The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Masteroid · 06-03-2013 11:45PM

J C wrote: »

Why should Creationists always be 'wilfully ignorant' ...?

Because they can't be wilfully erudite?;)

J C · 06-03-2013 11:55PM

Masteroid wrote: »

Atheists don't actually do that though do they.

In fact, someone starting from the premise that 'God didn't do' wouldn't be an atheist at all.

Why?
Surely, as atheists believe that God doesn't exist ... they do start with the premise that not only 'God didn't do it' ... but 'God couldn't possibly do it' ... because, in their mind, He doesn't even exist?

Masteroid wrote: »

But what atheists don't do is unecessaily intruduce an unfalsifiable hypothesis into the solution when faced with the trickier questions that have yet to be answered.

This is reasonable when dealing with the day to day issues and research of operative science ... and indeed I always adopt this principle myself as an operative scientist.

However, it is unreasonable when we are dealing with the 'origins' issue where there are two equally valid competing hypotheses ... that God did it ... and that purely materialistic processes did it.
We cannot reasonably exclude one of these hypothesis a priori.
... but conventional science is doing so.
This is only in accordance with an Atheistic worldview ... so the suspicion that Atheists are the prime movers behind it is a reasonable conclusion.

Masteroid wrote: »

Another thing that atheists don't do is deny the existence of God. The concept of a god is unhelpful in the quest for knowledge and morality. 'God' provides an excuse for abdicating responsibility.

How many tragedies and injustices have been put down to 'The Will of God'?

Presidents say things like, 'God willing, the bombing strategy will be successful.'

Shouldn't that be, 'God willing, there will be a world-wide epiphany and the bombing strategy can be abandoned.'

And if the bombing campaign is successful, should we assume that we are pleasing God in committing these atrocities.

Simply put, atheists don't need to make excuses for human behaviour.

And on questions that are unanswered, an atheist would use the term 'We're not sure yet' where you would say 'Godunnit'.

Nobody is arguing that an Atheist should be forced to do scientific research on the existence of God ... which would be in conflict with their beliefs ... all I'm saying is that it is legitimate for Theists (or anybody else who wishes) to do scientific research on the exsitence of God ... and the alternative 'origins' hypotheses to Darwinian Evolution.

Masteroid wrote: »

Well, if you want sauce for the wild goose you are chasing that is fine but you are not entitled to public funding and your doctrines cannot be taught as science to children.

And this is how it should be.

So the only state established 'religion' is to be Atheism then?

Why should Theists be taxed to pay for 'origins' research whose primary aim is to demonstrate how life could arise and develop without God ... in direct opposition to their faith ... yet they are not entitled to have balancing 'origins' research funded and its research results taught.
It's like being forced to fund a religion that is diammetrically opposed to your own ... with no quid pro quo for your own religion.

We have now arrived at the direct opposite of the situation when the Scopes Trial occurred ... we are now criminalising the teaching of Creation while prescribing by law that only Evolution be taught.

It should never have been a criminal offense to teach Evolution ... and I actually support John Scopes' challenge to the illiberal law that did so ... but two wrongs don't make a right ... and criminalising the teaching of Creation is just as illiberal and wrong as criminalising the teaching of Evolution.

Masteroid wrote: »

All of the 'scienctific' evidence you have provided has been creationist propoganda. You've posted videos of pseudo-scientists lying to children and presenting the false dichotomy of - either God did it or 150 twenty-sided dice were rolled 10 to the power of 164 time - GARBAGE!!!

And the cherry-picked science that creationists choose is always misapplied and misrepresented or gleaned from the musings of journalists. The science that opposes you is designated as being part of a conspiracy against a God that can't be shown to exist.

And like creationists you warp texts and meanings presented to you as a matter of record. If you had some idea about what you are talking about, you might make a good creationist yourself.

More lies.

In fact, these empty posts of yours are only exposing your frailty.

You are like a fish on a hook here. A dozen hooks in fact and not one of your post has addressed the fundamental problem of your position.

There is absolutely no evidence to support your hypothesis.

So persue away, J C, just leave my children out of it and don't ask people for money to sustain your wild goose chase.

Respect and learn then but please, don't try to teach.

So in summary you have made further ad hominems ... didn't seriously address the issues I have highlighted ... and a good summary of your views on Creationists is that they should pay and obey ... but never challenge any Evolutionist or Atheist dogma.

Zombrex · 07-03-2013 12:21AM

koth wrote: »

It's amazing if you actually believe the nonsense you posted above.

That would make him incredibly stupid. And my honey bunny is not stupid, no sir!

Sure he says some crazy ridiculous things like saying a Ray is a type of flatfish, or saying that a Triceritops, a creature with 5 toes on one foot and 4 toes on another is a type of Rhino (an set of animals classified as having 3 toes on each of its 4 legs).

And sure those things make him look like an ignorant fool, talking about things he clearly has no idea about.

But no, I won't hear another bad word about my honey bear, no matter how stupid the stuff he says!

J C · 07-03-2013 12:34AM

Zombrex wrote: »

That would make him incredibly stupid. And my honey bunny is not stupid, no sir!

Sure he says some crazy ridiculous things like saying a Ray is a type of flatfish, or saying that a Triceritops, a creature with 5 toes on one foot and 4 toes on another is a type of Rhino (an set of animals classified as having 3 toes on each of its 4 legs).

And sure those things make him look like an ignorant fool, talking about things he clearly has no idea about.

But no, I won't hear another bad word about my honey bear, no matter how stupid the stuff he says!

You have now reached the point where your adhominisms are so numerous that they are arguing with each other.
I object to your adhominisms not because they are nasty and unfounded, even though they are ... but primarily because they destroy rational debate on the subject at hand.
I think it is no co-incidence that this is happening BTW ... because the case for Evolution (and it's legal and scientific protection) is so weak ... that the only defense is to kick up so much ad hominem dust that nobody can really follow the debate ... and observers will simply give up ...
... with the ad hominem message that Creationsists are 'lying morons who want to destroy children and science' ringing in their ears as they depart!!

Zombrex · 07-03-2013 12:58AM

J C wrote: »

Creationsists are 'lying morons who want to destroy children and science' ringing in their ears as they depart!!

No snuggle bug! Don't say that, don't admit that in front of everyone! Don't listen to them!. Yes they may claim you come across as a lying moron who wants to destroy children and science, and yes you don't help yourself by the frankly ridiculous and idiotic things you claim about science, but you must be strong honey bear and not let their poison get to you.

You must keep fighting the good fight, you must keep putting forward the Creationist view point, no matter how much you have to lie, no matter how many times you have to say something that blatantly not true, no matter how many times you have to proclaim with authority something about a topic you no nothing about!

You must, for us! You must fight them my love, you can't let them beat you down.

Every time you admit that actually you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about, they win!
Every time you admit that actually most of the stuff you post is just blindly copied from Creationist websites, with no understanding on your part, they win!
Every time you admit that actually there is no such thing as Creationist science, it is just a bunch of barn yard nonsense, they win!

And we can't let them win snuggle bunny, we just can't. I don't want to live in a world where someone can't come onto a legitimate Christian forum pretending to be a Christian and just post nonsense after nonsense for years on end!!

Be strong my snookie wookie, we won't let them win! Everytime you are close to the edge snookums, close to just throwing in the towel and admitting that yes it is all crap that you have been making up, I want you to close your eyes and thing of me and my image will help you find the strength to continue!

By golly I'm not going to live in a world where a man can't claim with a straight face that a 5 toed Triceratops is a type Rhino because hell doesn't it have a horn and stuff!

J C · 07-03-2013 01:07AM

koth wrote: »

Scientists examine anything and everything they wish to. If they want to attempt to find some shred of evidence to support creationism, then they can fire ahead. they'll then provide any findings they make for review to see if their claims have an truth to them.

Do you have any example where this is being funded by Conventional Science ... given your claim that conventional 'origins' science isn't a creature of practical Atheism ?

koth wrote: »

No it doesn't. There hasn't been any evidence provided to support creationism. If evidence was to be provided in support of creationism, it would be examined in the same manner as all other evidence.

... or perhaps in the same manner it is 'examined' on this thread ??
... by a priori rejection ... accompanied with a list of more ad hominems than you could shake a stick at.

Masteroid · 07-03-2013 01:08AM

J C wrote: »

A common design is indicative of a common designer ...

Well, you are entitled to believe that as were your Bronze-age ancestors.

For me, a common design is indicative of a simple basic law.

J C wrote: »

God created much more than living organisms ... so to use your analogy ... every vehicle He Created is classifiable as a member of the kingdom of vehicles ... and every house He designed is classifiable as a member of the kingdom of houses.

