The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Delirium · 09-03-2013 10:23PM

J C wrote: »

Ah ... but in the case of the origin of life the Atheist is arguing that the 'crime' 'did itself' ... without any intelligent input whatsoever ... and, as there was no CCTV available they just say 'prove me wrong'.

When it is pointed out that the scene of the 'crime' contains clues that indicate the involvement of an intelligent agent ... they simply retort with the gem that random processes could have caused the knife to be repeatedly plunged into the chest of the victim given enough time and attempts ... while gleefully ignoring where the knife came from and how it got there, in the first place.

nonsense. Creationists want to ignore the evidence at the scene and instead suggest a deity did it.

Scientists follow the evidence, but you're suggesting they not do that.

Masteroid · 09-03-2013 10:30PM

J C wrote: »

Abiogenesis has practically no evidence that it ever happened ...

This is a scandalous claim. There have been many experiments including the Miller-Urey experiment that have demonstrated how many of the building blocks of life can naturally occur.

And under varied conditions.

The only real question mark now is specifically how did these naturally occurring object come to be combined to create life.

And science is closing in on the answer to that question.

Wouldn't you be pleased if we could recreate the process in the laboratory?

And even if we could, would that necessarily mean that God is dead?

Of course not, you can still have faith in a God who didn't create the universe as described in a dusty old book written by someone who didn't really know what he was on about and was, as admitted by you, serving his own agenda.

Now please would you address some of the points I have raised ?

Masteroid · 09-03-2013 10:35PM

J C wrote: »

Ah ... but in the case of the origin of life the Atheist is arguing that the 'crime' 'did itself' ... without any intelligent input whatsoever ... and, as there was no CCTV available they just say 'prove me wrong'.

When it is pointed out that the scene of the 'crime' contains clues that indicate the involvement of an intelligent agent ... they simply retort with the gem that random processes could have caused the knife to be repeatedly plunged into the chest of the victim given enough time and attempts ... while gleefully ignoring where the knife came from and how it got there, in the first place.

My point exactly, it was the scene of a robbery, not a murder.

Where is the body that supports your claim of murder?

Masteroid · 09-03-2013 10:47PM

J C wrote: »

... just like it is 'coincidental' that the 'Pope is a Catholic' !!!:)

A scientist would not make that assumption.

J C · 09-03-2013 11:40PM

Masteroid wrote: »

My point exactly, it was the scene of a robbery, not a murder.

Where is the body that supports your claim of murder?

Whether it was a burglary or a murder or just somebody simply unlocking a door ... nobody would believe that an Intelligent Agent wasn't involved in these actions ... yet Evolutionists believe that an Intelligent Agent wasn't involved in producing the infinitley more Complex Functional Specified Intelligent Agent himself.
Riddle me that!!!!

J C · 09-03-2013 11:43PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... just like it is 'coincidental' that the 'Pope is a Catholic' !!!

Masteroid
A scientist would not make that assumption.

No ... you'd need a Theologian for that!!!:D

J C · 10-03-2013 12:03AM

Masteroid wrote: »

This is a scandalous claim. There have been many experiments including the Miller-Urey experiment that have demonstrated how many of the building blocks of life can naturally occur.

This article explains in greater detail than this medium allows why Miller-Urey used the wrong conditions and a great deal of ingenuity to produce the wrong products ... and it is now used by Creation Scientists as proof that Abiogenesis couldn't occur.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis

Masteroid wrote: »

And under varied conditions.

The only real question mark now is specifically how did these naturally occurring object come to be combined to create life.

That's like saying that the only little problem is that the patient is a little bit dead!!

Masteroid wrote: »

And science is closing in on the answer to that question.

Wouldn't you be pleased if we could recreate the process in the laboratory?

... promises ... promises!!

Masteroid wrote: »

And even if we could, would that necessarily mean that God is dead?

If it could be proven that life could be spontaneously generated then the claims of the Creator God of the Bible would indeed be proven to be non-existent.
Speaking as a conventionally qualified scientist I can confirm that there is not the least chance of this ever occurring ... but the average 'man in the street' believes that it is about to occur, if it hasn't already ... such is the strength of the wall to wall hype surrounding the Abiogenesis/Evolution bandwagon.

