The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 13-03-2013 11:08PM

koth wrote: »

Why would scientists willingly attempt to hobble their own work with possible detrimental effects for their work and the work of any other group who bases their work on the faulty findings?

If God did it ... what kind of 'hobbling' would this cause to scientific work?

doctoremma · 13-03-2013 11:09PM

J C wrote: »

It's certainly possible to scientifically prove that an 'Intelligence did it'

No, no it isn't.

It's a very simple principle: science cannot 'prove' anything, and it certainly can't prove a positive.

Evolution isn't 'proven' to be correct: it's a theory that explains the diversity of life we see on Earth. And it's a theory with a lot - and I mean a lot - of evidence to support it. But formally 'proven'? No. We're only 99.99999% sure that the theory represents truth.

The scientific method is based on the falsification of existing hypotheses and theories. Knowledge is built from the bottom up ('that's not true'), not inserted from the top down ('therefore god/aliens/my mum did it').

doctoremma · 13-03-2013 11:14PM

J C wrote: »

I think the correct divisions are :-
Operative Science ---> Biology, Chemistry, Physics ... and all their branches sub-branches.

'Origins' Science ---> Abiogenesis / Materialistic Evolution from Molecules to Man ... Theistic Evolution/ID/Creation Science.

Abiogenesis = chemistry. Evolution = chemistry/biology. Why are you separating this from 'operative science' (whatever the fudge THAT is).

J C · 13-03-2013 11:21PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Abiogenesis = chemistry. Evolution = chemistry/biology. Why are you separating this from 'operative science' (whatever the fudge THAT is).

Abiogenesis is a theory based on the assumption that God doesn't exist and therefore life had to arise using materialistic processes.
The weaknesses include the assumption that God doesn't exist ... the fact that Abiogenesis has never been observed to occur ... and the probability that it ever happened is Zero ... apart from that ...
... its a great idea, in the opinion of many Atheists!!!

J C · 13-03-2013 11:28PM

doctoremma wrote: »

The scientific method is based on the falsification of existing hypotheses and theories. Knowledge is built from the bottom up ('that's not true'), not inserted from the top down ('therefore god/aliens/my mum did it').

I'm certain that 'My mum did it' when I was born ... so knowledge can be built from both the top down ... and the bottom up.

Science can be legitimately used to falsify existing hypotheses ... like 'Molecules to Man' Evolution ... or to verify new hypotheses like the Intelligent Design of life.
Creation Scientists have done both.

ManMade · 14-03-2013 12:01AM

J C wrote: »

I'm certain that 'My mum did it' when I was born ... so knowledge can be built from both the top down ... and the bottom up.

Science can be legitimately used to falsify existing hypotheses ... like 'Molecules to Man' Evolution ... or to verify new hypotheses like the Intelligent Design of life.
Creation Scientists have done both.

If they have why does no one is the scientific community accept it. Answer: God hasn't been proven. If he had atheism would not be on the rise.

Evolution a theory constantly being revised, improved and corrected. Just because current science has not nailed it 100% .Noah's ark is not an alternative!

The bible doesn't contain the truth of of origin and never will be viewed like that again by any scientist.

Lucy8080 · 14-03-2013 03:33AM

J C wrote: »

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.

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

hi j.c. ,

If "life" doing itself is incorrect in your opinion...why should anyone accept that "god " did itself/himself/herself?

Explain the difference to me please.

Masteroid · 14-03-2013 03:43AM

J C wrote: »

... because the 'God did it' hypotheses is the mirror image of the 'God didn't do it' hypothesis.

But there isn't a 'God didn't do it' hypothesis as that would be no more scientific than your own position.

And what would be the reflection of a hypothesis that doesn't exist?

What does 'nothing' look like in a mirror?

Delirium · 14-03-2013 08:14AM

J C wrote: »

If God did it ... what kind of 'hobbling' would this cause to scientific work?

you misunderstand. I'm asking why scientists would engage in bad science? You're suggesting that they're finding evidence of God and suppressing the evidence. That will hobble any work that is baaed on the results of the research as all of the data isn't available.

Why would scientists be so unprofessional?

J C · 14-03-2013 09:33AM

Masteroid wrote: »

But there isn't a 'God didn't do it' hypothesis as that would be no more scientific than your own position.

And what would be the reflection of a hypothesis that doesn't exist?

What does 'nothing' look like in a mirror?

The scientific hypotheses to test the 'God did/didn't do it' question is 'An Intelligence did it' ... and ... 'it did itself' ... they are 'both flip sides' of the same coin.
... and yes, I appreciate that, if an Intelligence(s) are found to have done it, this doesn't prove that it was the God of the Bible ... but it certainly points in that direction.
... 'nothing' looks like Abiogenesis ... and in a mirror it looks like God.

J C · 14-03-2013 09:35AM

koth wrote: »

you misunderstand. I'm asking why scientists would engage in bad science? You're suggesting that they're finding evidence of God and suppressing the evidence. That will hobble any work that is baaed on the results of the research as all of the data isn't available.

Why would scientists be so unprofessional?

It would only be 'bad science' to a practical atheist ... due to their assumption that God doesn't exist and that all 'origins' science should be based on this working assumption.

Delirium · 14-03-2013 09:40AM

J C wrote: »

It would only be 'bad science' to a practical atheist ... due to their assumption that God doesn't exist and that all 'origins' science should be based on this working assumption.

Wow:eek:

You're saying that suppressing evidence is only bad science if an atheist does it? And you have the stones to complain about bias?

And you didn't answer the question as to why scientists would deliberatetly corrupt their research to protect their worldview?

doctoremma · 14-03-2013 09:52AM

J C wrote: »

Abiogenesis is a theory based on the assumption that God doesn't exist and therefore life had to arise using materialistic processes.
The weaknesses include the assumption that God doesn't exist ... the fact that Abiogenesis has never been observed to occur ... and the probability that it ever happened is Zero ... apart from that ...
... its a great idea, in the opinion of many Atheists!!!

Abiogenesis is the theory that life arose from inorganic matter. All the experiments performed in this field are designed to test (via experimentation) the plausibility of the theory and investigate mechanisms/conditions by which abiogenesis could occur. That's it. It doesn't encompass any position on god. It doesn't state that life HAD to arise by materialistic processes (even if its aim is to demonstrate that this is possible).

The 'mirror image' hypothesis would be 'god caused the first life to be produced', not 'life didn't arise from inorganic matter'. Although you probably think these are the same things.

If you wish to test the 'mirror image' hypothesis, please outline the experiments you might perform to support your hypothesis.

You can't. But that premise confuses you. You think that the criticism levelled at abiogenesis experiments - a perfectly valid thing to do in science - somehow represents evidence to support the correct, not your version of, the 'mirror image' hypothesis. It doesn't. That's all. You can bluster all you want, but in science terms, you're saying something at the level of 'black = white'. That's why the scientific world laughs at creationism.

Brian Shanahan · 14-03-2013 10:37AM

starskey77 wrote: »

whats deism something to do with voltaire

Deism is the theological hypothesis that there is an omnipotent god (or set of gods) which created the universe but after that left it to its own devices.

If you think of it in biblical terms it would read "...and on the Seventh Day, God took up his Stratocaster and spent the rest of eternity jamming with Jimi Hendrix and W.A. Mozart."

doctoremma · 14-03-2013 10:57AM

JC, I have an analogy for you (one used frequently in such debates, I'm sure).

Imagine an 'origins' seesaw. The seat at one end is labelled 'God did it' and the seat at the other end is labelled 'Nature did it'. They are two competing hypotheses to explain the origins of life.

Each piece of experimental data is represented by a weight, which can be placed at the appropriate end, to tip the balance of the seesaw in its favour. The end of the seesaw which has the most weight is the hypothesis we consider 'most likely to be correct'.

Let's place the weight labelled 'Urey-Miller experiment', which would initially be put on the 'Nature did it' end. Finding a flaw or serious critique of the experimental data would mean one can remove that weight from the 'Nature did it' end.