Except it was volcanoes and earthquakes and erosion, etc., that created the first houses. Life sought sanctuary in the nooks and crannies supplied by geological processes.

The only mysteries that remain for science concern 'prime cause'.

Physicists understand that the laws of physics were created at the same time as the universe was and they can see that those laws account entirely for the evolution of the universe. If God exists then He is manifest in the unchanging, indiscriminate laws of physics. The laws of physics do not care whether it is a Muslim, Christian or atheist that is stood under the falling rock, the 'splat' will be the same.

The forces of nature do not negotiate, they only act and the chips simply fall as they do.

It is the same with life. When life first appeared, the laws of evolution also appeared.

But the laws of evolution are subject to the laws of physics. Life's processes depend on the constancy of physical laws and the chemistry they produce.

The 'creator' of life is therefore subordinate to the laws of physics.

The creator of life had to work within the confines of physical law. (Do you think God created the force of gravity entirely for the purpose of giving the heart heart a pressure to pump against?)

And how can God act in an interventionist way without altering the laws of physics?

J C wrote: »

Because a random process creates such overwhelming damage that it isn't capable of creating any complex functional specific entity. It can destoy ... but it can't create something that is complex functional and specified.
The 'speciation', 'evolution' and adaptation is utilising pre-existing intelligently created CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information).

It's not 'overwhelming damage' it's a tiny change.

Would you say that bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics were 'overwhelmingly damaged' or would you say that they have changed in a way that could 'overwhelmingly damage' your health.

And if your offspring are born resistant to that bacterium would you consider them to have been 'overwhelmingly damaged' by random mutation?

How foolish you are.

And like I said, you should never be allowed to teach.

J C · 07-03-2013 01:17AM

Zombrex wrote: »

No snuggle bug! Don't say that, don't admit that in front of everyone! Don't listen to them!. Yes they may claim you come across as a lying moron who wants to destroy children and science, and yes you don't help yourself by the frankly ridiculous and idiotic things you claim about science, but you must be strong honey bear and not let their poison get to you.

You must keep fighting the good fight, you must keep putting forward the Creationist view point, no matter how much you have to lie, no matter how many times you have to say something that blatantly not true, no matter how many times you have to proclaim with authority something about a topic you no nothing about!

You must, for us! You must fight them my love, you can't let them beat you down.

Every time you admit that actually you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about, they win!
Every time you admit that actually most of the stuff you post is just blindly copied from Creationist websites, with no understanding on your part, they win!
Every time you admit that actually there is no such thing as Creationist science, it is just a bunch of barn yard nonsense, they win!

And we can't let them win snuggle bunny, we just can't. I don't want to live in a world where someone can't come onto a legitimate Christian forum pretending to be a Christian and just post nonsense after nonsense for years on end!!

Be strong my snookie wookie, we won't let them win! Everytime you are close to the edge snookums, close to just throwing in the towel and admitting that yes it is all crap that you have been making up, I want you to close your eyes and thing of me and my image will help you find the strength to continue!

By golly I'm not going to live in a world where a man can't claim with a straight face that a 5 toed Triceratops is a type Rhino because hell doesn't it have a horn and stuff!

... and that is the sum total of the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution???

Zombrex · 07-03-2013 01:20AM

J C wrote: »

... and that is the sum total of the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution???

No my love, you must not go looking for evidence, you must keep making stuff up.

Otherwise they win!

If we close our eyes and hold hands maybe a triceratops will become a rhino. After all our love can over come anything, even biological facts.

J C · 07-03-2013 01:35AM

Masteroid wrote: »

Well, you are entitled to believe that as were your Bronze-age ancestors.

For me, a common design is indicative of a simple basic law.

Could you please identify the 'simple basic law' that accounts for the common design exhibited by my laptop?
... or a Human Being?

Masteroid · 07-03-2013 02:14AM

J C wrote: »

Why?
Surely, as atheists believe that God doesn't exist ... they do start with the premise that not only 'God didn't do it' ... but 'God couldn't possibly do it' ... because, in their mind, He doesn't even exist?

How many more times...?

The way you deliberately misinterpret what is written in plain Engish in simple terms so that even you can understand it is mind-boggling.

Little wonder you have so much trouble understanding both the bible and scientific texts.

I'll try to simplify it further.

To say 'Atheists believe that God doesn't exist' makes the same kind of sense that 'I'm holding an empty glass of water' does.

The existence of the glass is not evidence of water.

And how can you be sure it's not an empty glass of milk?

Or sand?

The question of 'God' is not relevant to science in the same way as what is not in the glass is not relevant to the glass. It can't be studied.

If the creator God exists then the scientific method will lead to His discovery.

Whereas, of course, religion is more concerned about diverting attention away from the man behind the curtain.

It is a matter of evidence that athiests are rooting for the scientists.

Not the other way around.

Masteroid · 07-03-2013 03:17AM

J C wrote: »

Could you please identify the 'simple basic law' that accounts for the common design exhibited by my laptop?
... or a Human Being?

Happy to.

Every process carried out by your laptop can be described by the law of simple addition.

Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, the logical operators, or, xor, and, not, - all of these fuctions are carried out by performing a series of 'additions.

The ability to add two bit and generate a carry is all the functionality required for all computerised processes.

And this has been the case since I first started programming computers.

Moreover, I began my programming days on the Z-80 CPU but I was able to make the transition to the 8086 family with almost no need of new information about the more 'evolved' instruction set of the newer CPU.

True, engineering principles have allowed for 'shift' and 'rotate' instructions that can simplify algorithms but these functions still operate according to the laws of addition.

A simple concept shared by all computers whether they be in the form of a laptop or in the form of an MP3 player.

In the end, all thing are governed by the simple laws of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. The fact that these forces exist obviates the need for a God of direct creation.

The existence of those forces makes the existence of the structures within the universe inevitable.

God may have created the forces, we can't say whether or not this is true, but we can say that the laws of physics, these forces, are what impose any restrictions on what is and what is not possible in the universe.

And it is not a matter of will.

Gravity is unaffected by prayer. The strong and weak nuclear forces are oblivious to human suffering. Electromagnetism can't tell the difference between you and a pig. And yet they are solely responsible for you, the pig, the suffering and the prayer.

It really could not be simpler.

Masteroid · 07-03-2013 05:38AM

J C wrote: »

However, it is unreasonable when we are dealing with the 'origins' issue where there are two equally valid competing hypotheses ... that God did it ... and that purely materialistic processes did it.

But they do not have equal scientific validity - materialistic processes can be studied and observed. Hypotheses are built from the evidence up.

'God did it' cannot be investigated except by subjective introspection.

Is that what you want?

If somebody told you that they had examined the entrails of a dead animal and the answers to the questions of origins had been revealed to him, would you accept that as evidence?

Neither would I so either admit that your runes are not sufficient grounds for the granting of research funds or provide a piece of evidence that supports your claim that the earth is only a matter of a few thousand years old.

Please.

J C · 07-03-2013 09:17AM

Zombrex wrote: »

No my love, you must not go looking for evidence, you must keep making stuff up.

Otherwise they win!

If we close our eyes and hold hands maybe a triceratops will become a rhino. After all our love can over come anything, even biological facts.

You seem to be talking about yourself and your fellow Atheists here.
I certainly don't recognise anything I have done on this thread in your ad hominems.

J C · 07-03-2013 09:33AM

Masteroid wrote: »

The question of 'God' is not relevant to science in the same way as what is not in the glass is not relevant to the glass. It can't be studied.

If the creator God exists then the scientific method will lead to His discovery.

The scientific legitimacy of Creation Science is grounded precisely on the premise that you have just conceded ... if a Creator God exists, then the scientific method will indeed lead to His discovery.
... but science will only discover the 'fingerprints' of God on Creation, if it goes looking for the evidence, in the first place ... and therein lies the neat 'catch 22' that Atheism and its fellow travellers have created within science ... by excluding any hypothesis concerning God from conventional science they ensure that conventional science can never discover God.

Like I have said, it is unreasonable to only examine one hypothesis, when we are dealing with the 'origins' issue where there are two equally valid competing hypotheses ... that a Creator God did it ... and that purely materialistic processes did it.
We cannot reasonably exclude one of these hypothesis a priori.
... but conventional science is doing so.
... and as Atheists have the prime motive for excluding the God hypothesis, the suspicion that Atheists are the prime movers behind this is a reasonable conclusion.
It's also not the situation that all 'origins' research is banned by Conventional Science ... only research on the hypothesis that a Creator God did it is banned.
A clearer case of absolute bias would be difficult to find.

I also agree with you that other questions about the concept and personality of 'God' aren't within the realm of Science ... and are essentially within the competence of Theology.

Delirium · 07-03-2013 09:36AM

J C wrote: »

Do you have any example where this is being funded by Conventional Science ... given your claim that conventional 'origins' science isn't a creature of practical Atheism ?

Actually you should be providing support for your claims of a global conspiracy within the scientific community that actively engages in suppressing evidence of creationism. That, or apologise to the scientists of the world for insulting their scientific integrity.

... or perhaps in the same manner it is 'examined' on this thread ??
... by a priori rejection ... accompanied with a list of more ad hominems than you could shake a stick at.

any adult would know that science doesn't work that way. Creationists haven't provided any evidence that has passed peer-review.

maguffin · 07-03-2013 03:14PM

J C wrote: »

Such emotive language doesn't do your cause any good.

I do not have a 'cause'

I could equally say that Evolution Science is 'pseudo-science' based on Atheist dogma that there is no God

Evolutionary Science is based on solid observable measurable facts, ie Science in the true sense of the word. whether or not a God exists has nothing to to with it.

... and therefore material processes alone are considered to have 'done it all'.

That's right!!! now you're getting the idea!!!!

Creation Science changes as the evidence is examined and evaluated.

What 'evidence'?????

Please tell me why you believe that Atheists can never suffer from bias caused by their belief that God doesn't exist ... while Creationists always suffer from bias caused by their belief that God does exist?

They do research aimed at proving the existence of God ... as well as the invalidity of Materialistic Evolution.

Where is this 'evidence'...this research....where are the great pseudoscientific papers proving the existence of a god...where is the irrefutable proof that Evolution is invalid??? Where??? There isn't any, that's why!! And you ask me the above question!!!

... and such evidence is shunned by Evolutionists ... but the evidence objectively exists ...

WHERE????? please enlighten us!!!!

Creation Scientists say that Evolution contradicts the laws of thermodynamics because entropy always increases (even locally) in the absence of an intelligently designed mechanism for intelligently harnessing energy.
Just think of an explosion of a gallon of petrol contrasted with the consumption of a gallon of petrol in a car.

So, you're saying that a car engine (being intelligently designed) is a closed system and hence doesn't exhibit loss of energy (entropy) as might be the case if petrol was to explode?.....sorry, but the mechanism of energy transfer in a car engine (gears, driveshaft, and so on), energy will be lost from the system over time, despite the law of conservation of energy. This is because the system is open, (just like the petrol explosion) losing energy (in the form of heat) to surrounding systems (through friction). A system that loses energy in this way also called a dissipative system.

methinks you protest too much!!!
... and all your protests bely the fact that you realise that Creation Science is a force to be reckoned with ... because it is shining a scientific light on the reality of our 'origins'.

I'm afraid the batteries have long run out in your 'shining scientific light'....you're just groping around in a Creationist Fog, unable to see due to your short-sightedness, and reliance on a Book of Fairytales written by people in bygone days, in a different culture, a different part of the world with different values.

J C · 07-03-2013 08:18PM

koth wrote: »

Actually you should be providing support for your claims of a global conspiracy within the scientific community that actively engages in suppressing evidence of creationism. That, or apologise to the scientists of the world for insulting their scientific integrity.

I am not claiming a conspiracy ... the antagonism towards Creationism is quite open ... as this thread proves.
It is also a fact that conventional science excludes any hypothesis involving God.
... or are you saying that it doesn't make such an exclusion?

koth wrote: »

any adult would know that science doesn't work that way. Creationists haven't provided any evidence that has passed peer-review.

Still churning out the ad hominisms I see.
Like I have said, it is reasonable to not involve God in hypotheses when dealing with the day to day issues and research of operative science ... and indeed I always adopt this principle as an operative scientist myself.

However, it is unreasonable to exclude God when we are dealing with the 'origins' issue where there are two equally valid competing hypotheses ... that God did it ... and that purely materialistic processes did it.
We cannot reasonably exclude one of these hypothesis a priori.
... but conventional science is doing so.

J C · 07-03-2013 08:32PM

maguffin wrote: »

I do not have a 'cause'

Your contributions to this thread indicate that you are very partisan towards the Atheistic and Evolutionist worldviews ... and very hostile towards the Thesitic and Creationist worldviews. You're quite entitled to be partisan ... but please don't insult my intelligence by denying it.

maguffin wrote: »

Evolutionary Science is based on solid observable measurable facts, ie Science in the true sense of the word. whether or not a God exists has nothing to to with it.

Evolutionary Science is divided into two entities ... operative science that observes natural selection in action (for example antibiotic resistance and pepper moth genetic drift). I have no issue with this type of science.
The second entity is the forensic asessment of evidence for the 'origins' of life ... and, in this case, there are two legitimate possibilities ... that 'God did it' or that 'it did itself'.
... and both hypotheses lend themselves to forensic scientific investigation.

Delirium · 07-03-2013 08:35PM

J C wrote: »

I am not claiming a conspiracy ... the aggression towards Creationism is quite open ... as this thread proves.
It is also a fact that conventional science excludes any hypothesis involving God.
... or are you saying that it doesn't make such an operating exclusion?

Absolutely, science makes no barrier to any science following the evidence wherever it leads. If you disagree with that, then you are claiming there is a conspiracy to suppress evidence for certain lines of investigation.

Like I have said, it is reasonable to not involve God in hypotheses when dealing with the day to day issues and research of operative science ... and indeed I always adopt this principle as an operative scientist myself.

However, it is unreasonable to exclude God when we are dealing with the 'origins' issue where there are two equally valid competing hypotheses ... that God did it ... and that purely materialistic processes did it.
We cannot reasonably exclude one of these hypothesis a priori.
... but conventional science is doing so.

But creationism is a result of a literal reading of the bible. You don't start with the conclusion and work backwards. You find evidence of an idea and investigate to see if the idea holds true. Creationism wants to put the stories of the bible in the science class, even though it's against the very spirit of investigative science.

J C · 07-03-2013 08:54PM

koth wrote: »

Absolutely, science makes no barrier to any science following the evidence wherever it leads. If you disagree with that, then you are claiming there is a conspiracy to suppress evidence for certain lines of investigation.

Are you saying that there is conventional science funding available to scientifically investigate the evidence for both 'origins' hypotheses ... that 'God did it' and that 'it did itself'?
... because if there isn't ... then this is prima facie evidence of the suppression of lines of scientific inquiry that might prove that 'God did it'.

Delirium · 07-03-2013 08:58PM

I'm saying that the scientific community won't block any such investigation. The evidence (or lack of it) will speak for the merit of the creationist stance.

J C · 07-03-2013 09:09PM

koth wrote: »

I'm saying that the scientific community won't block any such investigation. The evidence (or lack of it) will speak for the merit of the creationist stance.

I'm not asking about funding Creation Science per se ... I'm asking for examples of where conventional science has made funding available for the pursuit of 'origins' research into the hypothesis that 'God did it'.

Given the fact that literally billions have been expended trying to scientifically prove that 'it did itself' ... it would be reasonable that some examples of expenditure on the hypothesis that 'God did it' would be available ... if the 'scientific community' is as open-minded and supportive of academic freedom on the 'origins' issue, as you claim.

Delirium · 07-03-2013 09:16PM

J C wrote: »

I'm not asking about funding Creation Science per se ... I'm asking for examples of where conventional science has made funding available for the pursuit of 'origins' research into the hypothesis that 'God did it'.

Given the fact that literally billions have been expended trying to scientifically prove that 'it did itself' ... it would be reasonable that some examples of expenditure on the hypothesis that 'God did it' would be available ... if the 'scientific community' is as open-minded and supportive of academic freedom, as you claim.

But why would someone spend big money on something that goes against accepted science? What would the scientists be hoping to achieve, other than it being an attempt to placate anti-evolutionists?

Funding isn't being pumped into a "God didn't do it" line of enquiry. It's a line of enquiry built upon previous generations results and evidence. What is the compelling reason to push all that knowledge to one side to try and prove the bible as factual with regards to the origins question?

J C · 07-03-2013 09:26PM

koth wrote: »

But why would someone spend big money on something that goes against accepted science? What would the scientists be hoping to achieve, other than it being an attempt to placate anti-evolutionists?

They're not spending 'big money' .... they're spending no money on the hypothesis that 'God did it'... and the argument that it is 'against accepted science' is a circular one, if the 'God did it' hypothesis has never been properly investigated, in the first place.

... and money is no object when it comes to funding research into the 'life did itself' hypothesis .... which is a purely Atheistic belief.

koth wrote: »

Funding isn't being pumped into a "God didn't do it" line of enquiry. It's a line of enquiry built upon previous generations results and evidence. What is the compelling reason to push all that knowledge to one side to try and prove the bible as factual with regards to the origins question?

The 'God did it' hypothesis doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Bible ... its just the hypothesis that 'God did it' i.e. an inordinate intelligence did it ... which is a general Theistic belief.

Like I have already asked, without reply ... Why should Theists be taxed to pay for 'origins' research whose primary aim is to demonstrate how life could arise and develop without God ... in direct opposition to their faith ... yet they are not entitled to have balancing 'origins' research funded and its research results taught.

Delirium · 07-03-2013 09:33PM

J C wrote: »

They're not spending big money .... they're spending no money on the hypothesis that 'God did it'
... yet money is no object when it comes to funding research into 'it did itself' .... which is a purely Atheistic belief.

It shouldn't have anything to do with the Bible with conventional science ... just the hypothesis that 'God did it' i.e. an inordinate intelligence did it ... which is a general Theistic belief.

But it's intrinsically tied to the bible as it's story from Genesis. And why should science have to 'put on a show' of investigating creationism just because some scientists are Christian?

I honestly don't understand what you're expecting the scientists to do?

Science isn't the property of any group, be they atheists or Christians. Honest scientific inquiry will follow the evidence. Scientists mustn't see a compelling reason to investigate creationism.

J C · 07-03-2013 09:51PM

koth wrote: »

But it's intrinsically tied to the bible as it's story from Genesis. And why should science have to 'put on a show' of investigating creationism just because some scientists are Christian?

I honestly don't understand what you're expecting the scientists to do?

I'm not asking them investigate Creation ... Creation Scientists do a very good job at this already .
What I'm probing is your claim that Conventional Science, isn't a creature of practical Atheism, on the 'origins' issue, ...
... when it prima facie is ...
... it substantially funds and actively supports research designed to prove that 'life did itself' ... when there is a very credible and scientifically legitimate hypothesis that 'God did it' ... which receives no funding and is treated with active antagonism.

J C · 07-03-2013 09:59PM

koth wrote: »

Science isn't the property of any group, be they atheists or Christians. Honest scientific inquiry will follow the evidence.

That's the way it should be ... but clearly on the 'origins' issue this isn't the case ... and only the Atheistic hypothesis that 'life did itself' is funded and supported.
The hypothesis that 'God did it' is excluded a priori ... and treated with outright incredulity.

Why is this the case, if conventional 'origins' science hasn't become a creature of practical Atheism on the 'origins' issue?

Delirium · 07-03-2013 10:12PM

J C wrote: »

I'm not asking them investigate Creation ... Creation Scientists already do a very good job at this.
What I'm probing is your claim that Conventional Science, isn't a creature of practical Atheism, on the 'origins' issue, ...
... when it prima face is ...
... it substantially funds and actively supports research designed to prove that 'life did itself' ... when there is a very credible and scientifically legitimate hypothesis that 'God did it' ... which receives no funding and is treated with active hostility.

Science isn't a "creature of atheism", it just seems that the evidence doesn't support creationism, at least with regards to evolution. Science is building upon existing evidence, are we supposed to ignore the evidence for evolution?

J C wrote: »

That's the way it should be ... but clearly on the 'origins' issue this isn't the case ... and only the Atheistic hypothesis that 'life did itself' is funded and tolerated.
The hypothesis that 'God did it' is excluded a priori ... treated with outright hostility.

Why is this the case, if conventional 'origins' science hasn't become a creature of practical Atheism?

Because creationism isn't a result of honest scientific inquiry. It's attempting to mould scientific understanding to fit the story of Genesis.

J C · 07-03-2013 10:27PM

koth wrote: »

Science isn't a "creature of atheism", it just seems that the evidence doesn't support creationism, at least with regards to evolution. Science is building upon existing evidence, are we supposed to ignore the evidence for evolution?

By all means continue to investigate and build upon the evidence for evolution ... but what isn't acceptable ... is the apparent outright ban on 'origins' research into the 'God did it' hypothesis.

koth wrote: »

Because creationism isn't a result of honest scientific inquiry. It's attempting to mould scientific understanding to fit the story of Genesis.

You're still throwing ad hominisms about.
This isn't about Creationism ... it's about parity of esteem between the Theistic hypothesis that 'God did it' and the Atheistic hypothesis that 'life did itself'.
Currently only the Atheistic hypothesis is supported in conventional 'origins' science.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments