankind to His judgement seat. They'll know there the truth of all He has told us.
    And if this never happens?
    Then I am wrong.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    But in the meantime, indications of the scientific facts can be gained by testing the various suggested mechanisms involved in evolution/creation.
    But you reject this.

    For example, you dismiss all radiometeric dating, based on a few cases where the systems have failed, despite the millions of cases where radiometeric dating has been shown to be accurate through cross verification (ie a number of different methods all giving the same date).
    On the contrary, radiometeric dating is suspect because it involves suppositions about constant rates of decay, as well as instances where it indicates dates that contradict an old earth.
    What is the point of presenting you with scientific evidence if you simply reject or ignore it if it does not fit your religious view point?
    I depend for the science on the scientists in those fields who dissent from the current consensus. I do not reject or ignore merely on my theological views.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The nature of the scientific community is a point of disagreement for us. You do not see the pressure ideology has on evolutionists, but you have no bother seeing it among creationists.
    I have no doubt that many many scientists are deeply ideological, as Creationists are.

    The point you miss is that that the scientific method itself weeds this out. This is precisely why Creationists cannot get their ideas into science, because the actual method itself keeps stopping this. So much so that some Creationist groups such as the Discovery Institute have tried to refine science to "overcome" these problems.

    So I in no way think that an individual scientist is any better or more trust worthy than an individual Creationist. Both have to demonstrate their finds to a scientific standard.

    The world is littered with rejected scientific theories, and scientists who have thought they were on to something amazing that turned out to be nothing at all once the theory was examined properly.

    Some of these scientists don't accept that their theories don't pass scientific standards (just like Creationists) and get bitter and continue to work away on them getting more and more angry at the other scientists for not accepting what they say.

    You have never shown you actually understand what it is about the scientific method that produces this. You seem to think it is all down to personal interpretation and trusting the individual scientists. It isn't, though this has been explained before and you have again ignored it.
    The point you ignore is that creation is not just another theory for the scientists to impartially assess. They cannot allow themselves to honestly assess it, for to accept it is to accept what is unacceptable to the godless soul. The prejudice of the human heart rebels against God, and so must reject creationism. What can, reluctantly maybe, be confessed as true that opposed one's previous position on the cosmological constant (for example) is nothing to the change required to accept something that proves the existence of God.
    Again what is the point of engaging in these debates if you have no interest in learning what these things are? You seem to have already made up your mind that the scientific method doesn't work, that it is all about trusting scientists and thus the only scientists you trust are the ones that share your religious view point and the other ones have clouded judgement.
    My point is as I've told you: to point people to the dissenting evidence (in the creationist sites), if the idea of creation is a stumbling block to believing the Bible.

    It is not my purpose to win anyone to the creationist model. Nor am I deeply interested in learning all the science for myself. I have a theological priority.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    You further do not accept the Biblical assessment of the deceptive nature of man's heart - how he will resist anything that would give credence to the God of the Bible. Both of these skew your assessment.
    It only skews my assessment if it is actually true Wolfsbane.
    Correct.
    Secondly my assessment isn't relevant. This is the point that you keep spectacularly keep missing. It matters what can be demonstrated, objectively.
    As above, it can't be so demonstrated. It can only be posited.
    Again this is why Creationist "science" is rejected, it cannot be demonstrated.
    Like evolutionist "science".
    You assume it can because you trust the Creationists making all the noise, but I seriously doubt you have actually bothered to see if this is actually true. You simply believe them and reject what we say because you and them hold the same religious view point.
    No, I have given what I can of examination of their arguments. They seem to have a prima facie case for saying creation is in line with the evidence.

    But I would still hold my theological view if I thought they had not made a case, believing that science would eventually be found to corroborate creation.
    So again what is the point? If you are simply going to ignore what we say to you why are you even engaging in discussion with us?
    I'm not ignoring what you say, just finding it is refuted by other scientists of equal ability. And as I say, my point is not to gain scientific skills for myself, but to provide sources for any interested in the science that supports the Biblical account.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    You evolutionist guys must decide on the value of debating with creationists. Creationists are happy to debate with you - at least for an extended time - because we know God uses His truth to convert sinners.
    If that is so why do you ignore so many of the points presented to you (again radiometeric dating being a good example)?
    I don't - I've pointed to the scientific case against assuming the dating is valid.
    How does that help win souls for Jesus? You just come across as someone who does not understand this topic but who holds to their personal religious beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. Or in other words, a fanatic.
    You must decide if all the evidence is contrary. It is disputed by scientists. I hold to the Biblical account because God has revealed His truth to me. So it is not me who has to decide - it is you and our other friends here. If the evidence does indeed contradict the Biblical account, then the Bible is mistaken and I am deluded.

    But if you and the great majority of scientists are mistaken about the evidence, then you and they are deluded.

    In the former case, I am missing out on several pleasures. In the latter case, you are heading for hell. You have a much greater reason to be right than I. I hope you apply yourself to finding out which is so.


    **********************************************************************
    2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes, so it can't be demonstrated. It remains in the realm of forensics, a story-telling that seeks to fit the evidence into what might have happened. Valuable, but not proof.

    There is no such thing as proof in science. If you think viewing something in a lab means it is proven you are very much mistaken.

    As for not being able to demonstrate a million year process in a lab, no you can't. But then you can't do that with anything that take that long, I doubt you consider that a problem for most things that you personally agree with. For example you cannot demonstrate that full grown oak trees grow from seeds in a lab, since this takes too long. Do you doubt that oak trees grow from seeds? I doubt it.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I don't reject them as such - just the tale that is told about them.
    You reject the science that demonstrates the "tale". It is like saying you will not accept that an fully grown oak tree grows from a seed unless you see it in a lab (impossible since it might take over a hundred years) and you reject all the evidence of the individual stages demonstrated in a lab and all the study of oak that shows that the seed grows into the tree (without having to actually observe the whole thing).
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Then I am wrong.
    And when will we know this?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    On the contrary, radiometeric dating is suspect because it involves suppositions about constant rates of decay, as well as instances where it indicates dates that contradict an old earth.

    Radiometeric dating is correlated against each other. If it didn't work you could not get the same date from a number of different processes.

    You consistently ignore this fact because it does not fit with your religious beliefs.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I depend for the science on the scientists in those fields who dissent from the current consensus. I do not reject or ignore merely on my theological views.
    Yes you do, see radiometeric dating. You have consistently ignored the logic that shows it is reliable. You have no answer for how different methods with different rates of decay can give the same date if the process is not sound.

    You simply ignore all of this.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The point you ignore is that creation is not just another theory for the scientists to impartially assess. They cannot allow themselves to honestly assess it, for to accept it is to accept what is unacceptable to the godless soul.
    That would include all the Christians, Jews and Muslims would it, who already believe in the existence of God?

    Face it your conspiracy theory has no merit.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    My point is as I've told you: to point people to the dissenting evidence (in the creationist sites), if the idea of creation is a stumbling block to believing the Bible.

    And don't get me wrong, every time you present another ignorant and misinformed argument against science I'm sure a ton of people reject the Bible, and I'm all for that. :)

    But my point is what is the point of this discussion?


  • #668
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    On the contrary, radiometeric dating is suspect because it involves suppositions about constant rates of decay, as well as instances where it indicates dates that contradict an old earth....I don't - I've pointed to the scientific case against assuming the dating is valid.
    There is no reason to believe that decay rates aren't constant and good reason to believe that they are. If they weren't, if they were changed by more than a couple of percent, the geology of the earth would be radically different (if it even existed). Decay rates in stars that are hundreds of thousands light years away show rates of decay the same as we measure here on earth. There are many many substrates for radiometric dating, which decay in many different ways to create many different products - the idea that not only are they all inaccurate, but all so consistently inaccurate, is implausible.


  • #669
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    doctoremma wrote: »
    There is no reason to believe that decay rates aren't constant and good reason to believe that they are. If they weren't, if they were changed by more than a couple of percent, the geology of the earth would be radically different (if it even existed). Decay rates in stars that are hundreds of thousands light years away show rates of decay the same as we measure here on earth. There are many many substrates for radiometric dating, which decay in many different ways to create many different products - the idea that not only are they all inaccurate, but all so consistently inaccurate, is implausible.

    This is the key point, which has been put to Wolfsbane many many times. If they are inaccurate why are they giving the same date based on different measurement techniques.

    No answer coming, just ignores the point.


  • #670
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex wrote: »
    This is the key point, which has been put to Wolfsbane many many times. If they are inaccurate why are they giving the same date based on different measurement techniques.

    No answer coming, just ignores the point.
    You both misunderstand what the creationist scientists are saying. This will give you a proper version:
    Radiometric Dating: Making Sense of the Patterns
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/patterns


    *********************************************************************
    2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


  • #671
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You both misunderstand what the creationist scientists are saying. This will give you a proper version...
    My eyes are bleeding.

    Seriously, if that's the standards you have for scientific research, there's nothing I can reasonably respond with. It amounts to nothing but a smack in the face for genuine scientists.

    It saddens me. I am no longer angry at sh*t like this, I am sad.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    doctoremma wrote: »
    My eyes are bleeding.
    Hey Doc
    Take Off Your Glasses (atheism) and See.... Your eyes will stop bleeding..


  • #673
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    doctoremma wrote: »
    My eyes are bleeding.

    Seriously, if that's the standards you have for scientific research, there's nothing I can reasonably respond with. It amounts to nothing but a smack in the face for genuine scientists.

    It saddens me. I am no longer angry at sh*t like this, I am sad.

    The belief that science has all the answers is scientism. It is akin to religious fundamentalism. both have inherent problems.

    while science might say the universe and earth are thousands of millions of years old it does not say there is no God who created the universe.

    science used to say the universe is thousands of yers old with the earth at the centre. in some interpretations it still is geocentric or homocentric e.g. relativity is based in the observers personal reference frame.

    Science changed its interpretation of the universe and theology also did. they both said "due to new insight we believe the interpretation used earlier should be modified."


  • #674
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    ISAW wrote: »
    The belief that science has all the answers is scientism.
    This is a straw man, to be fair. Science knows it does not have all the answers and scientists do not pretend otherwise. What would they do all day if they did? :confused:

    Science - unlike religion - asks all the questions. And it tries to answer them with things that we can prove.

    Whereas a religion starts with the answer and defends it from all comers (other faiths, other belief systems) for as long as it can.


  • #675
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    This is a straw man, to be fair. Science knows it does not have all the answers and scientists do not pretend otherwise. What would they do all day if they did? :confused:

    Science - unlike religion - asks all the questions. And it tries to answer them with things that we can prove.

    Whereas a religion starts with the answer and defends it from all comers (other faiths, other belief systems) for as long as it can.

    Interesting observation, religion doesn't start with answers though, it too starts with questions. The difference is what the questions are.
    Any conflict between science and religion is because people, yes even scientists and religious, confuse the two.


  • #676
    shizz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Interesting observation, religion doesn't start with answers though, it too starts with questions. The difference is what the questions are.
    Any conflict between science and religion is because people, yes even scientists and religious, confuse the two.

    Well not really. In often cases they start with the same questions (origin of life etc.) but with religion the answer is just in the bible. Nothing more to it essentially. This is what is meant by they start with the answer.


  • #677
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    ISAW wrote: »
    The belief that science has all the answers is scientism. It is akin to religious fundamentalism. both have inherent problems.
    You've misunderstood. I am not promoting "scientism" (it's a day to learn a new word), I am saddened and somewhat infuriated at the lack of scientific rigour applied, whatever your question is.

    If you want to make a hypothesis that Rock A is 6000 years old, it should be fairly straightforward to design some experiments to test that.

    What you do NOT do is say "Rock A is only 6000 years old (because a book says so) so I'm going to interpret my data to the limits of its capacity to fit with my preconceived model". The data in that article is not scientifically analysed. The interpretation and conclusions are laughable, given the data. This is not science.

    It is the bastardisation of the scientific method that I am railing at, not the aims or hypotheses. I am a scientist and I try every day to be objective and honest with my data. To think that some people assume, because they don't like my conclusions, that I might be dong my science at the level of a kindergarten Creationist is almost offensive.

    Read a paper from Nature, from Cell, from Science. And now compare it to the crap in that link. Not science and never will be.


  • #678
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    shizz wrote: »
    Well not really. In often cases they start with the same questions (origin of life etc.) but with religion the answer is just in the bible. Nothing more to it essentially. This is what is meant by they start with the answer.

    No thats not the case at all.
    Religion doesn't start with the bible, or end with it. In fact it doesn't end at all, yes some people stop and settle on the idea that all of creation has been solved and theirs no more questions or answers but God and mans relationship isn't a set of rules and regulations or instructions and explanations.
    If someone is religious then keeping that relationship alive is the object of the exercise not answering questions about why the world is round or who made it all. Most of the questions that cause the furore are cultural not religious.


  • #679
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You both misunderstand what the creationist scientists are saying. This will give you a proper version:
    Radiometric Dating: Making Sense of the Patterns
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/patterns

    By "this will give you a proper version" I assume you actually mean "this will give you the version creationists simply made up because the answers weren't in line with what they felt must be true"

    The radiometric dating that the Creationists carried out to get these "conflicting" results at the Grand Canyon were simply not simply wrong, but purposely misleading. Interesting but not in anyway surprising that such a classy outfit as Answers in Genesis are still using the data though. Call me biased, but really it should be obvious the results were going to be fudged when it was Creationist "scientists" carrying out the actual research.
    The problem is not the age itself but rather Austin's sleight-of-hand in trying to pass off the result as necessarily the age of the flows rather than a minimum age of their source.

    The attempt to abuse the meaning of a single contrived date -- which was produced only by a sample selection geared to dating a different event, and only for samples whose results were known by Austin in advance -- says a lot more about the level of competence or honesty in this creation "science" research program, than it says about the validity of isochron dating methods.

    Even if given credit for discovering this case (which he clearly doesn't deserve, as his use of Leeman's data proves), Austin has only managed to "call into question" a particular sampling technique. However, this sampling technique was known by mainstream geologists to behave in this manner long before Austin published on the topic, and this behavior is often intentionally used by geologists. Austin was aware of this, as his 1988 reference to Faure shows.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

    This still does not address the point put to you Wolfsbane. If radiometeric dating doesn't work then how come it works so much. Do you expect us to believe this is simply a random coincidence?


  • #680
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Interesting observation, religion doesn't start with answers though, it too starts with questions.

    No it doesn't. It starts with a holy book or a prophet (or in extreme cases direct communication with a god) that is considered perfect and infallible.

    It then works backwards from that initial assumption to fit all evidence into that initial framework.


  • #681
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It then works backwards from that initial assumption to fit all evidence into that initial framework.

    From that link:

    Based on the radioactive clocks, we can conclude that these four rock units deep in the gorge (Table 1) are all older in a relative sense than the horizontal sedimentary layers in the Canyon walls. Conventionally the lowermost or oldest of these horizontal sedimentary layers is labeled early to middle Cambrian3 and thus regarded as about 510–520 million years old.4 All the rocks below it are then labeled Precambrian and regarded as older than 542 million years.

    But the passage of time between these Precambrian rock units and the horizontal sedimentary layers above them was a maximum of about 1,700 years—the time between creation and the Flood—not millions of years.

    So basically: the data doesn't fit our story so it must be wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You've misunderstood. I am not promoting "scientism" (it's a day to learn a new word), I am saddened and somewhat infuriated at the lack of scientific rigour applied, whatever your question is.

    I you think I suggested you were i withdraw the suggestion or implication of it and apologies for any unintentional offense.
    i too agree scientific regour can be applied to somle questions.
    Science however isnt sufficient. It cant explain or derive moral values for example.
    If you want to make a hypothesis that Rock A is 6000 years old, it should be fairly straightforward to design some experiments to test that.

    What you do NOT do is say "Rock A is only 6000 years old (because a book says so) so I'm going to interpret my data to the limits of its capacity to fit with my preconceived model". The data in that article is not scientifically analysed. The interpretation and conclusions are laughable, given the data. This is not science.

    i agree. And biblical fundamentalism is a fringe element of christianity that atheists and those interested in scientism regularly attack.
    Mainstream christians however contribute to scientific journals. the vatican even have their own observatory and have world renowned astronomers.
    It is the bastardisation of the scientific method that I am railing at, not the aims or hypotheses. I am a scientist and I try every day to be objective and honest with my data. To think that some people assume, because they don't like my conclusions, that I might be dong my science at the level of a kindergarten Creationist is almost offensive.

    Indeed which is why The Vatican, Archbishop or Canterbury and Pope of Alexandria (RIP cede vacant) and Patriarch of Constantinople would agree with you.


  • #683
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    doctoremma wrote: »
    From that link:

    So basically: the data doesn't fit our story so it must be wrong.

    FYI ther are four methods of dating geological time

    1 the geological column - this is relative though it is quantitative in a chronologically antecedent sense

    2 Dendrochronology - similar to 1 but at a push limited to about a million years for petrified trees i.e fossils

    3 Radiometric dating - open to errors in sampling but the underlying theory is sound and testable. there is a problem in getting more samples however. There are few sites for KT boundary samples for example.

    4. crater concentrations. This involvs the other three. Proposed by Eugene Shoemaker (RIP) whom i met.


  • #684
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    ISAW wrote: »
    It cant explain or derive moral values for example.
    It can certainly ask questions about these, but whether it can provide answers is another matter. There is certainly scope for spirituality to address these issues - the problems arise when religion encroaches on the territory that science can provide true answers for, and the unevidenced claims of a religion are in conflict with the evidenced claims of science.


  • #685
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    ISAW wrote: »
    I you think I suggested you were i withdraw the suggestion or implication of it and apologies for any unintentional offense.
    I think we've misunderstood each other - you didn't offend me in the slightest. I wasn't aiming 'whatever your question is' at you, it was to indicate the breadth of scientific research being done.

    I don't much care if someone wants to conduct a study on whether prayer works, for example. The religious nature of such a question doesn't irk me, and nor should it. And if the research is conducted properly, it shouldn't offend the world of science.

    The problem is that often, and as for every other field of research, the study is not conducted properly, the data is shoddy, the interpretation is invalid. If this happens with a 'mainstream' paper, the research is canned or improved until it DOES meet the required standard. When this happens with a 'religious' study, the community immediately respond with cries of conspiracy, publish on dodgy websites and moan that they can't get their work peer-reviewed.

    When someone references poor science as valid, I weep for the lack of scientific literacy.

    If people do science well, it will stand. That's all there is to it.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Science however isnt sufficient. It cant explain or derive moral values for example.
    It might not surprise you to find out that I think it can :)


  • #686
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I don't much care if someone wants to conduct a study on whether prayer works, for example. ...The problem is t... the study is not conducted properly, the data is shoddy, the interpretation is invalid. If this happens with a 'mainstream' paper, the research is canned or improved until it DOES meet the required standard.

    I would disagree. Papers in humanities and social science and biology for example are not all quantitative research. nor is quantitative research superiour over qualitative research in every instance.

    The "Hypothesis deductive" "scientific method" has also been criticised as a form of scientism by the likes of Kuhn. this isnt to say a relativist alternative such as constructivism is preferable as others might argue.
    When this happens with a 'religious' study, the community immediately respond with cries of conspiracy, publish on dodgy websites and moan that they can't get their work peer-reviewed.

    I agree that not being published may indicate some lack of rigour. One can say similar for "revisionist history" journals on holocaust denial.
    But does that mean constructive epistemology should be accepted because it is published in a journal or that memetics should?
    When someone references poor science as valid, I weep for the lack of scientific literacy.

    If people do science well, it will stand. That's all there is to it.

    Ah but there is a whole world of peer review publications that are not science. Humanities, languages, mathematics for example.
    It might not surprise you to find out that I think it can :)

    But you can't scientifically prove that using the criteria you propose. Can you?
    Yet you assume your belief science can derive values is valid.


  • #687
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    ISAW wrote: »
    Science however isnt sufficient. It cant explain or derive moral values for example.

    I have a couple of problems with the idea that science can't explain moral values. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by science deriving moral values so I'll come back to that later.

    First of all, the ability to explain something is worthless. The fact that religion is able to generate an explanation for the origin of morality doesn't mean that the explanation it provides is valid or correct.

    Secondly, science can and does give us an insight into how we have developed and continue to develop our moral compass. Morality is a function of social behaviour and communal existence. There is a significant body of research regarding the evolution of morality. I have posted some links for you below, some books as primers and some peer-reviewed research as well:


    Books

    The Origins of Virtue

    Adaptation and Natural Selection

    The Moral Landscape


    Research

    The evolution of reciprocal altruism

    Fairness vs. reason in the ultimatum game

    Five rules for the evolution of cooperation

    The evolution of the golden rule

    Volunteering as Red Queen mechanism in public goods games


    Now, as I said at the beginning I'm not sure what you mean by science deriving moral values. Rather than argue against a strawman, I would ask that you expand that idea a little for clarification. What I will say about deriving moral values is that it is possible to derive a consistent moral outlook without need to refer to a religion. As Laplace said when asked why he didn't invoke God to explain celestial mechanics: Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.

    I think that this (the 1st of a 3-part series) is a good representation of where I'm coming from in this regard:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ


  • #688
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    It can certainly ask questions about these, but whether it can provide answers is another matter. There is certainly scope for spirituality to address these issues - the problems arise when religion encroaches on the territory that science can provide true answers for, and the unevidenced claims of a religion are in conflict with the evidenced claims of science.

    Science can deal with human morality in the same way it deals with any observable phenomena. We can scientifically explore why people feel particular moral opinions rather than others. We can scientifically explore what is happening in the human when they come to a moral decisions, and why it is happen.

    The issue (if it even is an issue) is that science does not recognize the religious position that morals are absolute object things that exist independently to human opinion, since this is not an observable phenomena that can be explored.

    Of course it is highly debatable whether this notion about morality is even true, so to me this is hardly a problem with science, more a problem with humans making stuff up :P


  • #689
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    ISAW wrote: »
    I would disagree. Papers in humanities and social science and biology for example are not all quantitative research. nor is quantitative research superiour over qualitative research in every instance.

    The "Hypothesis deductive" "scientific method" has also been criticised as a form of scientism by the likes of Kuhn. this isnt to say a relativist alternative such as constructivism is preferable as others might argue.

    I agree that not being published may indicate some lack of rigour. One can say similar for "revisionist history" journals on holocaust denial.
    But does that mean constructive epistemology should be accepted because it is published in a journal or that memetics should?

    Ah but there is a whole world of peer review publications that are not science. Humanities, languages, mathematics for example.

    I don't really understand what you're driving at. How does the fact that someone publishes a qualitative paper on some aspect of a language affect how the scientific community judges the "hard" scientific data supporting radiometric dating?

    If someone wants to do "hard" science, they need to do it properly (whatever their personal interpretation might be). Inserting a clause that radiometric dating MUST be false because a Biblical event contradicts the proposed timeline is going to get short shrift anywhere.

    You know, if creation "scientists" stopped writing into their discussions that "god dunnit", they'd find it far easier to be taken seriously (if not have their science accepted, that would be down to the quality of the science). I can think of a least one paper which test a hypothesis about the evolution of proteins and finds the current explanation wanting. Not disproven, mind, just highlighting gaps or unknown mechanisms. It was published in a very good biochemistry journal. At no point did the authors do anything other than say "Current theories of random mutation and natural selection are unlikely to be able to explain this". If they had followed with "therefore god", it would have been thrown out.


  • #690
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No it doesn't. It starts with a holy book or a prophet (or in extreme cases direct communication with a god) that is considered perfect and infallible.

    It then works backwards from that initial assumption to fit all evidence into that initial framework.

    My bad, I should have used 'faith' instead of religion.
    I agree that starting from a point of departure that isn't where you are is not only stupid but impossible. Unfortunately religion has a tendency to assume that we all start in the same place.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    My eyes are bleeding.

    Seriously, if that's the standards you have for scientific research, there's nothing I can reasonably respond with. It amounts to nothing but a smack in the face for genuine scientists.

    It saddens me. I am no longer angry at sh*t like this, I am sad.
    I've heard the same sort of response from non-creationist scientists about other non-creationist scientific research. Rubbishing the opposition is fairly standard, it seems. Given the stakes in this debate, I'm not surprised at the abuse of fellow-scientists and their work.

    But that is not my problem. You have the means to check out the dissenting voices; it is up to you to use them. I can confidently say that the Biblical account is true. If you think science refutes that, you need to make sure - for writing-off the message of God has eternal consequences.


    ***************************************************************
    2 Peter 3: 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


Advertisement