The 'Urey-Miller' weight is therefore placed on the floor. It is not, under any rule of the scientific method, placed on the 'God did it' end of the seesaw. This is because we are only examining two possible hypotheses, and we cannot exclude the possibility that there exists a second seesaw, with another two seats labelled with alternative hypotheses, on which that weight should go.

The converse situation is also true. The 'CSI' weight was placed on the 'Gid did it' end. With the amount of flaws found in this data, that weight had to be removed. That weight was not moved to the 'Nature did it' end, it was put back on the floor.

The floor represents the respective null hypotheses for both ends of the seesaw, the 'default' to which the weights are returned when they cannot reasonably be used to tip the ends of the seesaw. It is the null hypothesis linked to 'Nature did it' ('Nature didn't do it') that you are confusing for your end of the seesaw. They are not the same things, they aren't the same type of hypothesis and they can't be conflated.

Do you understand?

J C · 14-03-2013 07:55PM

ManMade wrote: »

If they have why does no one is the scientific community accept it. Answer: God hasn't been proven.

An Intelligence of God-like proportions has been mathematically proven to be the creator of all life .

ManMade wrote: »

If he had atheism would not be on the rise.

... and therein lies the rub ... God has effectively been proven to exist ... but Atheists have 'turf' to protect ... so they shout loudly, like on this thread, and 'rubbish' the scientists who have found this ... because they are unable to 'rubbish' what they have found.

ManMade wrote: »

Evolution a theory constantly being revised, improved and corrected. Just because current science has not nailed it 100% .Noah's ark is not an alternative!

The bible doesn't contain the truth of of origin and never will be viewed like that again by any scientist.

Evolution is constantly being revised to 'paper over the cracks' that constantly emerge, as real life invalidates its 'Big Picture' claims one by one.
The truth that an Intelligence of God-like proportions created life is now beyond question.

J C · 14-03-2013 08:02PM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

hi j.c. ,

If "life" doing itself is incorrect in your opinion...why should anyone accept that "god " did itself/himself/herself?

Explain the difference to me please.

The point is that scientists shouldn't accept either hypothesis without evidence.
Evolution has been assumed to account for the assumed contiuum between Pondkind and Mankind ... when it is only capable of accounting for speciation/variation within Kinds using pre-existing genetic diversity.
The Intelligent Design Hypothesis has effectively proven the actions of an Intelligence of Divine proportions by analysing the CFSI of life.

J C · 14-03-2013 08:06PM

koth wrote: »

you misunderstand. I'm asking why scientists would engage in bad science? You're suggesting that they're finding evidence of God and suppressing the evidence. That will hobble any work that is baaed on the results of the research as all of the data isn't available.

Why would scientists be so unprofessional?

They're not looking for evidence of God, in the first place ... so they won't find it ... and thus they neatly avoid any issues of 'unprofessionalism' as a result.

They don't allow the question of God to be asked ... so they don't need to worry about the answer.

J C · 14-03-2013 08:11PM

koth wrote: »

Wow:eek:

You're saying that suppressing evidence is only bad science if an atheist does it? And you have the stones to complain about bias?

And you didn't answer the question as to why scientists would deliberatetly corrupt their research to protect their worldview?

Evidence isn't being suppressed by either side ... but both 'origins' questions are equally valid ... and should be asked (Did an Intelligence do it? or Did it do it itself?)

J C · 14-03-2013 08:30PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Abiogenesis is the theory that life arose from inorganic matter. All the experiments performed in this field are designed to test (via experimentation) the plausibility of the theory and investigate mechanisms/conditions by which abiogenesis could occur. That's it.

How very convenient for Atheism!!
... but 'that's not it' ... and this is not where it ends ... the fact that Abiogenesis research has failed miserably to produce anything remotely resembling life ... with all of the ingenuity and resources that science can muster is very significant ... in that it effectively proves beyond all doubt that materialistic processes (and even Human levels of intelligence) couldn't produce life ... so Abiogenesis research has actually proven that the intelligence levels and ingenuity required to produce life are at God like levels of omnipotence and omnicience.