Masteroid wrote: »

Of course not, you can still have faith in a God who didn't create the universe as described in a dusty old book written by someone who didn't really know what he was on about and was, as admitted by you, serving his own agenda.

There would be no God of substance to believe in, if life were to be proven to arise spontaneously ... and for many people (who have swallowed the idea that life did arise and evolved spontaneously) ... this is their faithless position already.

Masteroid · 10-03-2013 01:05AM

J C wrote: »

Whether it was a burglary or a murder or just somebody simply unlocking a door ... nobody would believe that an Intelligent Agent wasn't involved in these actions ... yet Evolutionists believe that an Intelligent Agent wasn't involved in producing the infinitley more Complex Functional Specified Intelligent Agent himself.
Riddle me that!!!!

I meant that the atheist thought there had been a robbery but CCTV showed the missing object fell into a bucket and was accidentally thrown out with the rubbish from where it was later recovered.

It turned out that no-one was responsible.

Masteroid · 10-03-2013 01:21AM

J C wrote: »

This article explains in greater detail than this medium allows why Miller-Urey used the wrong conditions and a great deal of ingenuity to produce the wrong products ... and it is now used by Creation Scientists as proof that Abiogenesis couldn't occur.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis

Like I said, scandalous!

And once again you choose to accept a journalist's musings over honest decent science.

There is much more than the Miller-Urey experiment, which contrary to what your article asserts, did produce amino acids, to support abiogenesis.

I'll say it again - not only should you not receive scientific funding, neither should you ever be allowed to teach children.

It's obscene how you are attempting to poison the chalice of knowledge and stunt the intellectual development of other human beings.

Quite disgraceful.

:mad:

Masteroid · 10-03-2013 01:32AM

J C wrote: »

If it could be proven that life could be spontaneously generated then the claims of the Creator God of the Bible would indeed be proven to be non-existent.

No it wouldn't. It would simply show that life could arise out of causes entirely governed by the laws of nature.

It would say nothing about 'God of the Bible'.

J C wrote: »

Speaking as a conventionally qualified scientist I can confirm that there is not the least chance of this ever occurring ... but the average 'man in the street' believes that it is about to occur, if it hasn't already ... such is the strength of the wall to wall hype surrounding the Abiogenesis/Evolution bandwagon.

No JC, there is nothing in the least bit scientific about you as illustrated by the claim that you can confirm the impossibility of something.

And who are you confirming?

Let us begin again. Do you believe that the bible answers all the questions concerning creation?

J C · 10-03-2013 01:48AM

Masteroid wrote: »

Like I said, scandalous!

And once again you choose to accept a journalist's musing over honest decent science.

There is much more than the Miller-Urey experiment which, contrary to what your article asserts, did produce amino acids.

The article did say that a racemate of Amino Acids were produced and left-handed sugars and right-handed amino acids can be toxic. It said:-
"In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended. The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (-CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions."

Masteroid wrote: »

I'll say it again - not only should you not receive scientific funding, neither should you ever be allowed to teach children.

This idea that teaching Christianity to children is a form of 'child abuse' is a recurrent and very sinister notion promoted by some Atheists. Its quite outrageous and should be roundly condemned whenever it's encountered.

Masteroid wrote: »

It's obscene how you are attempting to poison the chalice of knowledge and stunt the intellectual development of other human beings.

... so telling somebody that they are a much-loved special creation of an omnipotent God will stunt their development ... but tellling them that they are descended from a slimeball and an Ape will somehow add to their self-esteem???

What 'poisoned chalice of knowledge' are you talking about anyway?

J C · 10-03-2013 01:59AM

Masteroid wrote: »

No it wouldn't. It would simply show that life could arise out of causes entirely governed by the laws of nature.

It would say nothing about 'God of the Bible'.

If Abiogenesis were proven, that would rule out the Creator God of the Bible.
Indeed, the idea that Abiogenesis might be true, is one of the greatest 'recruiting agents' for Atheism.

Lucy8080 · 10-03-2013 02:39AM

I find it surprising that " life did itself" is abhorrent to a creationist.

Reality, by definition, would be something unchanging/uncaused. No scientist or literalist would have a problem with such a definition.

The insistence on giving reality "agency"...may be the creationists downfall.

The beam in the eye ....so to speak.

Masteroid · 10-03-2013 06:03AM

J C wrote: »

The article did say that a racemate of Amino Acids were produced and left-handed sugars and right-handed amino acids can be toxic. It said:- ..

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

"
This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[16] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[17] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[18]
There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller–Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at The Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0066cc]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 14, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[19] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture.[20]
More recent experiments by chemists Jeffrey Bada and Jim Cleaves at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (in La Jolla, CA) were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[8]"

You should lift your head out of the creationist sand and see what's going on in the real world of science.

J C wrote: »

This idea that teaching Christianity to children is a form of 'child abuse' is a recurrent and very sinister notion promoted by some Atheists. Its quite outrageous and should be roundly condemned whenever it's encountered.

It's the idea of you teaching I find abhorrant..

You don't understand science so you can't teach that. But you'll try to misinform impressionable people with your unscientific dogma and they will believe it is science.

Shame on you.

You don't understand the bible so you can't teach religion either.

J C wrote: »

... so telling somebody that they are a much-loved special creation of an omnipotent God will stunt their development ... but tellling them that they are descended from a slimeball and an Ape will somehow add to their self-esteem???

... Yes and lying is a sin... and yes, teaching science is good.

J C wrote: »

What 'poisoned chalice of knowledge' are you talking about anyway?

You don't know about the chalice? Then... What chalice, I never mentioned a chalice. There is no chalice J C.

But don't touch it if you find it.

J C · 10-03-2013 01:40PM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I find it surprising that "life did itself" is abhorrent to a creationist.

It isn't abhorrent ... its just incorrect IMO.
However, as I am a liberal and a believer in Academic Freedom, I have no issue with Evolutionists pursuing research to try and prove the "life did itself" ... all I'm asking for, is that the alternative hypothesis that 'God did it' be given some respect and parity of esteem.
The current situation within 'origins' conventional science is analagous to a church controlling the distribution of public money for 'origins' research ... and making it a condition that only supernatural causes can be researched.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Reality, by definition, would be something unchanging/uncaused. No scientist or literalist would have a problem with such a definition.

The insistence on giving reality "agency"...may be the creationists downfall.

The beam in the eye ....so to speak.

I'm not sure what you mean ... please explain and expand.

J C · 10-03-2013 02:21PM

Masteroid wrote: »

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

"
This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[16] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[17] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[18]
There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller–Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at The Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0066cc]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 14, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[19] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture.[20]
More recent experiments by chemists Jeffrey Bada and Jim Cleaves at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (in La Jolla, CA) were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[8]"

... as far as I can see the summary that I posted is an accurate account of the results ... and after hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.
Nothing in your posting denies that this is the case.

Masteroid wrote: »

You should lift your head out of the creationist sand and see what's going on in the real world of science.

You should take your own advice!!!

Masteroid wrote: »

It's the idea of you teaching I find abhorrant..

You don't understand science so you can't teach that. But you'll try to misinform impressionable people with your unscientific dogma and they will believe it is science.

Shame on you.

You don't understand the bible so you can't teach religion either.

... Yes and lying is a sin... and yes, teaching science is good.

By the sound of it, you probably find the fact that I exist 'abhorrent' ... but there you go, I'm here ... and there are millions of Christians like me ... within all of the Churches of the World

... and I've defeated you guys on every point you have made about the scientific validity of your worldview.

Your posting adds nothing to your attempt to 'shore up' the case for Spontaneous Evolution ... and merely contains more ad hominems than you could shake a stick at.

So are we to conclude that when the Atheists and their fellows take over our schools that Christians won't be allowed to teach in them any more ... on the spurious basis that they don't 'understand' the Atheist version of the Christian Faith and 'origins' Science?

Masteroid wrote: »

You don't know about the chalice? Then... What chalice, I never mentioned a chalice. There is no chalice J C.

But don't touch it if you find it.

You said this:

Originally Posted by Masteroid
It's obscene how you are attempting to poison the chalice of knowledge and stunt the intellectual development of other human beings.

Please say what you mean ... and mean what you say.

Masteroid · 10-03-2013 05:14PM

J C wrote: »

... as far as I can see the summary that I posted is an accurate account of the results ... and after hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.
Nothing in your posting denies that this is the case.

By the sound of it, you probably find the fact that I exist 'abhorrent' ... but there you go, I'm alive ... and there are millions like me ...

... and I've defeated you guys on every point you have made about the scientific validity of your nihilist worldview.

Your posting adds nothing to your attempt to 'shore up' the case for Spontaneous Evolution ... and merely contains more ad hominems than you could shake a stick at.
Indeed, you sound like a caricature of your own prejudices ... posing as some kind of latter-day 'bishop' determining who can and cannot teach religion. Your audacity knows no bounds!!!

So are we to conclude that when the Atheists take over our schools that Christians won't be allowed to teach in them any more ... on the spurious basis that they don't 'understand' either the Christian Faith or the Atheist version of 'origins' Science?

You said this:

Originally Posted by Masteroid
It's obscene how you are attempting to poison the chalice of knowledge and stunt the intellectual development of other human beings.

Please stop messing about ... and say what you mean ... and mean what you say.

BTW, I know all about your 'chalice of knowledge' ... and the less said about it, the better.

I'd leave the interpretation of experimental data to the real scientists if I were you.

J C · 10-03-2013 05:31PM

Masteroid wrote: »

I'd leave the interpretation of experimental data to the real scientists if I were you.

You keep (conveniently) forgetting that I am a real scientist.

Anyway, BTAIM, how have I 'misinterpreted' the results of Miller-Urey, et al?

... and, for your own sake, I'd stop dabbling with the 'chalice of knowledge', if I were you.

The Concrete Doctor · 10-03-2013 07:16PM

J C wrote: »

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.

JC why do you use Terms like "Conventional" when describing scientific research? Science is science.
There may well be many other dimensions which science has not discovered yet. These dimensions may exist outside the current laws of physics. Science is trying to investigate this possibility. As soon as any evidence is discovered it will be published and perhaps, some laws may need to be revised or even completely re-written. That is what science does. It does not "hide" important discoveries because of religious beliefs. If any irrefutable evidence for supernatural beings was discovered it would be sensational and there is no way any scientist would attempt to hide it, Au Contraire, my friend. Anyone who discovers or proves the existence of any supernatural entity, would be feted and would be odds-on to win a Nobel prize for their efforts.
Indeed, if there was any proof that the Biblical Stories of men living for 900 years, or any other such tales, (talking bushes, talking serpents etc), do you really think it would be kept secret?
The most influential media devise in history is television. There are stations dedicated to scientific information, Discovery and National Geographic being two of the most prominent. They show countless programmes outlining the beginning of the Universe and early life on Earth. Really interesting material. Do you really believe that they would hold back, if there was proof that the biblical accounts were true? Not a chance!
The way you operate JC, is to deny established history, but if any programme, even one in a thousand, was presented, which offered a chink of light to your argument, you would ignore the other thousand and present that one show as the conclusive proof of your argument.

J C · 10-03-2013 08:29PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

JC why do you use Terms like "Conventional" when describing scientific research? Science is science.
There may well be many other dimensions which science has not discovered yet. These dimensions may exist outside the current laws of physics. Science is trying to investigate this possibility. As soon as any evidence is discovered it will be published and perhaps, some laws may need to be revised or even completely re-written. That is what science does. It does not "hide" important discoveries because of religious beliefs. If any irrefutable evidence for supernatural beings was discovered it would be sensational and there is no way any scientist would attempt to hide it, Au Contraire, my friend. Anyone who discovers or proves the existence of any supernatural entity, would be feted and would be odds-on to win a Nobel prize for their efforts.

As science is currently structured this is never going to happen ... hypotheses involving the supernatural are simply never countenanced within science ... so even if God exists and Created life ... science can never discover this ... because hypotheses based on the theory that 'God did it' simply aren't funded or allowed within conventional science.

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Indeed, if there was any proof that the Biblical Stories of men living for 900 years, or any other such tales, (talking bushes, talking serpents etc), do you really think it would be kept secret?

These were once off manifestations of God and Satan that left no permanent physical trace of their existence - and thus aren't amenable to scientific investigation.
However, the Creation of God is still physically manifest in the World and it is therefore amenable to scientific investigation.
The fact that this research is not only not pursued in science ... but is actually banned ... contradicts your claim that science would award anything but scorn upon anybody discovering the 'fingerprints of God' within Creation ... or even attempting to do so.
One only has to look at the deeply personal remarks directed at ID pioneers on this thread to see how, at least some people, within conventional science 'cherishes' anybody asking scientific questions about the existence of God.
... and I haven't seen too many people rushing to dissociate themselves from the remarks either.

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

The most influential media devise in history is television. There are stations dedicated to scientific information, Discovery and National Geographic being two of the most prominent. They show countless programmes outlining the beginning of the Universe and early life on Earth. Really interesting material. Do you really believe that they would hold back, if there was proof that the biblical accounts were true? Not a chance!

They report on conventional science's interpretations of research results ... and as the research is never performed on the 'God Hypothesis' ... these programmes literally have nothing to report on this issue.

maguffin · 10-03-2013 11:18PM

J C wrote: »

... because hypotheses based on the theory that 'God did it' simply aren't funded or allowed within conventional science.

Why this obsession with funding....it dominates your answers to the exclusion of rational thought on a subject that really could be interesting.

The fact that this research is not only not pursued in science ... but is actually banned ...

PROOF please!!! you have failed miserably in this request previously!!

J C · 11-03-2013 12:00AM

maguffin wrote: »

Why this obsession with funding....it dominates your answers to the exclusion of rational thought on a subject that really could be interesting.

Funding is an 'acid test' of respect and equality of esteem ... neither of which exist at present for the 'God Hypothesis' within conventional 'origins' science.

maguffin wrote: »

PROOF please!!! you have failed miserably in this request previously!!

Its a working assumption within Conventional Science that supernatural explanations aren't countenanced ... this is denied by nobody ... or are you denying it?

The day that ID research is funded by conventional science, I'll happily withdraw the claim that the 'God Hypothesis' is banned within Conventional Science.

The Concrete Doctor · 11-03-2013 12:46AM

JC, If these events were once off manifestations, that left no trace, as you say, how do you know they happened?

Brian Shanahan · 11-03-2013 12:46AM

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, whether you have "conventional qualifications" in a scientific discipline is by the by.

He doesn't. What he is doing by making that term is known in technical terms as lying.

If he had scientific qualifications (of any sort) he'd know much better than to be spouting the nonsense he is here.

The Concrete Doctor · 11-03-2013 12:51AM

What type of scientific research would you like to see undertaken JC?

J C · 11-03-2013 12:52AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

JC, If these events were once off manifestations, that left no trace, as you say, how do you know they happened?

I don't know personally ... but I know somebody who does ... and He has said that it happened ... and I believe Him.

J C · 11-03-2013 12:54AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

What type of scientific research would you like to see undertaken JC?

Go ask the ID and Theistic Evolutionists what they want to do.

Please leave me out of it.

J C · 11-03-2013 12:54AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If he had scientific qualifications (of any sort) he'd know much better than to be spouting the nonsense he is here.

Why so?

Masteroid · 11-03-2013 02:31AM

J C wrote: »

You keep (conveniently) forgetting that I am a real scientist.

No JC, you keep (conveniently) forgetting that you are not really a real scientist.

maguffin · 11-03-2013 08:24AM

J C wrote: »

Funding is an 'acid test' of respect and equality of esteem ... neither of which exist at present for the 'God Hypothesis' within conventional 'origins' science.

Nonsense!! Respect and equality is earned and given to those who show by repeated experiment with repeatable, reproducable results that the hypothesis they are presenting is viable.

Its a working assumption within Conventional Science that supernatural explanations aren't countenanced

An assumption is not proof!! If you want to be respected and be held as equal then you must provide proof!!

The day that ID research is funded by conventional science, I'll happily withdraw the claim that the 'God Hypothesis' is banned within Conventional Science.

By definition the 'god hypothesis' is un-conventional in that it deals with matters of faith and religion-based theories. It needs support from un-conventional science.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments