The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

wolfsbane wrote: »

But take heart - Atheism still gets the vote of the governing elites:

Infanticide and bestiality advocate given Australia’s highest civic award
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/infanticide-and-bestiality-advocate-given-australias-highest-civic-award

Gumbi wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does atheism not advocate NOTHING but disbelief in God. No more, no less.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does atheism not advocate NOTHING but disbelief in God. No more, no less.

Atheism in itself is nothing more than a lack of belief in any God(s) or deities.
Nothing more to it really.

Gumbi wrote: »

Yup I know. I misspelled, I meant to write a God(s). Point being is there a tendency by some here to associate certain qualities with atheists, such as the implication above regarding infanticide.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Yup I know. I misspelled, I meant to write a God(s). Point being is there a tendency by some here to associate certain qualities with atheists, such as the implication above regarding infanticide.

Would you tell me why an atheist can think infanticide is morally wrong?


********************************************************************
[COLOR="Purple"]‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.[/COLOR]

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Atheism brings its own implications. A lack of absolute morality and purpose to the universe. It makes any morality merely an individual's self-imposed standard that has no claim on the actions of others.

The individual atheist may believe it is immoral to kill a baby girl just because one wanted a boy instead. But it is not Atheist morality, just the morality of an individual atheist. Atheism can have no morality. The atheist who rejects all morality and lives just as he wishes is the most consistent atheist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed. I was not denying a scientific majority/consensus in favour of evolution. I was merely pointing out that some experts in the relevant fields argue the case for an alternative explanation of the evidence.
Can you name me an expert in the relevant field who argues for the alternative but is not also religious?

Given the assertion made so often by J_C that intelligent design is a purely scientific proposition, don't you think it odd that it is never proposed or supported by biologists unless they are religious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, a reasonable assumption. Reasonable, but not absolutely reliable.
Most scientists would accept that no assumption- however logical or well founded- is absolutely reliable. The only certainty is that certainty is impossible.

This doesn't mean that we can't rationally judge relative levels of reliability. Basing our assumptions on a logical inference from direct and externally verifiable evidence is many orders of magnitude more reliable than basing them on axioms, particularly axioms placed in a framework which makes a point of discouraging doubt and testing ("blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed", right?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, this is the crux of the issue. Bias can distort the conclusions of even experts, be they creationist or evolutionist. When the world-view is at stake, one can be quick to see the side that affirms rather than the one that does not.
Firstly- I would have no doubt that confirmation bias exists within that consensus. However, the problem for you is that evolution doesn't suggest any specific worldview- lots of disparate worldviews fit with it simply because they don't address questions on the origin of species. Like most scientific theories, evolution does clash with some specific worldviews. So there's not much incentive to promote evolution unless one has an agenda against other specific worldviews. In general, the scientific community is ambivalent or disinterested in religions except where they come into conflict with the community's goals. If that conflict were the impetus for a bias in favour of evolutionary theory, we'd expect the consensus to be mostly upheld by two groups: educators (e.g. biology teachers) and researchers in ethically contentious fields such as embryonic stem cells and synthetic life. But we don't see this- the consensus completely transcends the fields of biology and chemistry. That's a whole load of people with very little philosophical, financial or emotional investment, who agree with the consensus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
To the bias I would add peer-pressure as a significant distorter of conclusions.
Of course peer pressure will tend to work to maintain the status quo in all social groups- I think that that's inevitable. However, it does not work to the same extent in all social groups. The scientific community is notable (though not unique) for philosophically extolling challenges to the status quo and incentivizing this behavior via the publication and award systems. Nobel prizes are not given to people who accept the consensus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Fear of ridicule and/or loss of credibility/career has shut many a mouth.
It didn't shut Darwin up, nor Mendel, Watson and Crick, Dawkins... to name just a few within the field of biology. The body of scientific knowledge is growing and being refined at an ever-increasing pace. If this fear you mention were really so potent, then scientific knowledge should be stagnating- at the very least in the field of biology. Further if the community were hanging onto a consensus that were significantly in error, that also ought to be hampering progress and yet somehow we are making discoveries at an unprecedented rate.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If atheism is true, not only does there not have to be purpose in the universe, there cannot be any.

So I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists who talk and/or live as if there were. Some atheists are honest enough to admit that life for them would be intolerable if they lived in a society that behaved as if there were no purpose and morality, so they adopt one that suits. They pretend there is purpose and right/wrong, good/evil that all should live by. But they know that it is all a pretence aimed at an acceptable lifestyle.

The rest of the atheists, however, live believing there is a purpose and morality that all should live by. This is in direct contradiction to their prime belief - that matter is all there is, be it hydrogen in the stars or the chemical processes in our brains. That is hypocrisy.

*********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Most atheists don't ever think or care about the big questions, unless in a mood after drinking too much. They are quite happy to go to work, having a few beers with their palls (and/or spending time with their family), going on a nice holiday once or twice a year and not really troubling themselves about the metaphysical questions.
The thing is neither do most theists.
Not counting the 'spiritual but not religious' new age adherents, actual believing theists are a scarce commodity.
It's not hypocrisy, it's indifference and apathy.

shizz wrote: »

Wolfsbane, I don't frequent this thread that often, but I think I speak for everyone when I say can you please get rid of that huge quote that you put in every post. At the very least put it in your sig if you like it that much. (I have sigs blocked) Not only is it horrendously wrong, it is an incredible eye sore.

shizz wrote: »

I don't wish to side track the thread but what purpose is it serving? To annoy? Think of the amount of times you have posted it at this stage. If it had a purpose to serve, its done it by now.

Zombrex wrote: »

Which (again) doesn't mean anything. You keep pointing to this "disagreement" as some sort of evidence for the validity of Creationism. The reality is that it is irrelevant if every scientist in the world has a different opinion or if they all completely agree. The opinion of the individual scientists is irrelevant, what matters is whether the scientific model does or doesn't accurately predict the observations. And you can verify that entirely on your own.



No it most certainly is not. It is a model that makes predictions that match observations. Or to put it another way, it goes If the Earth is 4.6 billion years old then we should observe X,Y,Z. We do observe this, thus supporting the model. At this stage there are hundreds of thousands of successful observations that support this model, far more than any other model.

The predictions of other models, such as say the Earth is only a few million years old, do not match as many observations and have thus been rejected. For example the model that the Earth is 6,000 years old has huge problems matching with observations. Creationists simply ignore this because well they know it is true it says so in the Bible doesn't it. :rolleyes:


Yet you still reject these models that match far better with observation than your Creationist ones.



That is because saying they both predict speciation is very misleading.

The speciation that Evolution predicts is completely different to any notion of speciation that Creationism predicts.

For a start Darwinian evolution actually made a prediction, contained originally in Darwins work but expanded upon through the study of genetics, about how speciation should occur, over what time period, what mechanism etc. All these predictions were made before we eventually observed things like DNA. The predictions of evolution turned out to match observation, which added support to evolution.

Now, what does Creationism predict. How does Creationism speciation take place? No idea, Creationists don't know. What time period does it take? Well it has to have happened a lot since the Ark, but for some reason it has stopped. So Creationism basically predicts something should be happening and then when we find it isn't happening the prediction becomes it has also stopped. Which you will notice is the same as simply saying it wasn't happening in the first place.

The reality is that Creationism doesn't predict anything in relation to speciatation other than asserting it must have happened because we couldn't have fit all the current species on the Ark. If you can't see the difference between simply saying "Umm, this must have happened but we have no idea how" and an actual scientific prediction frankly I'm not surprised you are a Creationist.



I don't know what you are asking. The tree of life is not an interpretation. It is a some what inaccurate say of explaining the branching of evolutionary linage to lay people, like a physicist explaining an atom as a small ball (the electron) orbiting a larger ball (the atomic core).



Again that isn't an issue. If you don't think they are scientifically support you can verify it for your self. Anyone can. Scientifically supported means do the predictions of the models match observation. You can verify this yourself. This is only a "question" because you can't be bothered to answer it. Personally no one would blame you, as you say life is too short to personally verify every scientific experiment. But you keep pointing to these "disagreements" as if they some how support Creationism. It doesn't.

Imagine there is a hole in the ground and in the hole is a stone of a particular color. Twenty people look in the whole and say the stone is red. Two people look in the hole and say the stone is blue. You are standing at the edge of the hole and go "Ummm, interesting, clearly there is disagreement here, but I trust the two people who claim the stone is blue, that better fits my religion and I find these people more honest than the ones who claim it is red"

I'm standing beside you shouting "Just look in the hole, you will see it is red". But you say no far too busy to look in the hole but then keep going back to the "disagreement" to justify continuing to believe the stone is blue.



Science is entirely limited to observed facts. Entirely limited to this. Utterly utterly utterly utterly limited to observed facts. That is what makes it so great because you can observe the same facts as anyone else. No one has access to some special information that only they can use or see or some interpretation that you have to be a member of a special group in order to get.

An idea in science that is yet to match up to any observed facts is an hypothesis and carries very little weight in science (eg the idea of multiple universes has yet to predict anything that matches observed facts).


No you are ridiculed for rejecting well supported scientific models such as evolution while embracing utterly unsupported non-scientific concepts such as Creationism while complaining about the "problems" evolution has scientifically.

Even if you think evolution is not supported enough to be considered scientifically accurate you utterly expose the nonsense of your position by then embracing Creationism, which is like saying Google maps is not accurate enough for you and then deciding to use a picture of Ireland drawn by a 3 year old.

If the 40 thousand accurate predictions evolution makes (plucked that number out of the air) are not enough to say it is supported but the 7 Creationism makes are then that is nonsense. You might have some more credibility if you rejected evolution and also rejected Creationism.

The reality is that the science is irrelevant to you, you pick Creationism over evolution because it matches your religion. Complaining about the science is just blowing smoke.


No they don't, as explained above since "speciation" mean completely different things to each concept.

The speciation required by post-Ark species growth is not only not predicted by evolution but is specifically contradictory to evolution because the time periods in the evolution model are completely different.

I would love to see speciation model Creationists have for post-Ark speciation. As has been explained to you before a scientific prediction is more than just saying "Oh this must have happened some how".

Can Creationists present a model detailing the mechanism that the species changed, a mechanism that fits within the time period required (ie not just saying its the same as the evolutionary one, which requires thousands of years), and produce a list of where the predictions of this model match observations. I would be particular interested in the part of the model that explains why this rapid speciations is no longer happening.

The predictions of evolution turned out to match observation, which added support to evolution.

Zombrex wrote: »

Sure, there are thousands of predictions that evolution makes, going right back to Darwin's original work.

A good example is Vit C. Evolution theory would state that humans descended from animals that naturally produced Vit C. but that humans ancestors at some point lost this ability. DNA studies have recently discovered the same Vit C gene in humans that is found in other mammals, but in our DNA it has been turned off.