This is how the 'mirror image' works ... Atheists try to prove that Abiogenesis happens ... but when they fail dramatically despite applying everything that modern science can offer ... they actually prove that an inordinate Intelligence is required to produce life.

doctoremma wrote: »

You can bluster all you want, but in science terms, you're saying something at the level of 'black = white'. That's why the scientific world laughs at creationism.

Atheists laugh at Creationism ... because they lose every time the debate gets down to seriously evaluating the evidence.

Welcome to the 'mirror image' Emma.

Delirium · 14-03-2013 08:34PM

J C wrote: »

They're not looking for evidence of God, in the first place ... so they won't find it ... and thus neatly avoid any issues of 'unprofessionalism' as a result.

But they shouldn't be looking for God anyways, they should be examining the evidence to see where it leads rather than try to fit data to a predetermined conclusion.

They don't allow the question of God to be asked ... so they don't need to worry about the answer.

That's not true as you've been asked as to how they would ask the question of "did God do it?" in the form of experiments. It's not that they're not allowed rather they can't do the science.

J C wrote: »

Evidence isn't being suppressed by either side ... but both 'origins' questions are equally valid ... and should be asked (Did an Intelligence do it? or Did it do it itself?)

No, "did God do (or not do) it" shouldn't be a consideration. Examine the evidence through experimentation to determine the answer.

tim3000 · 14-03-2013 08:43PM

Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean God did it. There are plenty of things about the world the universe and even made made creations that I simply don't understand. But I do not immediately jump to the conclusion that a deity is responsible for it and that I should accept this. Instead I ask questions like why does this happen and eventually I may even hypothesis my own solution. Questioning the world around you is the very essence of science.

However Evolution/Science and belief are not irreconcilable worldviews. Humanity has always believed in some deity or other and has had corresponding ideas as to the initial creation of the universe. I venture to ask as to why you don't believe in the the Egyptian version of creation? Or the version the Vikings had?

I don't believe in evolution I know it to be a fact. Natural History and Biological science do not make sense without this process. There is a wealth of information regarding this process on the internet, in the library and on the documentary channels.

In the age of information, Ignorance is a choice.

ManMade · 14-03-2013 09:04PM

J C wrote: »

An Intelligence of God-like proportions has been mathematically proven to be the creator of all life .

... and therein lies the rub ... God has effectively been proven to exist ... but Atheists have 'turf' to protect ... so they shout loudly, like on this thread, and 'rubbish' the scientists who have found this ... because they are unable to 'rubbish' what they have found.

Evolution is constantly being revised to 'paper over the cracks' that constantly emerge, as real life invalidates its 'Big Picture' claims one by one.
The truth that an Intelligence of God-like proportions created life is now beyond question.

Ffs there is so much wrong in that. I refuse to correct it all.
1. God has not been proven and most likely doesn't exist.
2. Evolution is a fact. Creationists choose to live in ignorance and backward thinking.
3. Scientists are open minded. Religion is close minded and conservative.
4. God has not been proven by maths. That is simple not true.

5. Just wow.. "Evolution is constantly being revised to 'paper over the cracks' that constantly emerge"???!! You believe in creationism are you insane?!??

doctoremma · 14-03-2013 09:14PM

J C wrote: »

How very convenient for Atheism!!
... but 'that's not it' ... and this is not where it ends ... the fact that Abiogenesis research has failed miserably to produce anything remotely resembling life ... with all of the ingenuity and resources that science can muster is very significant ... in that it effectively proves beyond all doubt that materialistic processes (and even Human levels of intelligence) couldn't produce life ... so Abiogenesis research has actually proven that the intelligence levels and ingenuity required to produce life are at God like levels of omnipotence and omnicience.

I'll assume you wrote that before you read my analogy about science, hypotheses and null hypotheses. I await your revision.

That's assuming you understand my analogy. But I reckon a ten year old should manage it.

J C · 14-03-2013 10:37PM

koth wrote: »

But they shouldn't be looking for God anyways, they should be examining the evidence to see where it leads rather than try to fit data to a predetermined conclusion.

Within science various hypotheses are tested ... and hypotheses involving the supernatural are banned ... this isn't examining the evidence to see where it leads.

koth wrote: »

That's not true as you've been asked as to how they would ask the question of "did God do it?" in the form of experiments. It's not that they're not allowed rather they can't do the science.

... the ID Proponents and Creation Scientists can do this science.

koth wrote: »

No, "did God do (or not do) it" shouldn't be a consideration. Examine the evidence through experimentation to determine the answer.

... either God exists and Created life ... or He doesn't exist and it created itself ... so the question whether God did or didn't do it is critical to the validity of the Atheist and Theist worldviews ... unfortunately it's a 'Zero Sum' ... and a positive answer in favour of the Theist position ... is a negative answer against the Atheist position and vice versa ... the stakes are high ... and that's why there is so much heat and friction on this thread ... but there is increasing light as well.

Delirium · 14-03-2013 10:47PM

J C wrote: »

Within science various hypotheses are tested ... and hypotheses involving the supernatural are banned ... this isn't examining the evidence to see where it leads.

No. The evidence so far hasn't lead to a supernatural explanation. This isn't the same as supernatural explanations being banned. If the evidence leads to where you suggest then the truth will out.

... the ID Proponents and Creation Scientists can do this science.

can you provide some examples of the experiments they've done to attempt to show evidence of God creating life?

... either God exists and Created life ... or He doesn't exist and it created itself ... so the question whether God did or didn't do it is critical to the validity of the Atheist and Theist worldviews ... unfortunately it's a 'Zero Sum' ... and a positive answer in favour of the Theist position ... is a negative answer against the Atheist position and vice versa ... the stakes are high ... and that's why there is so much heat and friction on this thread ... and increasing light as well.

But until we have a definitive answer about the origins of life, we can only use available evidence to form a scientific answer to the question.

J C · 14-03-2013 10:52PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I'll assume you wrote that before you read my analogy about science, hypotheses and null hypotheses. I await your revision.

That's assuming you understand my analogy. But I reckon a ten year old should manage it.

I don't accept your analogy ... the ID hypothesis has been validated and Miler-Urey proves that life could never spontaneously arise. the see saw is sitting with the ID side permanently weighed down with overwhelming evidence in it's favour and against its mirror image.

Delirium · 14-03-2013 10:56PM

J C wrote: »

I don't accept your analogy ... the ID hypothesis has been validated and Miler-Urey proves that life could never spontaneously arise. the see saw is sitting with the ID side permanently weighed down with overwhelming evidence in it's favour and against its mirror image.

Then why does the world of science disagree with your claims? Why is it no one has approached a reporter somewhere in the world to break the story of the century? I mean it has a global conspiracy at the heart of it, the papers will eat that up with a spoon.

J C · 14-03-2013 11:07PM

koth wrote: »

No. The evidence so far hasn't lead to a supernatural explanation. This isn't the same as supernatural explanations being banned. If the evidence leads to where you suggest then the truth will out.

The truth has out ... its just that conventional 'origins' science is ignoring it on the basis of the 'not invented here' syndrome

koth wrote: »

can you provide some examples of the experiments they've done to attempt to show evidence of God creating life?

Everything from invalidating the MTM Evolution Hypotheses to the discovery of CFSI to the finding that the 'Fossil Record' is a record of Flood burial rather than a history of life.

koth wrote: »

But until we have a definitive answer about the origins of life, we can only use available evidence to form a scientific answer to the question.

We now have a definite answer ... that Intelligence did it.

J C · 14-03-2013 11:12PM

koth wrote: »

Then why does the world of science disagree with your claims? Why is it no one has approached a reporter somewhere in the world to break the story of the century? I mean it has a global conspiracy at the heart of it, the papers will eat that up with a spoon.

There isn't a conspiracy ... the God Hypothesis simply isn't allowed in conventional origins science ... so there is no story to report.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments