Both sides [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

tgamble

March 19th 2003, 06:34 PM

Today @ 07:51 AM
Woman:

If I asked devout orthodox Christians who their modern leaders were...who to listen to, who to read to make me a believer, I'd no doubt get many different answers. What I probably would not get are referrals to Benny Hinn and Rod Parsley. Well, probably not a lot of them anyway.

What I am asking instead is of YEC's. I think there has been a resurgence in YEC belief in the last few decades and I want to know why. I don't understand it.

The guy to blame is Henry Morris. He's the one who ressurected the YEC nonsense in the 60's.

In an effort to understand how intelligent and educated people can believe creationism and not believe evolution.

Most don't! Those few that are educated in relevent areas reject what they learned because of a fanatical faith in the Bible.

"Bible-believing students of the biological sciences possess a guide for their interpretation of the available data, the Biblical record of Divine Creation contained in Genesis." --Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975, p. 69)

"The Christian student of origins approaches the evidence from geology and paleontology with the Biblical record in mind, interpreting that evidence in accord with the facts divinely revealed in the Bible" --Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975, p. 40)

"Creation science begins with wholly Biblical presuppositions and interprets data from all of reality, including science, within that framework." --Donald Chittick (Rohr, 1988, p. 156)

"If the Bible is the Word of God--and it is--and if Jesus Christ is the infallible and omniscient Creator--and He is--then it must be firmly believed that the world and all things in it were created in six natural days and that the long geological ages of evolutionary history never really took place at all." -- Henry Morris (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, 251)

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture." -- Henry Morris (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 15)

"It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework."--Henry Morris (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 184)

"While as scientists creationists must study as objectively as possible the actual data of geology, as Bible-believing Christians, we must also insist that those be correlated within the framework of Biblical revelation." --Henry Morris (Morris, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1974, p. 173, cited in Plaintiff's Pre- Trial Brief, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)

"We are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation." -- Henry Morris (Morris, 1966, p. 114)

"The instructed Christian knows that the evidences for full divine inspiration of Scripture are far weightier than the evidences for any fact of science. When confronted with the consistent Biblical testimony to a universal Flood, the believer must certainly accept is as unquestioningly true." -- John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 118)

"The final and conclusive evidence against evolution is the fact that the Bible denies it. The Bible is the Word of God, absolutely inerrant and verbally inspired." --Henry Morris (Morris, 1967, p. 55)

"We believe that the Bible, as the verbally inspired and completely inerrant Word of God, gives us the true framework of historical and scientific interpretation . . . We take this revealed framework of history as our basic dictum, and then try to see how all the pertinent data can be understood in this context." --John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. xxvi)

"Even though we emphasize the scientific aspects of creationism-- especially in our debates and campus seminars--we also stress the fact that all true science supports Biblical creationism as well . . . We believe that God's inerrant word must always prevail over the historical speculations of what the Bible calls 'science falsely so called'." --Henry Morris (Morris, Back to Genesis, October 1995)

"The only Bible-believing conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1- 11 is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed." --Henry Morris, (Morris 1972, p. 82)

"...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science
(1970) p.32-33

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the "facts" of science can contradict the Bible."
Henry Morris in the first paragraph of Scientists Confront Creationism
edited by Laurie R. Godfrey

Creationists simply don't CARE what the evidence shows. They believe the bible on pure blind faith.

Who are the leading creation scientists?

Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati. Basically anyone at ICR and answersingensis.

What is the kind of work being done in the field?

Creationists don't do field work. It's to dangerous! See, in previous organizations that were about science and religion, evolution was doubted until they did field work and realized that there was no global flood, that the earth was old and evolution was true. That's why Morris split away to form his own group where questioning of YEC dogma wasn't allowed.

"The creationist movement also does not like to talk about the scientists who leave after being given the opportunity to do real field research. In 1957, the Geoscience Research Institute was formed in order to search for evidence of Noah's Flood in the geological record. The project fell apart when both of the creationists involved with the project, P. Edgar Hare and Richard Ritland, completed their field research with the conclusion that fossils were much older than allowed under the creationist assertions, and that no geological or paleontological evidence of any sort could be found to indicate the occurrence of a world-wide flood. (Numbers, 1992, pp 291-293) Hare concluded, "We have been taught for years that almost everything in the geological record is the result of the Flood. I've seen enough in the field to realize that quite substantial portions of the geologic record are not the direct result of the Flood. We have also been led to believe . . . that the evidence for the extreme age of the earth is extremely tenuous and really not worthy of any credence at all. I have tried to make a rather careful study of this evidence over the past several years, and I feel that the evidence is not ambiguous but that it is just as clear as the evidence that the earth is round." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland, for his part, pointed out that Morris's book The Genesis Flood contained "flagrant errors which the uninitiated person is scarcely able to detect". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland concluded that further attempts to justify Flood geology would "only bring embarrassment and discredit to the cause of God". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 293)

A few years later, creationist biologists Carl Krekeler and William Bloom, who taught creationist biology at the Lutheran Church's Valparaiso University in Indiana, left after concluding that a literal interpretation of Genesis was not supported by any of the available scientific evidence. Krekeler concluded, "The documentation, not only of changes within a lineage such as horses, but of transitions between the classes of vertebrates-- particularly the details of the transition between reptiles and mammals--forced me to abandon thinking of evolution as occurring only within 'kinds'. " (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 302) Krekeler also criticized the creationist movement for the "dozens of places where half-truths are spoken, where quotations supporting the authors' views are taken from the context of books representing contrary views, and where there is misrepresentation." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 303) The two became theistic evolutionists, and later wrote a biology textbook which accepted evolutionary theory."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/whoare.htm

Where will I find the most persuasive arguments for a young earth? Or against evolution?

No such things! answersingensis and ICR make all kinds of nonsense claims to support a young earth and attack evolution. But they are typicaly based on lies, distortions, fabrications, misinterpretations, out of context quoting etc.

Bring them on. Hit me with your best shot. I will be as open-minded as possible given that I believe in an old earth and evolution.

Also, don't feel you have to just give me the most popular or easy to read scientist. I'm willing to dig a bit.

answersingensis and ICR are the two biggest groups. For a good laugh you could try drdino.com.

For refutations of their arguments, there are lots of proscience websites that debunk YEC nonsense. Just ask!

Be sure to check out their statements of faith. It really shows how biased they are and how little they care about actual evidence!

Woman

March 19th 2003, 06:58 PM

Dee Dee: Woman, would you like this thread to be moved to the Liberal Arts area which is a nondebate area? I am not sure what kind of interaction you are seeking.

Well, while my head was turned it seems the thread has taken on a life of its own. That's fine. I'm taking notes.
:teeth:

dizzle

March 19th 2003, 07:04 PM

Okay, I just wanted to make sure what your intentions were. If you wanted more easy-going Q&A this would not be the place for this thread.

Socrates

March 19th 2003, 11:00 PM

In reply to Woman's question about creationist scientists, see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

As for easy books, it depends on what interests you. If you want to understand why creationists see creation as a watershed issue for the Bible, see The Lie: Evolution. If you want a good scientific introduction, see Refuting Evolution. If you want answers to the most commonly asked questions about Genesis, Creation and Evolution, then see The Answers Book.

Socrates

March 19th 2003, 11:05 PM

Fact is, evolutionists DO believe that life arose from lifeless chemicals. That is called "chemical evolution" or sometimes "abiogenesis". This is part of the General Tehory of Evolution as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut. So Socratism is right to mention this, and teh bigoted misotheist BaldApe wrong to deny that chemical evolution is an aspect of evolution.

As for gamble's hatred, he is certainly wrong about creationists and fieldwork: a number of them have performed experiments on radiometric dating of rocks of known historical age, and showed that the methods fail. Dr Don Batten of Aig has performed experiments on hybridization, which is relevant to the boundaries of created kinds. In his case, he showed that two fruits which are classified into different genera under the man-made classification scheme are really a single biological species.

And yes, AiG admits that it is biased in favor of the Bible. But it points out that BOTH sides are biased. E.g. Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

and Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

Stratnerd

March 19th 2003, 11:22 PM

S- radiometric dating of rocks of known historical age, and showed that the methods fail. please explain a bit more - were these dates that radiometric techniques were expected to succeed?
Batten of Aig has performed experiments on hybridization, which is relevant to the boundaries of created kinds. In his case, he showed that two fruits which are classified into different genera under the man-made classification scheme are really a single biological species. maybe this is one of the reasons the biological species concept is being dropped. but i find the theoretical backing of using reproductive compatibility to indicate anything, other than reproductive compatibility, to be lacking.
“ Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Right, what's the problem? Hypotheses, if valid, should produce testable predictions. How is, as other have offered, an extra dimension where biological engineering takes place, testable? That's science... that's not to say if there was sufficient and obvious evidence that the supernatural was involved a person would not accept ID as an explanation. But there are explanations and there are hypotheses. Unfortunately, ID has hardly shown itself to be a proper explanation or a good hypotheses.

TheFiveSolas

March 19th 2003, 11:48 PM

Woman,
I would suggest the following debate between Dr. Lee Spetner (a creationists, Ph.D. Biophysics MIT) and Dr. Edward Max (evolutionist, not sure what his Ph.D. is in). The first link is part one, the second is obviously part two.

http://trueorigins.org/spetner1.htm

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

The following article by Dr. Royal Truman is also relevant to the above since it deals with an issue that came up during the debate.

http://www.trueorigin.org/b_cell_maturation.asp

Those are a good place to start.

TheFiveSolas

March 20th 2003, 12:10 AM

Woman,
For an excellent YEC defender I would recommend Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (creationist YEC'er, He is a recently retired theoretical physicist from Sandia National Laboratories)

His book Starlight and Time is a shortened less technical version of a technical paper he put out a few years ago.

Here is a short excerpt from an article describing his YEC theory.

Dr Humphreys’ new creationist cosmology literally ‘falls out’ of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge — that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center, as it appears to be as we look out into space.

This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular ("big bang") cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries — no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock?

His book, with a technical appendix can be purchased at Amazon.com for less than $10.

He has defended his theory against various physicist's criticisms which can be read at:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Socratism

March 20th 2003, 10:40 AM

Yesterday @ 05:29 PM
tgamble:

Or not. If you go by 9/11 [referring to God's Grace as a protective force for America]

I have been concerned for some time that the period of God's Grace for America may be coming to an end. In my opinion, the murder of so many innocent babies surely must be trying God's patience with this country to the extreme. When that patience ends and Grace is removed from the nation, the natural destructive forces of evil will then be free to give the nation that which it so richly deserves for its tolerance to this unspeakable internal Holocaust.

Compared to the tremendous slaughter of innocents in the abortion mills over the past 20 years or so, the tragic Jewish Holocaust was only a small "warmup" of evil.

Bald Ape

March 20th 2003, 11:50 AM

Socratism,

Out of curiosity - let's say a month from now congress managed to pass a bill (upheld by SCOTUS) that equated abortion (in any form) with 1st degree murder and punishable by death penalty, punished any act of homosexuality with prison, and any God-hate speech with exile. A month after that bill passes and is enforced to the letter nationwide, a terrorist manages to detonate a nuclear device in NYC, killing millions of people.

What would you blame that nuclear explosion on?

tgamble

March 20th 2003, 12:40 PM

Today @ 03:00 AM
Socrates:

In reply to Woman's question about creationist scientists, see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

Note that none of em of produced any actual evidence.

As for easy books, it depends on what interests you. If you want to understand why creationists see creation as a watershed issue for the Bible, see The Lie: Evolution. If you want a good scientific introduction, see Refuting Evolution. If you want answers to the most commonly asked questions about Genesis, Creation and Evolution, then see The Answers Book.
[/QUOTE]

For refutations of the lies in these books see talk.origins.or or scientific reviews.

Refuting evolution is refuted by reality
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/sarfati's_RE_reviewed_henke.htm

Ken Ham is either dishonest or ignorant. Maybe both!
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_and_home_schooling.htm

None of the books above have any actual evidence. Just the same tired old lies that have been refuted hundreds of times!

tgamble

March 20th 2003, 12:41 PM

Today @ 04:10 AM
TheFiveSolas:

Woman,
For an excellent YEC defender I would recommend Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (creationist YEC'er, He is a recently retired theoretical physicist from Sandia National Laboratories)

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

tgamble

March 20th 2003, 12:46 PM

Today @ 03:05 AM
Socrates:

Fact is, evolutionists DO believe that life arose from lifeless chemicals. That is called "chemical evolution" or sometimes "abiogenesis". This is part of the General Tehory of Evolution as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut.

So much for the lies. Now for the truth. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Look at it this way, if god created the first life, could evolution (common descent from that first life) still be true? Of course!

So Socratism is right to mention this, and teh bigoted misotheist BaldApe wrong to deny that chemical evolution is an aspect of evolution.

More insults and nastiness! Must come from a bitterness over having no evidence.

As for gamble's hatred,

Yet another false accusation.

he is certainly wrong about creationists and fieldwork: a number of them have performed experiments on radiometric dating of rocks of known historical age, and showed that the methods fail.

And real scientists have shown that their methodology is flawed and dishonest. Naturally, they can't get their work published as it's of such poor quality.

Dr Don Batten of Aig has performed experiments on hybridization, which is relevant to the boundaries of created kinds. In his case, he showed that two fruits which are classified into different genera under the man-made classification scheme are really a single biological species.

LOL!

[QUOTE\And yes, AiG admits that it is biased in favor of the Bible. But it points out that BOTH sides are biased.

Real scientists don't sign a statement of faith. Real scientists don't declare that evolution MUST be true regardless of any difficulty. Real scientists do science. Creationists do not.

tgamble

March 20th 2003, 12:52 PM

please explain a bit more - were these dates that radiometric techniques were expected to succeed?

See

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html

and

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/henke_on_woody.htm

for many examples of creationist dishonest concerning dating methods. They are desperate to refute em. It doesn't matter than even if they did, the earth would still be billions of years old. That estimate was made long ago!

Right, what's the problem?

The problem is that science excludes their creation myth.

Hypotheses, if valid, should produce testable predictions. How is, as other have offered, an extra dimension where biological engineering takes place, testable? That's science... that's not to say if there was sufficient and obvious evidence that the supernatural was involved a person would not accept ID as an explanation. But there are explanations and there are hypotheses. Unfortunately, ID has hardly shown itself to be a proper explanation or a good hypotheses.

You're right of course! Which is why creationists hate science so much and want to replace it with supernatural explanations.

Unless it involes dicease. Not to many still blame THAT on deamons! LOL!

Socrates

March 20th 2003, 10:36 PM

Our latest misotheistic spammer continues his fanatical tirades against creation. Not surprising that he relies heavily on a site by another fanatical God-hater called John Stear, who is also totally unqualified in science, and linked with the Australian Skeptics who have a long history of dishonesty and other unethical behavior. For a reason why the highly qualified scientists at AiG won't bother with them, see www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp. I intend to follow their example and ignore any trash on this gutter site (which appeals to gutter minds like tgamble's).

tgamble is also wilfully ignorant of the distinction between operational and origins science, and the fact that creationists would never resort to miraculous explanations for the former. And the former is the REAL science that cures diseases, put men on the moon, made technology, etc. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism

QED

March 20th 2003, 11:40 PM

from the AiG link:
It was once popular to claim that evolution was proved by over 180 useless ‘vestigial’ organs in the human body alone. However, the evolutionary assumption that an organ was ‘useless’ hindered research to find out the functions. Now, this list of 180 has shrunk to zero

yet, one of the links that went with this only discussed a few vestigial structures (each of which had some type of function), and the other said that the list had shrunk to "virtually none". Both were from AiG, but neither supported the author's contention.

If that author didn't have the good sense to stay off debate boards with his sloppy scholarship and misleading claims, I would challenge him to retract his statement, or else show a use for human earlobes, or dew claws in most dogs and some cats.

But all of this is off-topic. It was just one of the more interesting bits of the link. The point of the link was to make a case for a qualitative distinction between "operational" and "origins" science, quibbling over the term "intelligent" (as in design) in a computer analogy, and most notably, ignoring some of the actual facts that the modern synthesis and common descent were proposed to explain: the existence of a process which maintains unity while promoting diversity - a process still at work today.Yes, evolution is often-times an "historical" science (which also requires methodological naturalism - see forensic science for corroboration), and is therefore somewhat distinct in some regards from science dealing with temporally symmetric phenomena. No, that does not remove it from the realm of "true" science, nor do we find it exempt on that basis from the requirements of methodological naturalism (as per the case they hoped to make). I will paraphrase them for the sake of demonstrating the fallacy:

To explain further: the laws that govern the operation of a computer are not those that governed the making of the computer in the first place. Lerner’s statement is like saying that if we concede that a computer had a supernatural designer, then we might not analyse a computers making in terms of human design and manufacturing processes rooted in engineering and in the laws of nature upon which engineering depends, and might think that supernatural beings created computers and magically placed them on the shelves of office supply chain stores. Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally supernaturally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc... just because our willingness to accept supernatural causes without subjecting them to the rigor of science, leaves us without convincing criteria that that life works by the laws of chemistry, instead of by the continual intervention of supernatural beings on the microscopic scale.

This is where I leave off from the paraphase, and will merely quote this graduate from the university of the bleeding obvious:

Conversely, the fact that the coding machinery works according to reproducible laws of chemistry does not prove that the laws of chemistry were sufficient to build such a system from a primordial soup.

And no one says that it does. The fact that we can often find naturalistic explanations for historical phenomena (not limited to causes of death, the origins of computers, or introduction of the unity and diversity of life on earth) does tell us something about whether we should bother with a research program into abiogenesis, and look for evidence of a naturalistic origin of life. When a method has proven to work over and over again, always try to apply it to the next question, no matter what criticisms you might hear from the naysayers.

TheFiveSolas

March 21st 2003, 12:56 AM

tgamble,
The link you gave above was to a critique of Dr. Russell Humphreys' theory by Dr. Hugh Ross and graduate student Mr. Samuel R. Connor.

Dr. Humphreys has successfully rebutted the criticism(s) voiced in the article you linked to AND subsequent articles, including a detailed exchange in CEN Technical Journal.

Here is the link (again) that I originally posted which includes detailed rebuttals to Connor and Ross and their exchange in CEN.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Socrates

March 21st 2003, 01:37 AM

QED the Quisling changes the topic from origins v operations science to divert on vestigial organs:
It was once popular to claim that evolution was proved by over 180 useless ‘vestigial’ organs in the human body alone. However, the evolutionary assumption that an organ was ‘useless’ hindered research to find out the functions. Now, this list of 180 has shrunk to zero

yet, one of the links that went with this only discussed a few vestigial structures (each of which had some type of function), and the other said that the list had shrunk to "virtually none". Both were from AiG, but neither supported the author's contention. How pathetic -- the links were CONSISTENT with the author's contention. Of course, showing functions for the best known allegedly "vestigial" organs goes a LONG way from refuting the evolutionary claim. And this claim of 180 was paraded at the Scopes Trial.

If that author didn't have the good sense to stay off debate boards with his sloppy scholarship and misleading claims,More likely, the good sense not to waste time with vexatious critics who claim to be Christian, yet when Christ says "black" He really meant "White", and other vexatious critics who raise the same boring old arguments like "all change is evolution", and yet others like that gormless gamble who just throws out scurrilous accusations without a smidgen of support (and with the approval of the likes of QED)
I would challenge him to retract his statement, Where was the error?or else show a use for human earlobes, or dew claws in most dogs and some cats.Does he need to? Even if there is no KNOWN use, it doesn't follow that there IS no use, as has amply been shown for many other claimed "vestigial" organs. Also, at best they would show LOSS of information.

But all of this is off-topic.Yeah, you got that right. What a surprise coming from the Quisling. It was just one of the more interesting bits of the link. The point of the link was to make a case for a qualitative distinction between "operational" and "origins" science, quibbling over the term "intelligent" (as in design) in a computer analogy, and most notably, ignoring some of the actual facts that the modern synthesis and common descent were proposed to explain: the existence of a process which maintains unity while promoting diversity - a process still at work today.I.e. observed to be sorting out information and removing it!!
Yes, evolution is often-times an "historical" science (which also requires methodological naturalism - see forensic science for corroboration),And like forensic science, reliable eye-witness evidence over-rules any circumstantial evidence. and is therefore somewhat distinct in some regards from science dealing with temporally symmetric phenomena. No, that does not remove it from the realm of "true" science, nor do we find it exempt on that basis from the requirements of methodological naturalism (as per the case they hoped to make).Yes it does, because they ignore eye-witness accounts to the contrary. And another point to the link was to show that accepting supernatural intervention at specific points in history does NOT mean we will accept it for experiments in the present. I will paraphrase them for the sake of demonstrating the fallacy:
The Quisling wouldn't know a fallacy if it grabbed him by the throat.

To explain further: the laws that govern the operation of a computer are not those that governed the making of the computer in the first place. Lerner’s statement is like saying that if we concede that a computer had a supernatural designer, then we might not analyse a computers making in terms of human design and manufacturing processes rooted in engineering and in the laws of nature upon which engineering depends, and might think that supernatural beings created computers and magically placed them on the shelves of office supply chain stores. Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally supernaturally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc... just because our willingness to accept supernatural causes without subjecting them to the rigor of science, leaves us without convincing criteria that that life works by the laws of chemistry, instead of by the continual intervention of supernatural beings on the microscopic scale.
This is where I leave off from the paraphase, and will merely quote this graduate from the university of the bleeding obvious:

Conversely, the fact that the coding machinery works according to reproducible laws of chemistry does not prove that the laws of chemistry were sufficient to build such a system from a primordial soup.
And no one says that it does.
:dufus: It was obviously an ANALOGY. The point was to make sure people understood that there was an in principle difference.
The fact that we can often find naturalistic explanations for historical phenomena (not limited to causes of death, the origins of computers, or introduction of the unity and diversity of life on earth) does tell us something about whether we should bother with a research program into abiogenesis, and look for evidence of a naturalistic origin of life. When a method has proven to work over and over again, always try to apply it to the next question, no matter what criticisms you might hear from the naysayers.
Has it worked? Another ipse dixit from the Quisling. OK then, there do we see life arising naturally from non-life, or motors arising without intelligent input? The point is, creationists would ALSO accept MN -- whereever the Bible is silent. But see no reason to adopt a self-serving atheistic assumption where the Bible speaks. Humph, QED believes in chemical evolution by BLIND faith, whereas my faith is firmly rooted in the historical evidence for Christ's Resurrection!

Woman

March 21st 2003, 03:02 AM

Thank you all very much for the names, resources and references you are providing.

Feel free to talk among yourselves while I read.

:teeth:

QED

March 21st 2003, 08:03 AM

Today @ 05:37 AM
Socrates:

QED the Quisling changes the topic from origins v operations science to divert on vestigial organs:

Again, small minded insults still do not increase your credibility here.

Me, previously: yet, one of the links that went with this only discussed a few vestigial structures (each of which had some type of function), and the other said that the list had shrunk to "virtually none". Both were from AiG, but neither supported the author's contention.
Socrates: How pathetic -- the links were CONSISTENT with the author's contention. Of course, showing functions for the best known allegedly "vestigial" organs goes a LONG way from refuting the evolutionary claim. And this claim of 180 was paraded at the Scopes Trial.

Actually the second link was INCONSISTENT with the author's claim. "Virtually none" means that there is a positive number of organs left on the list for which no function has been identified. This is different than the number "zero" which the author claimed.

Where was the error?

0 != any positive real number. That's the simple error.

Does he need to? Even if there is no KNOWN use, it doesn't follow that there IS no use, as has amply been shown for many other claimed "vestigial" organs. Also, at best they would show LOSS of information.

If his claim is that it has a use, then he is wrong unless there is a known use. Its true that "no use" doesn't follow from "no known use", but even more so "has a use" doesn't follow from "no known use".

Of course all of this a red herring, since vestigial structures are evidence of evolution by their vestigial character, not by their lack of function.

And its true that most do show what we could agree on in some form as a "loss of information". This isn't very important, because evolution doesn't require that every change gain information. Vestigial structures are not evidence of the evolution of novel structures - they are evidence of common descent.

The Quisling wouldn't know a fallacy if it grabbed him by the throat.

Compounding small minded insults doesn't do much for your credibility either. If one small minded insult in a sentence works against you, then you should consider whether two might work against you even more.

AiG: Conversely, the fact that the coding machinery works according to reproducible laws of chemistry does not prove that the laws of chemistry were sufficient to build such a system from a primordial soup.

Me, previously: And no one says that it does. The fact that we can often find naturalistic explanations for historical phenomena (not limited to causes of death, the origins of computers, or introduction of the unity and diversity of life on earth) does tell us something about whether we should bother with a research program into abiogenesis, and look for evidence of a naturalistic origin of life. When a method has proven to work over and over again, always try to apply it to the next question, no matter what criticisms you might hear from the naysayers.

Socrates: :dufus: It was obviously an ANALOGY. The point was to make sure people understood that there was an in principle difference.

An analogy??? Where? What is the primordial soup analogous to? What are we comparing to the chemical laws that govern the operation fo the 'coding machinery'? :dufus:

Or was the analogy the false one that I paraphrased further up? Where the hope was we would begin to think that the rules of scientific investigation are supposed to change depending on what sort of problem we are trying to solve, or whether the solution we are looking for might include "intelligence"?

Me, previously: The fact that we can often find naturalistic explanations for historical phenomena (not limited to causes of death, the origins of computers, or introduction of the unity and diversity of life on earth) does tell us something about whether we should bother with a research program into abiogenesis, and look for evidence of a naturalistic origin of life. When a method has proven to work over and over again, always try to apply it to the next question, no matter what criticisms you might hear from the naysayers.

Socrates: Has it worked? Another ipse dixit from the Quisling.

If this question was seriously asked by someone who had lived in a cave all of their life, then I would give them an emphatic yes. If they asked if they should believe me because "I said", then I would happily bring them some of the technological fruits of the successfulness of the methods of naturalistic science.

Since this question is coming from a person who is trying to make a case for creating an exception to the power of naturalistic investigation, then I will assume he is already aware of its power, and assume that this question was nothing more than bad faith rhetoric.

OK then, there do we see life arising naturally from non-life, or motors arising without intelligent input?

Who said we had? The former is what we hope to see based on our research program and methodology in abiogenesis, the latter is a red herring.

The point is, creationists would ALSO accept MN -- whereever the Bible is silent. But see no reason to adopt a self-serving atheistic assumption where the Bible speaks.

No, they accept MN even when the Bible is not silent (does this mean they adopt a self-serving atheistic assumption?), but inconsistently so. For instance, the Bible speaks of windows in the sky (with no scriptural context for believing the windows are not literal ones). But because godless science and its atheistic philosophy tell us with great certainty that there are no windows in the sky, these YEC's adopt an interpretation of the scripture that is consistent with their self-serving atheistic assumptions (that science might get some answers right, now & then). Same with Job's accounting of the pillars of earth (with no context to pretend these pillars that are being shook are actually people). These YEC's Godlessly interpret the temptation on the high mountain as a "vision", "a limited part of the world", or a "supernatural ability to see around the world", instead of faithfully reading the plain text that shows the height of the mountain was necessary in order to get the view of the entire earth.

Humph, QED believes in chemical evolution by BLIND faith, whereas my faith is firmly rooted in the historical evidence for Christ's Resurrection!

Actually, QED expects to eventually see success in the modeling of abiogenesis, because scientific modelling methods are very powerful. Socrates, on the other hand, hopes for that Gap never to be filled, so it will leave room for his God. He then engages in non sequitur to keep that from seeming lame.

QED

March 21st 2003, 08:20 AM

Oops.. in last post, I somehow managed to snip the "eye-witness testimony trumps forensic evidence" claim. Actually it doesn't always, but when eye-witness testimony is considered, it is considered within a naturalistic framework, with the application of a scientific method of attempted falsification. The witness is put on the stand not just to give testimony, but to be cross-examined. An effort is made to provide independent proof that the witness was at the scene. What is most important from a theological perspective: when the witness hasn't clearly stated that his words have a meaning in reference to the question being asked (but that they do have meaning in reference to other questions), we don't just assume that we understand him correctly, or correctly deduce the answers from his testimony, until we have asked him questions designed to clarify his meaning.

tgamble

March 21st 2003, 09:20 AM

Today @ 02:36 AM
Socrates:

Our latest misotheistic spammer continues his fanatical tirades against creation. Not surprising that he relies heavily on a site by another fanatical God-hater called John Stear, who is also totally unqualified in science, and linked with the Australian Skeptics who have a long history of dishonesty and other unethical behavior.

Not surprising that instead of responding to the factual information, you resort to insults and lies. I thought calling people spammers was against the rules if you didn't off any evidence. I guess you think you're above teh rules!

Stear may be unqualified (he's never pretended otherwise) but there are many articles written by professional scientists in many fields on the site. Such articles refute the childish nonsense that is AIG's dogma.

Because AIG can't refute the accurate information there, the best Sarfati managed is to throw a childish temper tantroum that consisted nothing more of personal attacks and insults.

For a reason why the highly qualified scientists at AiG won't bother with them, see www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp.

I already know why. They can't refute the facts with their lies. There aren't any "highly qualified" scientists at AIG. There a bunch of quacks with degrees in mostly irrelevent areas who reject science in favor of religious dogma.

tgamble is also wilfully ignorant of the distinction between operational and origins science, and the fact that creationists would never resort to miraculous explanations for the former.[/QUOTE[

Despite the fact that both operate on the same materialistic process. It is you who are willfully ignorant of how science works.

[QUOTE]And the former is the REAL science that cures diseases, put men on the moon, made technology, etc. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism

and of course, evolution is real science as well. But AIG rejects it because it conflicts with their faith.

Actually, understanding where viruses come from (they evolutionary history) is a good step to finding a cure. Creationists love to ignore the major role evolution plays in medical research!

tgamble

March 21st 2003, 09:23 AM

Today @ 03:40 AM
QED:
It was once popular to claim that evolution was proved by over 180 useless ‘vestigial’ organs in the human body alone.

I respond with two words.

NAME THEM!

ok, more than two.

Give references to support these idiotic claims.

Socrates

March 21st 2003, 11:38 AM

the record of the historic 1925 Tennessee Scopes Trial:4

One evolutionist had this put into the record of the Scopes Trial (The World’s Most Famous Court Trial, Tennessee Evolution Case (A word-for-word report), Bryan College, p. 268, 1990 (reprinted from the original 1925 edition)).:

There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigal [sic] structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities. Among these [is] the vermiform appendix . These and numerous other structures of the same sort can be reasonably interpreted as evidence that man has descended from ancestors in which these organs were functional. Man has never completely lost these characters; he continues to inherit them though he no longer has any use for them.

Actually, this was a garbling of Wiedersheim, who actually claimed that there were over 180 rudimentary organs in the human body, of which only 86 were vestigial, in The Structure of Man: an Index to his Past History; translated by H. and M. Bernard, Macmillan, London, 1895.

Now this list has shrunk practically to zero. We now know that the tonsils, appendix, coccyx, thymus, etc. have FUNCTIONS, so are consistent with direct design.

Socrates

March 21st 2003, 11:46 AM

QED the Quisling and tgamble the muckraker continue to waste time.

QED, by reasserting his blind faith in chemical evolution, without the slightest evidence; and by his boring ranting about obvious figures of speech in the Bible which were always understood as such apart from the crass hyperliteralizers on various infidel groups.

And gamble, for defending the unqualified Stear although he was exposed as a clear god hater with his bitter fulminations on "the evils of monotheism", condoning the gutter accusations by one of Stear's buddies that a leading creationist was a pederast, rejecting the high qualifications of AiG scientists (three are Ph.D. biologists so leave Stear and gamble in the dust!!!) and seems to have no problem with the Australian Humanist values conference that invited a known pedophile advocate to speak.

tgamble

March 21st 2003, 01:51 PM

QED the Quisling and tgamble the muckraker continue to waste time.

More insults and nastiness.

QED, by reasserting his blind faith in chemical evolution, without the slightest evidence;

Yet another lie.

And gamble, for defending the unqualified Stear although he was exposed as a clear god hater with his bitter fulminations on "the evils of monotheism", condoning the gutter accusations by one of Stear's buddies that a leading creationist was a pederast, rejecting the high qualifications of AiG scientists (three are Ph.D. biologists so leave Stear and gamble in the dust!!!)

There are thousands of biologists who reject AIG mythology. They leave YOU in the dust!

and seems to have no problem with the Australian Humanist values conference that invited a known pedophile advocate to speak.

What does that have to do with anything? Where have I even mentioned it you lying scumbag?

QED

March 21st 2003, 03:19 PM

tgamble:
“ Today @ 03:40 AM
QED:
It was once popular to claim that evolution was proved by over 180 useless ‘vestigial’ organs in the human body alone.
”
I respond with two words.

NAME THEM!

ok, more than two.

Give references to support these idiotic claims.

That wasn't me... that was me quoting Socrates (if anything)...

QED

March 21st 2003, 03:26 PM

Today @ 03:46 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41631#post41631)
Socrates:

QED the Quisling and tgamble the muckraker continue to waste time.

Petty.

QED, by reasserting his blind faith in chemical evolution, without the slightest evidence;

Oopsie, slight mistake there. QED has never asserted any sort of faith in chemical evolution - only confidence that research into it has hope of yielding a solution. Lying is a show of poor character, Soc.

and by his boring ranting about obvious figures of speech

Figures of speech which you manage to recognize only by bowing and scraping to atheistic, godless, materialistic, naturalistic, biased science. If you had no idea that the earth was round, had no pillars for a foundation, and didn't know how rain came, you would interpret these passages by their plain text (and judging by your style insult and berate any "God-hater" that couldn't tell the difference between a historical account, literal narrative, etc and metaphor). It conclusively shows that you do [i]not[i] do as you claimed - which is to deny naturalistic science on any point upon which the Bible touches. You interpret the Bible in ways consistent with knowledge gained from naturalistic science. Does that make you a God-hater?

in the Bible which were always understood as such apart from the crass hyperliteralizers on various infidel groups.

Because the YEC hyperliteralizers know that they would appear absurd to apply their same standard of evidence to those passages as to Genesis.

Wesley's son

March 21st 2003, 04:59 PM

Woman, if you are still checking the progress of the thread I highly recommend Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. It has some deep exegesis of the Hebrew of Genesis chap. one. And consequently is is a defense of old earth creationism.

It gave me chills, and strengthened my faith like no reading outside of Scripture has done.

:eek:

tgamble

March 21st 2003, 05:17 PM

Today @ 07:19 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41823#post41823)
QED:

tgamble:

That wasn't me... that was me quoting Socrates (if anything)...

Sorry about that!

Jaltus

March 21st 2003, 07:02 PM

Out of curiosity - let's say a month from now congress managed to pass a bill (upheld by SCOTUS) that equated abortion (in any form) with 1st degree murder and punishable by death penalty, punished any act of homosexuality with prison, and any God-hate speech with exile. A month after that bill passes and is enforced to the letter nationwide, a terrorist manages to detonate a nuclear device in NYC, killing millions of people.

What would you blame that nuclear explosion on?Interesting question, and my answer would be:
"any God-hate speech with exile "

But then, I am biased by my American upbringing.

Socrates

March 21st 2003, 10:07 PM

tgamble:More insults and nastiness.Hey Pot, are you on Pot? That's the only plausible explanation for such nonsense after your embittered tirades and outright lies against creationists.

Socrates

March 21st 2003, 10:10 PM

Wesley's Son:

Woman, if you are still checking the progress of the thread I highly recommend Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. It has some deep exegesis of the Hebrew of Genesis chap. one. And consequently is is a defense of old earth creationism.More likely, yet another form of outrageous Scripture-twisting, but this time by someone who is not even saved, as AiG shows at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp

tgamble

March 21st 2003, 10:23 PM

Today @ 02:07 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42089#post42089)
Socrates:

tgamble:More insults and nastiness.Hey Pot, are you on Pot? That's the only plausible explanation for such nonsense after your embittered tirades and outright lies against creationists.

You're lying again.

tgamble

March 21st 2003, 10:26 PM

Today @ 02:10 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42093#post42093)
Socrates:

Wesley's Son:

Woman, if you are still checking the progress of the thread I highly recommend Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. It has some deep exegesis of the Hebrew of Genesis chap. one. And consequently is is a defense of old earth creationism.More likely, yet another form of outrageous Scripture-twisting, but this time by someone who is not even saved, as AiG shows at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp

You paying attention here Dee Dee? Here's an example of AIG claiming that a Christian isn't saved because they don't buy into their ridiculous myths.

Or maybe it's just Socrates making this claim?

QED

March 21st 2003, 11:01 PM

You paying attention here Dee Dee? Here's an example of AIG claiming that a Christian isn't saved because they don't buy into their ridiculous myths.

Or maybe it's just Socrates making this claim?

I read the AiG article on Schroeder (albeit hurriedly). I found no mention of whether or not Schroeder accepts Christ as savior. So, I have to assume that Socrates is the one using his (at least) infallible logic to conclude that anyone who doesn't believe the plain Word of God as He pronounced it on His web-site is most likely unsaved, based on his own inscrutable reasoning.

Woman

March 21st 2003, 11:34 PM

Wesley's son,

Yes, I am indeed following the thread, thank you. And still reading. I'm going to have some good questions I think.

:smile:

TheFiveSolas

March 22nd 2003, 01:37 AM

Woman,
Here is another link to a summary article by Dr. Humphreys on how Nuclear Decay measurements indicate a young (4,000-14,000) year old earth.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm

Also, here is rebuttal to a Professor that alleged that Dr. Humphreys had made a significant mistake in his calculations.
http://www.icr.org/headlines/replytojoemeert.html

Note: In August, Dr. Humphreys and several of his colleagues will be presenting a full technical paper detailing the findings of their "RATE" project at a conference in Pittsburgh, PA.

Socrates

March 22nd 2003, 01:53 AM

The mendacious slanderer tgamble whinged:
You paying attention here Dee Dee? Here's an example of AIG claiming that a Christian isn't saved because they don't buy into their ridiculous myths. No, AiG has always said that one can be an evolutionist and be a genuine Christian. But there is an inconsistency in claiming to believe in Christ and explaining away His clear teachings as Quisling and Ramsey do.

Then tgamble's ally QED the Quisling spruiked:I read the AiG article on Schroeder (albeit hurriedly). I found no mention of whether or not Schroeder accepts Christ as savior. So, I have to assume that Socrates is the one using his (at least) infallible logic to conclude that anyone who doesn't believe the plain Word of God as He pronounced it on His web-site is most likely unsaved, based on his own inscrutable reasoning.Not at all. Dr Russell Humphreys asked Dr Schroeder whether he believed in Jesus as the Messiah, and Schroeder refused to affirm this. It's hard to believe that anyone who would not affirm belief in Christ, and makes no mention of the New Testament as God's revelation, could have any faith in Christ. And without faith in Christ, salvation is impossible (John 14:6). It is on THIS basis that I conclude that Schroeder is unsaved. I've also understood along with AiG that Schoeder holds to a form of Judaism not Christianty.

tgamble

March 22nd 2003, 07:47 AM

Today @ 05:37 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42231#post42231)
TheFiveSolas:

Woman,
Here is another link to a summary article by Dr. Humphreys on how Nuclear Decay measurements indicate a young (4,000-14,000) year old earth.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm

Also, here is rebuttal to a Professor that alleged that Dr. Humphreys had made a significant mistake in his calculations.
http://www.icr.org/headlines/replytojoemeert.html

Note: In August, Dr. Humphreys and several of his colleagues will be presenting a full technical paper detailing the findings of their "RATE" project at a conference in Pittsburgh, PA.

Let me know when he gets his fantasies in a scientific journal!
http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm

Today @ 05:53 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42244#post42244)
Socrates:

The mendacious slanderer tgamble

You really are a nasty individual!

whinged:
You paying attention here Dee Dee? Here's an example of AIG claiming that a Christian isn't saved because they don't buy into their ridiculous myths. No,

Oh I see, it really WAS you who claimed that. You didn't specify an other reason.

AiG has always said that one can be an evolutionist and be a genuine Christian. But there is an inconsistency in claiming to believe in Christ and explaining away His clear teachings as Quisling and Ramsey do.

Yeah, I guess to be a consistent Christian you have to believe myths. Good reason not to be one. Who wants to follow a religion where you have to lie to yourself and others?

AIG also hs lots of articles insisting that Christianity and the bible are incompatible.

QED

March 22nd 2003, 08:59 AM

Today @ 05:53 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42244#post42244)
Socrates:

The mendacious slanderer tgamble whinged:

Then tgamble's ally QED the Quisling spruiked:

Although you seem to lack the necessary wit to see the irony and hypocrasy in naming the mote in tgamble's eye as "mendacious slander", and seem to have remained unable to rise above your petty insults with regard to me (and seem to hold some inaccurate ideas about my own position, possibly stemming from your tendency to jump to conclusions about people), it seems you may have had some other basis besides your arrogance and logic for having doubted the salvation of Gerald Schroeder.

You get extra points for having let AiG answer the substance of his harmonization of science and a literal reading of Genesis. That took real courage. We can all be thankful that someone proposed that Schroeder's work was worthwhile, and let you off the hook for your incorrect claim that you take a methodologically natural approach toward answering questions of nature only where the Bible is silent. Thank goodness you didn't have to back up on that one!

TheFiveSolas

March 23rd 2003, 02:04 AM

tgamble,
That link hardly constituted a rebuttal. Did you even read Professor Meert's response to Dr. Humphreys' rebuttal, it was about fifteen lines of text with virtually no content.

Socrates

March 23rd 2003, 06:24 AM

QED the Quisling:Although you seem to lack the necessary wit ...At least mine is whole and not half like yours.to see the irony and hypocrasyNot only can't QED spell, but by the dishonest way he "reinterprets" ("disbelieves" would at least be honest) Christ's statements where they contradict his evolutionary faith, one must wonder why he doesn't do the same with His statements against hypocrisy. But then, QED thinks that the right hand man of the Butcher of Baghdad is a Christian just because he says so!... in naming the mote in tgamble's eye as "mendacious slander", OIC, again one rule for YECs and another for their detractors. He's allowed to spit forth all sorts of venom in his desperate attempt to portray creationists as a cult. In case you have forgotten, e.g. like the lies that creationists organisations are in it for the money and new members (although they are not membership organisations), have a messianic complex, deliberate liars, collecting money for bogus charities (and then Gamble lied about having made this accusation although he clearly gave it as a criterion cult which YECs fulfilled). You do know what "mendacious" means don't you?

Also, gamble condones a website that is happy for a leading creationist to be smeared as a pedophile.and seem to have remained unable to rise above your petty insults with regard to meNothing I've said remotely compares to gamble's gutter smears that you condone, or the smears by a website he advocates.... (and seem to hold some inaccurate ideas about my own position, possibly stemming from your tendency to jump to conclusions about people),Then fill us all in!... it seems you may have had some other basis besides your arrogance and logic for having doubted the salvation of Gerald Schroeder.To make it clear to everyone, and repeating something I've said along with AiG, it is possible to be saved while believing in long ages/evolution, despite the lies gamble's telling at the moment. But along with evangelical Christians in general, I believe there is no salvation without conscious faith in Jesus's Deity, death for our sins, and Bodily Resurrection. My posts on TW have been totally consistent about this.

QED still dishonestly harps on about figures of speech in the Bible:
Figures of speech which you manage to recognize only by bowing and scraping to atheistic, godless, materialistic, naturalistic, biased science. Absolute crap. For one thing, most of the founders of REAL operational science were Bible-believing Christians. This contrasts with the founders of evolution, who needed a way to explain Earth history without God. If you had no idea that the earth was round, had no pillars for a foundation, and didn't know how rain came, you would interpret these passages by their plain text. What nonsense. "Windows of heaven" was used throughout the Bible to mean a downpour. Do you have any proof of any commentator taking it as anything other than an idiom. By QED's logic, he would have to believe that Australians believe that rain comes from heavenly buckets because we say "it's bucketing down".

QED probably swallows the myth that Columbus was up against almost universal flat-earth belief. Fact is, the Church, with exceptions I could count on the fingers of one hand, has always affirmed Earth's roundness. There is abolutely nothing in the Bible to indicate otherwise; rather, there is equivocal language, and several probably indicators of round-Earth belief.

I've also shown that "pillars of the Earth", as well as "pillars of the Church" can refer to people. This shows that the word "pillars" is a flexible word, especially in the poetic books in which it is found. QED cannot point to any time when the Church ever used this as a basis for a geographical model.
(and judging by your style insult and berate any "God-hater" that couldn't tell the difference between a historical account, literal narrative, etc and metaphor).It's true -- you evidently can't. Genesis 1-11 has the same style as Genesis 12-50 which is never disputed as historical narrative, and a completely different style from poetry like Psalms. It conclusively shows that you do [i]not[i] do as you claimed - which is to deny naturalistic science on any point upon which the Bible touches. More likely, it shows that you and your buddy gamble have picked up a list of Bible "errors" from some atheistic gutter website.
You interpret the Bible in ways consistent with knowledge gained from naturalistic science. I never let fallible science overrule the meaning of the text as determined by a grammatical/historical hermeneutic. This includes recognizing idiom as idiom, and history as history.

QED

March 23rd 2003, 08:43 AM

<largish snip>

(I won't play the limbo with you to see who can stoop the lowest.)

What nonsense. "Windows of heaven" was used throughout the Bible to mean a downpour.

Untrue. I once again challenge you to show one other place where it is used in this way, apart from Gen 7:11 & its companion verse of Gen 8:2.

Not that this would matter, because we only know it is idiomatic because we know there are no windows in the sky. There isn't any scriptural context which shows these to be anything other than literal windows, and the context of the verse is an explanation of where the flood waters came from - it refers also to the "fountains of the deep" - a phrase which most YEC's take very seriously.

Do you have any proof of any commentator taking it as anything other than an idiom. By QED's logic, he would have to believe that Australians believe that rain comes from heavenly buckets because we say "it's bucketing down".

Incorrect. By my logic, we only know that Australians are using this phrase idiomatically because we know there are no buckets in the sky. If we did not already know this from science we would be in a position to possibly incorrectly interpret the Australians' words. If we were committed to science, but only where Australians were silent, and not on any matter of which they spoke - and if we were committed to a literalistic interpretation of what they said when they were speaking of historical events (your OWN logic) then we should conclude that there really are buckets. If, in that case, an Australian was describing an historical event, and explained that during the event it was pouring down buckets - and we were unwilling to let our understanding of nature trump our interpretation of Australians' speech, then we would have no basis for not interpreting it as real buckets.

But we don't mind letting nature inform our interpretation of the Bible. The simplest and plainest interpretation of Gen 7:11, in its "historical context", and with its use of this device and one other to explain the source of flood waters, if we only accept science where the Bible is silent, is that the windows are real.

QED probably swallows the myth that Columbus was up against almost universal flat-earth belief.

You would be wrong. (Again).

I've also shown that "pillars of the Earth", as well as "pillars of the Church" can refer to people. This shows that the word "pillars" is a flexible word, especially in the poetic books in which it is found.

So Job is a poetic book? And all those things that happened to him were metaphorical devices? I just want to make sure, because the context of the term in the Job passage seems very literalistic. By the way you didn't show that pillars of the earth can refer to people (in the Samuel passage)... You merely linked to an AiG article which makes the case. Nevertheless, contextual clues present in Samuel (upon which they make their case) are present in Job - but indicating the opposite. If their case works for Samuel to show the pillars are figurative, then it should, by extension, show that the pillars of Job are literal.

QED cannot point to any time when the Church ever used this as a basis for a geographical model.

Because the church has long been aware that there are no pillars (by science), and because the church doesn't disallow science in cases where the Bible is not silent.

I never let fallible science overrule the meaning of the text as determined by a grammatical/historical hermeneutic. This includes recognizing idiom as idiom, and history as history.

Good. Then would you take me to the high mountain from which the whole earth can be seen? While we are up there you could, perhaps, point me to the windows in the sky from which the deluge waters came. Then we can rent some drilling equipment and find those pillars that were spoken of in Job. It will be a great field trip, and a great triumph of YEC hermeneutics over science. I think once we have demonstrated these things that seem so incredible to those who inform their interpretations of the Bible with their knowledge of fallible "science", that they will abandon all of their old earth and old, evolving life science in favor of our exegesis.

tgamble

March 23rd 2003, 09:03 AM

>>Nothing I've said remotely compares to gamble's gutter smears that you condone, or the smears by a website he advocates>>

YEah, your rantings are of much lower quality with virtually no factual content. Unlike the sites you attack merely be spewing out hatred against the authors but are unable to offer a rubbutal of any substance!

>>Absolute crap. For one thing, most of the founders of REAL operational science were Bible-believing Christians.>>

Including those who rejected the myth of Noah's flood 200 years ago.

>This contrasts with the founders of evolution, who needed a way to explain Earth history without God. >>

Yet another pathetic lie of creationists and also completely irrelvent even if it were true. This is the kind of emotional garbage creationists use because they can't refute evolution with actual evidence.

>>I never let fallible science overrule the meaning of the text as determined by a grammatical/historical hermeneutic. >>

LOL! You let a fallable text written thousands of years ago by ignorant people based on myths, legends and superstition overfule the findings of some 200 years of scientific research! What a joke!

RufusAtticus

March 23rd 2003, 09:32 PM

Today @ 05:24 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42849#post42849)
Socrates:

For one thing, most of the founders of REAL operational science were Bible-believing Christians. This contrasts with the founders of evolution, who needed a way to explain Earth history without God.

:ahem: You do realize that the founders of evolution were also "Bible-believing" Christians, don't you? Your aruguments might be better if you relied less on fallacous rhetoric and more on actual facts.

"Windows of heaven" was used throughout the Bible to mean a downpour. Do you have any proof of any commentator taking it as anything other than an idiom.

Actually the correct translation of 'arubboh (in Genesis 7:11 & 8:12, Strong's 699) is "floodgate" and not "window." The NIV and the NASB both use "floodgate" as does the Vulgate. I saw someone a couple months ago point out that most non-english translations also use "floodgate." Coupled with Genesis 1:6-8, a litteral reading reveals the belief that the sky acted as a dam against the "upper waters" and that when the floodgates of this dam were opened, it rained.

Now if you think it was written as a metaphor, can you show contemporay Hebrew writtings which make it clear that they understood that the sky wasn't a solid dome?

Socratism

March 23rd 2003, 10:19 PM

699. 'arubbah, ar-oob-baw'; fem. part. pass. of H693 (as if for lurking); a lattice; (by impl.) a window, dove-cot (because of the pigeon-holes), chimney (with its apertures for smoke), sluice (with openings for water):--chimney, window.

Windows of heaven (exhaustive list in OT)

Gen 7:11 the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

2Ki7:1 Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the LORD, To morrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria.
2 Then a lord on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if the LORD would make windows in heaven, might this thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.

2Ki7:19 And that lord answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if the LORD should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.

Mal3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

[These three passages speak of famine in the land due to lack of rain.

Woman

March 23rd 2003, 10:28 PM

http://www.gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

Solas, is this the Meertpapaer you were referring to?

Socrates

March 23rd 2003, 10:45 PM

QED continues to spout his Bible hatred:
Then would you take me to the high mountain from which the whole earth can be seen? If you could demonstrate that the ancients believe that there was a mountain that could be seen FROM the whole earth ... See Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat? (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html)

And Rufus Atticus spruiks:
You do realize that the founders of evolution were also "Bible-believing" Christians, don't you?Perhaps RA swallows the "Darwin recantation" myth? Fact is, Darwin made it VERY clear that he thought that the Bible was no more trustworthy than the Hindoo [sic] myths, and that he "wouldn't wish Christianity to be true" because if it was, the unbelievers in his family, e.g. his father, would be in Hell.

And Darwin's Bulldog T.H. Huxley was the one who coined the word "agnostic" -- to describe himself.

And RA further demonstrates that a little knowledge in the hands of the typical biblioskeptic is a dangerous thing. I see that Socratism has shown up the fallacy of RA's "strolling through Strong's".

RufusAtticus

March 23rd 2003, 11:38 PM

Today @ 09:45 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43278#post43278)
Socrates:

Perhaps RA swallows the "Darwin recantation" myth? Fact is, Darwin made it VERY clear that he thought that the Bible was no more trustworthy than the Hindoo [sic] myths, and that he "wouldn't wish Christianity to be true" because if it was, the unbelievers in his family, e.g. his father, would be in Hell.

Nice try, but Darwin still had faith when he developed the concept of natural selection and amassed evidence for evolution. He only lost his faith latter when his daughter died. Wallace, who independently developed the concept of natural selection and ammassed evidence for evolution, was a devout christian throught his life. Same for Dobzhansky who was the driving force behind the modern systhesis in the 1940s. Not to mention all the Christian Scientists who came before Darwin and influenced him.

And RA further demonstrates that a little knowledge in the hands of the typical biblioskeptic is a dangerous thing. I see that Socratism has shown up the fallacy of RA's "strolling through Strong's".

LOL apparently you didn't read Strong's defination, nor the NIV nor the NASB.

Today @ 09:19 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43248#post43248)
Socratism:

699. 'arubbah, ar-oob-baw'; fem. part. pass. of H693 (as if for lurking); a lattice; (by impl.) a window, dove-cot (because of the pigeon-holes), chimney (with its apertures for smoke), sluice (with openings for water):--chimney, window.

A sluice is a floodgate. Since arubbah in this context is being used to refer to water, clearly that is the appropriate translation.

From the NIV:

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Gen 8:2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.

2KIN 7:2 The officer on whose arm the king was leaning said to the man of God, "Look, even if the LORD should open the floodgates of the heavens, could this happen?" "You will see it with your own eyes," answered Elisha, "but you will not eat any of it!"

2KIN 7:19 The officer had said to the man of God, "Look, even if the LORD should open the floodgates of the heavens, could this happen?" The man of God had replied, "You will see it with your own eyes, but you will not eat any of it!"

ISA 24:18 Whoever flees at the sound of terror will fall into a pit; whoever climbs out of the pit will be caught in a snare. The floodgates of the heavens are opened, the foundations of the earth shake.

MAL 3:10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

Furthermore, in these places the Vulgate uses "cataracta, -ae." I'll give you one guess what that means. :)

QED

March 24th 2003, 08:00 AM

Me, previously: Then would you take me to the high mountain from which the whole earth can be seen?
Socrates: If you could demonstrate that the ancients believe that there was a mountain that could be seen FROM the whole earth ... See Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat?

Why? That isn't my contention. My contention is that you do the same thing in the case of this mountain from which the entire world can be seen as you do in the case of the windows of the sky, and others passages: which is to interpret them in a way consistent with your scientific knowledge, despite the lack of Biblical context showing anything other than literal history. IOW, contrary to your claim, you accept science even when the Bible is not silent. Otherwise you could not use science to conclude that these passages don't mean what the words in them seem to mean without that scientific perspective.

Socratism

March 24th 2003, 08:47 AM

Rufus,

I do not understand your concern over "floodgate", "windows" or what have you. Clearly the authors were referring to rain being poured out on the Earth: in one case durring the Flood and in another the lack of rain causing a drought.

In my opinion, whether one is a creationist or anti-, it is a stretch to make any thing more out of the expression than that.

Floodgate or sluice is a reasonable analogy to what happens when it rains, but like any analogy it only makes a simple point and does not imply more than any other crude analogy.

When one sees in a physics textbook the analogy of the camera with the eye, should we object because the eye does not entail the use of film?

Socrates

March 24th 2003, 09:05 AM

I wrote against QED's pathetic attempt to impute flat-Earth belief to the Bible:

If you could demonstrate that the ancients believe that there was a mountain that could be seen FROM the whole earth ... See Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat?

QED then spruiked:

Why? That isn't my contention. My contention is that you do the same thing in the case of this mountain from which the entire world can be seen
QED is just a chronological snob who thinks ancient people were stupid. But it's perfectly logical -- they would have known that if there was such a mountain from which the whole world could be seen, then that mountain would be visible from the whole world.

But this passage was clearly a VISION, where Satan showed Jesus these kingdoms to try to tempt him.

I pointed out:
Perhaps RA swallows the "Darwin recantation" myth? Fact is, Darwin made it VERY clear that he thought that the Bible was no more trustworthy than the Hindoo [sic] myths, and that he "wouldn't wish Christianity to be true" because if it was, the unbelievers in his family, e.g. his father, would be in Hell.

RA desperately replied, once more showing his ignorance of history:

Nice try, but Darwin still had faith when he developed the concept of natural selection Most unlikely. His father was always an unbeliever. He went into the ministry only because ihis father wanted him to have arespectable occupation. On the Beagle, he thoroughly absorbed uniformitarian geology from the deist Lyell. ... and amassed evidence for evolution. Or rather, he reinterpreted the evidence. He only lost his faith latter when his daughter died.Actually, Annie died 8 years before Origin was published. He couldn't see why a God would create by such a cruel process like natural selection. Maybe your wife could travel back in time to explain it to him. That's if he would listen to someone who is prepared to violate biblical commands -- he had more contempt for professing Christians who didn't believe their own book than for those who were consistent but, in his opinion, wrong. [list]Wallace, who independently developed the concept of natural selection and ammassed evidence for evolution, was a devout christian throught his life.Rubbish -- he was a SPIRITIST!! Same for Dobzhansky who was the driving force behind the modern systhesis in the 1940s.He was a nominal Russian Orthodox who was really a follower of the heretical Father Piltdown, Teilhard de Chardin. Not to mention all the Christian Scientists who came before Darwin and influenced him.Who do you have in mind? I can't think of any Christian evolutionists before Darwin. I am perfectly aware that Christians had previously compromised on Biblical geology before Darwin, which paved the way for his attacks on Biblical biology.

TheFiveSolas

March 24th 2003, 05:26 PM

Woman,
You wrote:

http://www.gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

Solas, is this the Meertpapaer you were referring to?

Yes.

Toward the end of that page is a "rebuttal" to Humphreys' rebuttal of Meert's assertion that he (Humphreys) had made an egregious error.

Humphreys answered this accusation in the link I originally posted.

Yet in this "rebuttal" from Meert he hardly addresses Humphreys' rebuttal. For instance, Humphreys showed how Meert's assertion was wrong AND also showed that closure temperatures were irrelevant to his findings. Yet, Meert, in his reply, merely quotes someone as to what a closure temperature is.

Here is what Meert wrote at the link you asked about.

What about Humphreys excess helium arguments
The premise of the RATE work is this:

"Acquisition of data on which to base a claim that the amount of helium in rocks today should not be so high if it was produced by nuclear decay over millions of years. If helium was produced within the most recent thousands of years, it would be expected to still remain in the rocks as observed"

Mumbo-jumbo. The claim here appears to be that there is too much helium in the rocks today. The RATE Group does not provide an explanation of what is too much. It states rather matter-of-factly that it is too high. The rate of helium diffusion from minerals is not a simple linear process1,5,6. Once again, the RATE Group begins with a false premise that it intends to prove by misinterpretation of the data and an incomplete reading of the literature. Remember: Misinterpreting Science is not the same thing as disproving science. Humphreys takes issue with me on this at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp

Humphreys claims that helium is not retained for any great time in zircons. He proposes that zircons close and 'then re-open" to helium diffusion shortly after their closure temperature. Dodson describes the concept of closure temperature as follows:

" It is assumed that, while the system is near to the temperature of crystallization, the daughter nuclide diffuses out as fast as it is produced by radioactive decay. As the system cools, it enters a transitional temperature within which some of the daughter product accumulates in the mineral and some is lost. Eventually, at temperatures near ambient, the losses are negligible, and the daughter product accumulates without any loss whatsoever.....Closure temperature can be given a precise definition namely the temperature of the system at the time given by its apparent age"

Humphreys work describes a number Q which he states is the 're-opening'. This re-opening is defined as marking a point where helium loss is balanced by helium production resulting in a steady state level of helium within the zircon. Unfortunately, Humphreys does not provide the critical analysis for defining what Q really is (he refers to equation 16, but did not bother to post it). Therefore, it is difficult to analyze exactly what Humphreys is talking about without providing the relevant equations. There certainly is a point in the cooling history of zircons where loss=gain, and this may even occur at temperatures below the 'closure temperature', but Humphreys assertion that the zircons would maintain this steady-state situation is not grounded in good science.

Here is Dr. Humphreys' original rebuttal showing that closure temperatures are irrelevant.

From Joseph Meert’s website (10/10/02 update):
The RATE Group now contends that they have ‘proof’ that the Earth must be <14,000 years old since helium retention in zircons happens easily about –190 C [sic] (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm). Unfortunately, this is an excellent example of poor scholarship by the ICR Group. The cited paper by Reiners (2002 Tectonophysics) actually cites diffusion temperatures [sic] for zircons on the order of +190 C!! Seems a little transcription error has resulted in ICR’s triumphant claims. The real data, as usual, show otherwise. (http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm)
Humphreys’ reply to Meert (10/22/02):
Dear Professor Meert:

Thank you for your 10/18/02 feedback to ICR about my Impact No. 352, “Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World,” alleging that I made an embarrassing mistake. Thank you also for your similar website comment (above) about it. I’m thanking you because I don’t want even an anti-creationist to be laboring under such severe misconceptions about our RATE work, and I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. You have made three profound errors, assuming:

That my “196°C below zero” is a closure temperature,

That closure temperatures are relevant to this situation, and

That creationist scientists who researched this subject for years are blind enough to miss something you thought you could spot immediately after reading a short layman’s summary of the work.

Here’s more about each item:

Different temperatures. The +190°C cited by Reiners et al. is the closure temperature (your phrase “diffusion temperature” is imprecise) of the Nevada zircons they studied.

[For the benefit of others reading this, closure temperature (for this case) is the point at which a cooling zircon stops losing helium (by diffusion) as fast as nuclear decay within the zircon is making it. Below I’ve preprinted an excerpt from our technical article describing the concept more thoroughly.]

But the –196°C I mentioned in the Impact article is what I will call here the retention temperature. That is the temperature at which the Jemez zircons would have small enough diffusion rates to retain the observed large amounts of helium for 1.5 billion years. That’s essentially what I said in the article:

‘For most of that alleged time [1.5 billion years], the zircons would have to have been as cold as liquid nitrogen (196°C below zero) to retain the observed amount of helium.’

The problem for uniformitarians is that the Jemez zircons were hot, between +100°C and +300°C. Those temperatures are much hotter than the “retention temperature” I defined above. Because diffusion rates increase with temperature (as I wrote), the diffusion rates of these hot zircons were so high they could not have retained large amounts of helium for the alleged 1.5 billion years.

Thus the +190°C of Reiners had nothing to do with the –196°C of my article. One hint of that is that my reference to Reiners occurred several sentences ahead of the temperature you question. Also, notice that you incorrectly quoted my “196” as “190.” The difference should have been a clue that my number did not come from Reiner’s paper at all.

Ref. 8 of our article (the RATE book) makes clear the main ideas behind the project. Have you studied that book? Probably not, because it would have prevented you from misunderstanding this point.

Closure temperature is irrelevant. You misunderstood my statement because you misunderstood closure temperature. You thought that zircons below that temperature would remain a closed system. Wrong! See the preprinted section below to understand why. Even if the Jemez zircons had gone below their closure temperature, according to the uniformitarian scenario they would have re-opened within a few dozen years to a few thousand years after closure. After re-opening, they would again be an open system, again losing helium as fast as nuclear decay generated it for most of the alleged 1.5 billion years. Today the zircons would have retained less than 0.0002% of the helium, instead of the (up to) 58% observed.

Who’s blind here? Every educated person (even a creationist) knows the earth’s interior is hot. Even a slight glance at the Reiners article, or at other thermochronometry literature, would show that geological closure temperatures are positive. Yet you assumed I had ignored such basics, misused Reiner’s temperature, and got its sign and magnitude wrong. Moreover, you assumed that none of my colleagues, including two geologists and one geophysicist, would catch such an obvious error. This incredible level of ignorance you assign to us is entirely the product of your own imagination. It has led to your blunders above.

From my own experience as a former atheist and evolutionist, I think I know how you could imagine us that way. An article of faith among anti-creationists is that creationists are so blinded by their religious views that they can’t do science at all. For you to consider any other possibility would open up major fissures in your worldview. When you encounter something you don’t understand in our writings, or that differs from what mainstream academic authority has told you, your automatic reaction is to assume that the creationists must be wrong. It appears you did not ask yourself whether it could be you who might be doing the misunderstanding.

This may be the reason you have criticized the RATE project without reading its technical book. The book answers not only your helium misunderstandings, but it also addresses all of the problems you raise on your website, such as radioactivity heating. Perhaps you felt that the effort to study nearly 700 highly technical pages would not be justified. What could a creationist teach you? Or perhaps in the deep recesses of your heart, you decided not to expose yourself to evidence that creationists can do good scientific work, or that your worldview might not be correct.

The irony—especially evident to us who have changed worldviews—is that faith in naturalistic uniformity, and in the infallibility of academic authority, has blinded you to the evidence, and to the possibility that creationists can do good science. In reality, your erroneous view of creation and creationists is a caricature, a straw man standing between you and a correct view of the world and God. This is one method the opponent of God uses to help people blind themselves, as the apostle Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 4:3,4:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

RufusAtticus

March 24th 2003, 06:21 PM

Socratism,

The point is that in Genesis the sky is seen as a solid object that acts as a dam against the "upper waters" ( see Strong's 07549 (http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=hebrew&stnm=07549)). This solid object has "floodgates" that open to allow the "upper waters" to come through, and thus it rains. I've seen no evidence that it was intended to be metaphor. (I will be happy to read any contempory Hebrew writtings that indicate that they knew the sky wasn't solid.) If a litteral Genesis is an accurate account of creation then the sky should be solid with floodgates. The only reason why biblical "litteralists" now argue that it is intended to be a metaphor is that they know it is not litterally accurate. Doesn't that go against claims that the only thing used to interprete scripture is scripture itself?

Appended Post:

Today @ 08:05 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43598#post43598)
Socrates:

His father was always an unbeliever. He went into the ministry only because ihis father wanted him to have arespectable occupation. On the Beagle, he thoroughly absorbed uniformitarian geology from the deist Lyell.

Which have absolutely nothing to do with whether he had faith.

Or rather, he reinterpreted the evidence.
Spoken like a man ignorant of his writtings.

Actually, Annie died 8 years before Origin was published.
Actually, Darwin began working on the ideas in Origin some 20 years before it was published.

Maybe your wife could travel back in time to explain it to him. That's if he would listen to someone who is prepared to violate biblical commands -- he had more contempt for professing Christians who didn't believe their own book than for those who were consistent but, in his opinion, wrong.

I keep getting the impression that Socrates is jealous of my wife. Am I that cute?

Rubbish -- he was a SPIRITIST!!
So what? That doesn't negate being Christian.

He was a nominal Russian Orthodox who was really a follower of the heretical Father Piltdown, Teilhard de Chardin.
LOL Dobzhansky was hardly "nominal."

Who do you have in mind? I can't think of any Christian evolutionists before Darwin.
Jean Baptiste Lamarck is probably a name you'd recognize.

Socratism

March 24th 2003, 07:18 PM

Today @ 05:21 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43905#post43905)
RufusAtticus:

Socratism,

The point is that in Genesis the sky is seen as a solid object that acts as a dam against the "upper waters" ( see Strong's 07549 (http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=hebrew&stnm=07549)). This solid object has "floodgates" that open to allow the "upper waters" to come through, and thus it rains. I've seen no evidence that it was intended to be metaphor. (I will be happy to read any contempory Hebrew writtings that indicate that they knew the sky wasn't solid.) If a litteral Genesis is an accurate account of creation then the sky should be solid with floodgates.

You seem to be making the same mistake which I have seen some creationists make: namely trying to squeeze more meaning out of a few verses than were probably intended.

I am of the opinion that the verses in question were talking about it starting to rain (or not) in the typical asiatic poetic phraseology. It is often said by evolutionists that the Bible is not a science textbook, but now you seem to be arguing just the opposite. What gives?

RufusAtticus

March 24th 2003, 07:40 PM

Today @ 06:18 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43981#post43981)
Socratism:

You seem to be making the same mistake which I have seen some creationists make: namely trying to squeeze more meaning out of a few verses than were probably intended.

I'm just giving them a litteral reading.

I am of the opinion that the verses in question were talking about it starting to rain (or not) in the typical asiatic poetic phraseology.

Why do you think it is poetic? Remember you can't use the fact that there are no floodgates in the sky, unless you can show that the people who used such terminology knew that too.

It is often said by evolutionists that the Bible is not a science textbook, but now you seem to be arguing just the opposite. What gives?

I'm not arguing the opposite. I'm using the bible as I would any other ancient text, as a window on the knowledge of the people who wrote it.

bar Jonah

March 24th 2003, 07:41 PM

03-19-2003 @ 03:58 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40257#post40257)
Woman:

Well, while my head was turned it seems the thread has taken on a life of its own. That's fine. I'm taking notes.
:teeth:
Woman, if you are serious about your investigation of this issue, I HIGHLY recommend a book called In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation. The editor actually had over 300 such essays from over 300 such scientists but only published 50 of them. 50 scientists from almost every field you can think of:

Biology, biochemistry, physical chemistry, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, theoretical chemistry, mathematics, mathematical physics, nuclear physics, medical physics, geophysics, genetics, botany, zoology, meteorology, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, geological engineering, architectural engineering... the list goes on.

These are scientists who are published in peer-reviewed journals. They are heads of science departments in universities. They are authors of widely-used scientific textbooks. They aren't a bunch of fringe wackos. They are respected members of the scientific community, all writing on why they believe science supports their belief in a literal interpretation of a 6-day creation as described in Genesis.

You can find the book at http://AnswersInGenesis.org or at most good Christian book stores. Edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D.

Socratism

March 24th 2003, 08:59 PM

Today @ 06:40 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43997#post43997)
RufusAtticus:
I'm just giving them a litteral reading.

For what purpose?

Why do you think it is poetic?

Because that style is typical of asiatic ancient writing where poetic phrases are common used..

Remember you can't use the fact that there are no floodgates in the sky, unless you can show that the people who used such terminology knew that too.

One commonly finds figures of speech used in scripture as well as in contempory literature. When someone tells me to "hit the road" I don't start beating on the pavement with a baseball bat.

I'm not arguing the opposite. I'm using the bible as I would any other ancient text, as a window on the knowledge of the people who wrote it.

You have the cart before the horse if you are trying to find out what they knew about science by examining what are clearly idiomatic expressions which as I illustrated above can not be translated in a vacuum.

The problem with "windows of heaven" or "floodgates of the sky" or whatever is that the expression may simply be saying "it started to rain" (or not as the case may be). Trying to get into the mind of the authors to determine what they knew about the sky is merely an exercise in speculation given the paucity of data listed previously on this thread.

There is a famous principle in science that effectively means there must be sufficient data before firm conclusions can be drawn, and I think in this case you are violating that principle, although you are not the only one guilty of that.

tgamble

March 24th 2003, 09:16 PM

Yesterday @ 11:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43998#post43998)
RightIdea:
Woman, if you are serious about your investigation of this issue, I HIGHLY recommend a book called In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation. The editor actually had over 300 such essays from over 300 such scientists but only published 50 of them. 50 scientists from almost every field you can think of:

Yeah, it's quite revealing the way they admit their motivation for rejecting evolution is almost entirely emotional and religious based.

These are scientists who are published in peer-reviewed journals. They are heads of science departments in universities.

Remember that next time you hear some creationist nonsense about censorship and persecution!

You can find the book at http://AnswersInGenesis.org or at most good Christian book stores. Edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D.

Before you waste your money on rags you might want to read a couple of reviews.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/In6Days.html

Over all, you have to consider that

1) none of the 50 scientists have any actual EVIDENCe to support creationism or against evolution.

2) The thousands and thousands of scientists that disagree with them. If you want to take that 50 scientists dispute evolution (and geology, astronomy, cosomology etc) as proof or even evidence that thousands of scientists have 200 years are wrong, well, that's just nuts.

Science isn't decided by voting, it's not about majority rules. It's about evidence and creationists have none. It's really that simple.

RufusAtticus

March 24th 2003, 11:11 PM

Today @ 07:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44038#post44038)
Socratism:

For what purpose?

To find out what it litterally mean.

Because that style is typical of asiatic ancient writing where poetic phrases are common used..

What style would that be? (I'd like some details if it is possible.) Remember at one point everything was composed as poetry because it made them easier to remember. Just because something is poetic does not make it a metaphor, take much of Lucretius' work for example.

One commonly finds figures of speech used in scripture as well as in contempory literature. When someone tells me to "hit the road" I don't start beating on the pavement with a baseball bat.

Correct. But just because figures of speech exist does not mean this instance is a figure of speech. A broader question is why is "floodgates" considered methapohrical but the rest of the Flood myth or Genesis not?

You have the cart before the horse if you are trying to find out what they knew about science by examining what are clearly idiomatic expressions which as I illustrated above can not be translated in a vacuum.

But you haven't demonstrated that they are idioms. That is why I've asked for contemprory writtings that show that the ancient Hebrews did not believe that the sky was a solid dome, despite what scripture indicates and unlike their mediterranean neighbors.

The problem with "windows of heaven" or "floodgates of the sky" or whatever is that the expression may simply be saying "it started to rain" (or not as the case may be).

But is also is an explaination as to why it rains. The floodgates of the sky have opened allowing the upper waters to fall onto the earth.

WinAce

March 25th 2003, 12:26 AM

I must say, after reading thru some of the threads here, Socrates' posts can basically be distilled to the following:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/nutri_facts.jpg

Socratism

March 25th 2003, 01:03 AM

Today @ 10:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44168#post44168)
RufusAtticus:
To find out what it litterally mean.

Your current approach to doing that is pretty poor. This is the sort of thing scholars disagreed on for centuries. A little more data would help.

What style would that be? (I'd like some details if it is possible.) Remember at one point everything was composed as poetry because it made them easier to remember.

Perhaps if I pray the Lord will deliver me from that obsolete canard, "oral transmission", but I doubt if He will. LOL

Just because something is poetic does not make it a metaphor, take much of Lucretius' work for example.

Look, if you are really interested in researching such things try GOOGLE. I feel it is pretty well known that the Bible was written in a culture much different than ours, one that tended to use lots of figures of speech foreign to most of our ears and a form of exaggerated speech where single phrases are not meant to be parsed word for word (much like our "hit the road"). But don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself. That's the only way you will believe it anyway, right?

Correct. But just because figures of speech exist does not mean this instance is a figure of speech. A broader question is why is "floodgates" considered methapohrical but the rest of the Flood myth or Genesis not?

The short answer is that an entire extended story is not a "figure of speech". A figure of speech is a short phrase that doesn't mean what a word by word analysis would conclude. ("Hit the road")

But you haven't demonstrated that they are idioms.

I have given you my opinion. I never intended to "prove" it. My intent was to suggest that some people try to "force" more meaning out of short phrases than they should. When they do this it can lead to doctrines that may be false.

My philosophy regarding scripture is that things God considers important for us to know are repeated or referenced many different ways in many parts of scripture. (This is the case for many of the elements of the Genesis story). If one throws out Genesis a good portion of many different books of both the old and new testament go with it or at least would be suspected of being faulty. Once this process gets underway people inevitably end up like Bishop Spong or else like many Christians who simply refuse to talk about their religion and beliefs.

.

That is why I've asked for contemprory writtings that show that the ancient Hebrews did not believe that the sky was a solid dome, despite what scripture indicates and unlike their mediterranean neighbors.

In Genesis we are talking about events at least thousands of years removed from us. I doubt that anyone can do more than express an opinion on this, although certainly some opinions are better than others, but which?

But is also is an explaination as to why it rains. The floodgates of the sky have opened allowing the upper waters to fall onto the earth.

I agree that it is easy to see that the expression is referring to rain coming from the sky. Whether it is also trying to explain the composition of the sky seems to me pretty far fetched and probably impossible to prove definitively one way or the other.

If you want to believe something else go right ahead, but I'll bet you can't prove it.

Woman

March 25th 2003, 01:16 AM

Woman

March 25th 2003, 01:22 AM

Yesterday @ 11:41 PM post located here
RightIdea:
Woman, if you are serious about your investigation of this issue, I HIGHLY recommend a book called In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation. The editor actually had over 300 such essays from over 300 such scientists but only published 50 of them. 50 scientists from almost every field you can think of:
T-gamble replies:
Yeah, it's quite revealing the way they admit their motivation for rejecting evolution is almost entirely emotional and religious based.

“ These are scientists who are published in peer-reviewed journals. They are heads of science departments in universities.
”

Remember that next time you hear some creationist nonsense about censorship and persecution!

“ You can find the book at http://AnswersInGenesis.org or at most good Christian book stores. Edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D. ”

Before you waste your money on rags you might want to read a couple of reviews.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/In6Days.html

Over all, you have to consider that

1) none of the 50 scientists have any actual EVIDENCe to support creationism or against evolution.

2) The thousands and thousands of scientists that disagree with them. If you want to take that 50 scientists dispute evolution (and geology, astronomy, cosomology etc) as proof or even evidence that thousands of scientists have 200 years are wrong, well, that's just nuts.

Science isn't decided by voting, it's not about majority rules. It's about evidence and creationists have none. It's really that simple.

Thanks T - I'm reading. :smile:

RufusAtticus

March 25th 2003, 01:24 AM

Today @ 12:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44340#post44340)
Socratism:

The short answer is that an entire extended story is not a "figure of speech". A figure of speech is a short phrase that doesn't mean what a word by word analysis would conclude. ("Hit the road")

The point is why is "floodgates" a figure of speech but "global flood" not? Are "in his own image" or "clay" figures of speech too?

Socrates

March 25th 2003, 01:37 AM

RightIdea:

Woman, if you are serious about your investigation of this issue, I HIGHLY recommend a book called In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation. The editor actually had over 300 such essays from over 300 such scientists but only published 50 of them. 50 scientists from almost every field you can think of:Excellent advice :thumb:

Of course, this is too much for tgamble since it refutes his claim that creation is not science:Yeah, it's quite revealing the way they admit their motivation for rejecting evolution is almost entirely emotional and religious based.Not at all. They give HEAPS of scientific reasons. gamble evidently has not read the book but rather only bigoted reviews of it.

These are scientists who are published in peer-reviewed journals. They are heads of science departments in universities.

Remember that next time you hear some creationist nonsense about censorship and persecution!No, Remember that next time you hear some evolutionist nonsense that no real scientist is a creationist. Red herring by gamble anyway. The point is, this shows that creationists are real scientists. But the creationist argument about censorship is of creationist ARGUMENTS.

You can find the book at http://AnswersInGenesis.org or at most good Christian book stores. Edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D.

Before you waste your money on rags you might want to read a couple of reviews.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm
From a demonstrably unreliable gutter atheist site. Some of the errors:

Andrew Snelling, who recently left AiG in Brisbane for greener pastures in the USA, Jonathan Sarfati who has taken his place, ...

Rubbish, a few years ago they were at an AiG conference in Sydney together, so evidently Dr Sarfati was already part of AiG before the Dr Snelling left. So it's ridiculous to think that Dr Sarfati took Dr Snelling's place. And as the book indicates, the former is a chemist and the latter is a geologist.

I think we ought to remove one name from the list: Bob Hosken, Senior Lecturer in Food Technology at the University of Newcastle. He writes with equanimity of taking part in studies on amino sequences of monotremes and marsupials which elucidated their phylogenetic relationships: "While these findings were very interesting", he writes (p.111), he was much more excited by relating molecular sequences to physiological requirements: "I cannot help but attribute the complexity of the design to a Creator, rather than to random evolutionary forces". Read his words carefully: do you see a creationist in them? I think I see someone who believes in a sort of divinely guided evolution. I think that here is the result of the way creationists have hijacked the language; that when the editor asked "who believes in creation?", Dr Hosken put up his hand, because he believes in a God. So, let’s leave him out and make Ashton’s total 49, though if someone should later make the case for restoring him to the list, it will not make much difference overall.

Rubbish -- if the anti-Christian reviewer bothered to read the introduction, he would have known that ALL 50 were asked, "Why do you believe IN A LITERAL SIX DAY biblical Creation as the origin of life on Earth?' And IN THIS CONTEXT, obviously Dr Hosken was saying in a low key way that the myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were better explained by design for their environment than alleged evolutionary ancestry.

Over all, you have to consider that

1) none of the 50 scientists have any actual EVIDENCe to support creationism or against evolution.Another ipse dixit.

2) The thousands and thousands of scientists that disagree with them. If you want to take that 50 scientists dispute evolution (and geology, astronomy, cosomology etc) as proof or even evidence that thousands of scientists have 200 years are wrong, well, that's just nuts.It wasn't intended to. It was intended to DISPROVE claims that no real scientist is a creationist.

Science isn't decided by voting, it's not about majority rules. I totally agree -- I leave the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum to the evolutionists!! It's about evidence and creationists have none. It's really that simple.The only thing that's simple is gamble's mind. There is plenty of evidence, but gamble just declares it to be invalid, because by his stipulative definition, creation is not science.

bar Jonah

March 25th 2003, 02:14 AM

Today @ 06:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44041#post44041)
tgamble:

Remember that next time you hear some creationist nonsense about censorship and persecution!
Socrates took a lot of words right out of my mouth.

In response to this bit of "nonsense" ... I didn't say they had been published in peer reviewed journals specifically regarding creationist science. Just that they were published in peer reviewed journals.

There ARE a very few occasions when creationist scientists have had creationist writings published in peer reviewed journals, but it is extremely rare. Why? Because the ultra-biased, primarily atheistic scientific community refuses to allow creationist scientists to publish their work in such venues. It's next to impossible.

And don't even pull that "well, their works weren't up to snuff, weren't of sufficient scientific quality" crap. If you do, you'll then be guilty of one of the things you accuse us of -- circular logic.

"Your creationist 'science' isn't valid because it isn't peer-reviewed."
"Your creationist 'science' isn't peer-reviewed because it isn't valid."

Woman

March 25th 2003, 03:18 AM

Right Idea:
There ARE a very few occasions when creationist scientists have had creationist writings published in peer reviewed journals, but it is extremely rare. Why? Because the ultra-biased, primarily atheistic scientific community refuses to allow creationist scientists to publish their work in such venues. It's next to impossible.

I can understand a certain amount of resentment toward the scientific community on the part of legitimate scientists who hold minority views. It would be disingenuous not to admit that politics and resistance to change are as much a part of the life sciences as they are of any other academic field. I have no doubt that we have all suffered unnecessarily, especially as it relates to health and medicine for instance, because the establishment was loathe to give up a deeply held notion.

But, to suggest that it is bigotry which prevents creationists from being invited to submit scientific papers which espouse Divine creation to mainstream scientific journals is not true either. Unless you are just talking about papers which might argue against evolution, let's say. Surely you cannot expect an article that contains religious scripture or doctrine to be carried in a publication dedicated to science.

Yes?

:hrm:

Socrates

March 25th 2003, 04:03 AM

Right idea pointed out a glaring circular argument :thumb:

Your creationist 'science' isn't valid because it isn't peer-reviewed.
Your creationist 'science' isn't peer-reviewed because it isn't valid.

There is another circular argument:

A: "No true scientist believes in Biblical Creation or doubts goo-to-you evolution"
B: Not so, because Dr X is a scientist by any normal criterion, with an earned Ph.D. in biology and with 93 refereed scientific publications and three patents, yet he believes in Biblical Creation and is sceptical of goo-to-you evolution."
A: Right,you've just shown that he can't be a TRUE scientist, because no true scientist doubts evolution!

AKA the "No true Scotsman fallacy".

And one could add the DOCUMENTED refusals to publish creationist letters, articles or even the right of reply to an attack, as shown in this article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0406news.asp, or the clear documentation that Scientific American refused to hire a columnist SOLELY because he was a creationist although they admitted that his work was "first rate" www.answersingenesis.org/docs/195.asp. A Texas uni professor refuses to write recommendations for students applying for Medical School unless they affirm belief that man evolved from ape-like creatures, although he has no medical qualifications himself www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0114dini.asp. Some creationists write under pseudonyms because of their fear of discrimination, which as shown is well grounded.

RightIdea also said:

There ARE a very few occasions when creationist scientists have had creationist writings published in peer reviewed journals, but it is extremely rare. Why? Because the ultra-biased, primarily atheistic scientific community refuses to allow creationist scientists to publish their work in such venues. It's next to impossible.

Woman replied:But, to suggest that it is bigotry which prevents creationists from being invited to submit scientific papers which espouse Divine creation to mainstream scientific journals is not true either.It is too, as shown.Unless you are just talking about papers which might argue against evolution, let's say.At best, one may be able to criticise a particular aspect of evolution, but never evolution itself (in the goo-to-you sense). Surely you cannot expect an article that contains religious scripture or doctrine to be carried in a publication dedicated to science.That's not what's being talked about. We are talking about papers that even defend intelligent design.

And note, plenty of scientific journals have published overt ATTACKS against Biblical Christianity. It's not on to say that SUPPORT of Christianity is "religion not science" while OPPOSITION to Christianity is "science".

Woman

March 25th 2003, 05:38 AM

Socrates: Right idea pointed out a glaring circular argument

Your creationist 'science' isn't valid because it isn't peer-reviewed.
Your creationist 'science' isn't peer-reviewed because it isn't valid.
I respond: I personally have not seen these statements in these words. I see no circular argument in what I DO usually hear.

1. Your creation scientists aren't valid because they aren't peer-reviewed.

2. Your creationist 'science' isn't peer-reviewed because it isn't SCIENCE!

Socrates:There is another circular argument:

A: "No true scientist believes in Biblical Creation or doubts goo-to-you evolution"
My modified version: Most scientists believe in evolution. Many believe in abiogenesis. Some believe in Biblical creation.
B: Not so, because Dr X is a scientist by any normal criterion, with an earned Ph.D. in biology and with 93 refereed scientific publications and three patents, yet he believes in Biblical Creation and is sceptical of goo-to-you evolution."
Me: It's possisble that Dr. X has overworked himself. How can he believe in Biblical creation and only be skeptical of abiogenesis?
A: Right,you've just shown that he can't be a TRUE scientist, because no true scientist doubts evolution!
Me: Uhh, you've just neglected to tell us what he thinks about evolution.

Socrates: RightIdea also said:

"There ARE a very few occasions when creationist scientists have had creationist writings published in peer reviewed journals, but it is extremely rare. Why? Because the ultra-biased, primarily atheistic scientific community refuses to allow creationist scientists to publish their work in such venues. It's next to impossible.

Woman replied:
But, to suggest that it is bigotry which prevents creationists from being invited to submit scientific papers which espouse Divine creation to mainstream scientific journals is not true either.

Socrates: It is too, as shown.

Woman continures: Unless you are just talking about papers which might argue against evolution, let's say.

Socrates: At best, one may be able to criticise a particular aspect of evolution, but never evolution itself (in the goo-to-you sense).

Goo-to-you has no meaning. If you mean evolution, say evolution. If you mean abiogenesis, say abiogenesis. When you mean both, say so.

Woman: Surely you cannot expect an article that contains religious scripture or doctrine to be carried in a publication dedicated to science.
Socrates:That's not what's being talked about. We are talking about papers that even defend intelligent design.

And I say: "Intelligent design" = God. By definition, a scientific paper cannot defend God. That's why there is no such thing as "creation science." Just as there can be no such thing as "Christian atheist."

Socrates:And note, plenty of scientific journals have published overt ATTACKS against Biblical Christianity. It's not on to say that SUPPORT of Christianity is "religion not science" while OPPOSITION to Christianity is "science."
Me: Scientific journals have published many ATTACKS on Biblical Creation. SUPPORT of Christianity is religion. OPPOSITION to supernatural creation is science.

Woman

March 25th 2003, 05:40 AM

Socrates: Right idea pointed out a glaring circular argument

Your creationist 'science' isn't valid because it isn't peer-reviewed.
Your creationist 'science' isn't peer-reviewed because it isn't valid.

I respond: I personally have not seen these statements in these words. I see no circular argument in what I DO usually hear.[i]
1. Your creation scientists aren't valid because they aren't peer-reviewed.

2. Your creationist 'science' isn't peer-reviewed because it isn't SCIENCE!

Socrates: There is another circular argument:

A: "No true scientist believes in Biblical Creation or doubts goo-to-you evolution"
My modified version: [i]Most scientists believe in evolution. Many believe in abiogenesis. Some believe in Biblical creation.
B: Not so, because Dr X is a scientist by any normal criterion, with an earned Ph.D. in biology and with 93 refereed scientific publications and three patents, yet he believes in Biblical Creation and is sceptical of goo-to-you evolution."
Me: It's possisble that Dr. X has overworked himself. How can he believe in Biblical creation and only be skeptical of abiogenesis?
A: Right,you've just shown that he can't be a TRUE scientist, because no true scientist doubts evolution!
Me: Uhh, you've just neglected to tell us what he thinks about evolution.

Socrates: RightIdea also said:

"There ARE a very few occasions when creationist scientists have had creationist writings published in peer reviewed journals, but it is extremely rare. Why? Because the ultra-biased, primarily atheistic scientific community refuses to allow creationist scientists to publish their work in such venues. It's next to impossible.

Woman replied:
But, to suggest that it is bigotry which prevents creationists from being invited to submit scientific papers which espouse Divine creation to mainstream scientific journals is not true either.

Socrates: It is too, as shown.

Woman continures: Unless you are just talking about papers which might argue against evolution, let's say.

Socrates: At best, one may be able to criticise a particular aspect of evolution, but never evolution itself (in the goo-to-you sense).

Goo-to-you has no meaning. If you mean evolution, say evolution. If you mean abiogenesis, say abiogenesis. When you mean both, say so.

Woman: Surely you cannot expect an article that contains religious scripture or doctrine to be carried in a publication dedicated to science.

Socrates:That's not what's being talked about. We are talking about papers that even defend intelligent design.

And I say: "Intelligent design" = God. By definition, a scientific paper cannot discuss God. That's why there is no such thing as "creation science." Just as there can be no such thing as "Christian atheist."

Socrates:
And note, plenty of scientific journals have published overt ATTACKS against Biblical Christianity. It's not on to say that SUPPORT of Christianity is "religion not science" while OPPOSITION to Christianity is "science."
Scientific journals have published many ATTACKS on Biblical Creation. SUPPORT of Christianity is religion. OPPOSITION to supernatural creation is science.

Socrates

March 25th 2003, 06:17 AM

Woman:
I see no circular argument in what I DO usually hear.

“ 1. Your creation scientists aren't valid because they aren't peer-reviewed.

2. Your creationist 'science' isn't peer-reviewed because it isn't SCIENCE! ” Please continue: "Your creationist theories can't be science, otherwise it would be peer reviewed." Caught you in the circle again!

B: Not so, because Dr X is a scientist by any normal criterion, with an earned Ph.D. in biology and with 93 refereed scientific publications and three patents, yet he believes in Biblical Creation and is sceptical of goo-to-you evolution.

It's possisble that Dr. X has overworked himself. How can he believe in Biblical creation and only be skeptical of abiogenesis?He's not. He is sceptical of the whole picture from inorganic chemicals to first living cell via other animals to human beings. Hence the term goo (primordial soup) to you via the zoo (other animals).

A: Right,you've just shown that he can't be a TRUE scientist, because no true scientist doubts evolution!

Me: Uhh, you've just neglected to tell us what he thinks about evolution. Uhh, you've just misunderstood my clear statement although I explained it many times before.

Goo-to-you has no meaning. If you mean evolution, say evolution. If you mean abiogenesis, say abiogenesis. When you mean both, say so. It DOES have a meaning as you know full well. Abiogenesis = chemical evolution. Unlike you, I don't equivocate.

Woman: Surely you cannot expect an article that contains religious scripture or doctrine to be carried in a publication dedicated to science.

Socrates:That's not what's being talked about. We are talking about papers that even defend intelligent design.

And I say: "Intelligent design" = God. By definition, a scientific paper cannot defend God. That's why there is no such thing as "creation science." Just as there can be no such thing as "Christian atheist."Right, stipulative definition, which would also rule out people like Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur and Kelvin. E.g. Kepler said he was "thinking God's thoughts after Him." So when you mean "science", say "science"; and when you mean "dogmatic naturalism" say "dogmatic naturalism". Don't say "science" when you really mean "dogmatic naturalism"!

It proves my point -- the main difference is not the data of science, but the self-serving materialistic RULES that Woman (who unlike me is not a scientist) wants to impose ON the data! But a REAL scientist would want to go where the evidence leads, even if this is to an Intelligent Designer.

Socrates:And note, plenty of scientific journals have published overt ATTACKS against Biblical Christianity. It's not on to say that SUPPORT of Christianity is "religion not science" while OPPOSITION to Christianity is "science."

Scientific journals have published many ATTACKS on Biblical Creation. SUPPORT of Christianity is religion. OPPOSITION to supernatural creation is science. Many scientists would say that creation is outside the scope of science. Therefore an attack on creation, a foundational doctrine of Christianity, is not science, but actually RELIGION.

Vorkosigan

March 25th 2003, 07:42 AM

Right, stipulative definition, which would also rule out people like Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur and Kelvin. E.g. Kepler said he was "thinking God's thoughts after Him." So when you mean "science", say "science"; and when you mean "dogmatic naturalism" say "dogmatic naturalism". Don't say "science" when you really mean "dogmatic naturalism"!

No, when Kepler et al did science, they did so as methodological naturalists, same as scientists from religions all over the world's religions today.

Hindu creationists make the same sort of attacks you do, Socrates. They just argue that all evidence points to the Hindu god. As Muslim fundy nuts argue that all evidence points to their fictional creator.

It proves my point -- the main difference is not the data of science, but the self-serving materialistic RULES that Woman (who unlike me is not a scientist) wants to impose ON the data! But a REAL scientist would want to go where the evidence leads, even if this is to an Intelligent Designer.

Quite true. But since no evidence points to an intelligent designer, there's no problem here.

Vorkosigan

Socrates

March 25th 2003, 07:48 AM

Socrates:
Right, stipulative definition, which would also rule out people like Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur and Kelvin. E.g. Kepler said he was "thinking God's thoughts after Him." So when you mean "science", say "science"; and when you mean "dogmatic naturalism" say "dogmatic naturalism". Don't say "science" when you really mean "dogmatic naturalism"!

Vork:
No, when Kepler et al did science, they did so as methodological naturalists, same as scientists from religions all over the world's religions today.You didn't refute my point at all! And you also fail to realise that CREATIONISTS follow MN in the area of OPERATIONAL science. This means all REAL science, the type that cures diseases, makes technological invention, puts people into space, etc.

It proves my point -- the main difference is not the data of science, but the self-serving materialistic RULES that Woman (who unlike me is not a scientist) wants to impose ON the data! But a REAL scientist would want to go where the evidence leads, even if this is to an Intelligent Designer.

Quite true. But since no evidence points to an intelligent designer, there's no problem here.That's what should be DETERMINED not DECREED! But I've already pointed out how Scott Todd said that he would NOT believe in an intelligent designer even if all the evidence pointed to it because it is not naturalistic. Sounds like closed-mindedness to me!

QED

March 25th 2003, 07:51 AM

QED then spruiked:

Why? That isn't my contention. My contention is that you do the same thing in the case of this mountain from which the entire world can be seen

QED is just a chronological snob who thinks ancient people were stupid. But it's perfectly logical -- they would have known that if there was such a mountain from which the whole world could be seen, then that mountain would be visible from the whole world.

But this passage was clearly a VISION, where Satan showed Jesus these kingdoms to try to tempt him.

It does matter how intelligent the people of New (or Old) Testament times were? - that's extrabibiblical knowledge. Why do you let it trump the "plain historical literal meaning" of the text? Why allow your fallible human knowledge that these people were critical thinkers to have more importance than what the Bible says?

No, I'm not a chronological snob. I don't believe the readers of that passage ever interpreted it the way a YEC should (if he were consistent). I'm merely willing to admit that the Bible isn't the kind of "final word" on nature that you say it is. Non-Biblical knowledge, especially science, is a more reliable guide to nature and non-theological points, and a good understanding of nature is necessary for to avoid misunderstanding the Bible on points of nature.

Getting a YEC to admit this is like pulling teeth. That's why I use examples like windows in the sky, pillars of the earth (Job's version), and the mountain in Matthew. You will gladly admit of the fact that your knowledge of human history (your lack of chronological snobbery, as you put it) changes your interpretation of the plain meaning of Matthew. You have no problem admitting that you don't read Gen 7:11 literally (though you still haven't admitted that it is scientific knowledge that informs this choice). This whole exercise is to show that your statement that you accept science, accept where a literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts it (or, in your words, where "the Bible speakes") is an inconsistent one, one that you are not willing to uphold in cases not dealing directly with the age of the earth or the mechanism of Creation.

Socrates

March 25th 2003, 08:07 AM

QED has once more failed to DEMONSTRATE that I or anyone else EVER interpreted the pillars of the Earth or "windows of heaven" as anything OTHER than metaphors. As always, he sets up a straw man about the grammatical-historical approach and insteads caricatures it as crass hyperliteralism, as the various Infudgel groups do. It's probably where he picked up this nonsense from.

So his pathetic excuse is discredited for fearing fallible theories about the past, invented mainly by people with an anti-Christian agendum like Darwin, Huxleys, Dawkins, etc., over God's infallible eye-witness account. One day QED might just admit that he simply DISBELIEVES Christ rather than his pretence that he just "reinterprets" His words.

Socratism

March 25th 2003, 11:11 AM

My memory of the specific beliefs of particular individuals is fuzzy but is this a case that Stalin called "useful idiots"?

Why do people who call themselves "Christian" give aid and comfort to the enemies of God by engaging in efforts to discredit the Bible using dishonest and stupid tactics straight from the pages of atheist websites?

Amazing, but true.

Of course I can look back now and remember with amazement that I did similar stupid things during my youthful fascination with evolution and my rebellion against God.

I can only thank God for His mercy and aid in recovering from these youthful sins.

bar Jonah

March 25th 2003, 11:16 AM

[i]Today @ 01:03 AM [
AKA the "No true Scotsman fallacy."
That Scotsman wouldn't be named Abby O'Genesis, would he? ;)

(Sorry! Couldn't resist! LOL) :brow:

TenDimensions

March 25th 2003, 11:25 AM

03-19-2003 @ 05:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40240#post40240)
tgamble:
Most don't! Those few that are educated in relevent areas reject what they learned because of a fanatical faith in the Bible.

He's right, by the way. When Scientific American published their "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" they included a graph published from a survey that clearly shows a drastic decline in the number of people who "believe the Earth and humans were created 10,000 years ago or less" as their eduction levels increased. It spanned from a high school eduction to a Ph.D. and I have yet to see any Creationist try to explain that other than it seems pointless to the actual article.

TenDimensions

March 25th 2003, 11:29 AM

Today @ 10:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44531#post44531)
Socratism:
Of course I can look back now and remember with amazement that I did similar stupid things during my youthful fascination with evolution and my rebellion against God.

I'm really not surpised by this rapid stereotyping and generalized statement casting atheists as "youths" who are "rebelling" against God. The wiring in your brain that allows for you to "believe" tends to also allow the brain to make quick "right or wrong", "black or white" decisions along with stereotyping the people and world around you in order to more easily grasp complex social issues.

Perhaps you should spend more time talking to older more mature agnostics and atheists. They're all over the place.

Socrates

March 25th 2003, 11:42 AM

10D to Socratism:
The wiring in your brain that allows for you to "believe" tends to also allow the brain to make quick "right or wrong", "black or white" decisions along with stereotyping the people and world around you in order to more easily grasp complex social issues.So, if all our thoughts are just the results of wiring in our brain, that applies to your thoughts too! So why should you even trust that they match external reality, let alone why the wiring in your brain is "better" than his -- after all, both sets of wiring follow the laws follow the same laws of chemistry!
Perhaps you should spend more time talking to older more mature agnostics and atheists. They're all over the place.I must have missed them. You mean Farrell Till? :rofl:

bar Jonah

March 25th 2003, 01:41 PM

Today @ 08:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44537#post44537)
TenDimensions:
He's right, by the way. When Scientific American published their "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" they included a graph published from a survey that clearly shows a drastic decline in the number of people who "believe the Earth and humans were created 10,000 years ago or less" as their eduction levels increased. It spanned from a high school eduction to a Ph.D. and I have yet to see any Creationist try to explain that other than it seems pointless to the actual article.
Your false logic is showing. LOL Is this the same logical process you apply to science in general? You are making a massive assumption based on the outcome of people becoming increasingly educated. One or both of the following two conclusions are equally possible:

1. The education system is severely biased against Creationism, and therefore people who ascend within it are indoctrinated into dogmatic naturalism.

2. The education system is severely biased against Creationism, and therefore it holds back anyone who doesn't accept its dogmatic views, refusing to allow them to advance in the world of academia.

I think we've already shown that #2 is certainly true.

tgamble

March 25th 2003, 03:36 PM

Today @ 03:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44531#post44531)
Socratism:

Why do people who call themselves "Christian" give aid and comfort to the enemies of God by engaging in efforts to discredit the Bible using dishonest and stupid tactics straight from the pages of atheist websites?

Why do so called Christians (such as yourself) spew out such slanderous and unsupported allegations against fellow Christians who are merely accepting modern science and rejecting the distortions, misinformation and lies of creation "science"?

You accuse them of discrediting the bible! Rubbish! They are merely disagreeing wtih an archaic interpretation of the Bible that calls God a liar.

You accuse them of useing "dishonest and stupid tactics" but are unable to support either claim.

You accuse them of taking the arguments from atheist webistes which is accusing them of not being smart enough to see the flaws in creation "science" for themselves.

The information isn't taken from atheist webistes, it's merely the same information. So what?

You can't refute the facts so you whine and moan about how the information is the same as what atheists present. As if that had any relevence!

TenDimensions

March 25th 2003, 10:13 PM

Today @ 12:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44660#post44660)
RightIdea:
Your false logic is showing. LOL Is this the same logical process you apply to science in general? You are making a massive assumption based on the outcome of people becoming increasingly educated. One or both of the following two conclusions are equally possible:

1. The education system is severely biased against Creationism, and therefore people who ascend within it are indoctrinated into dogmatic naturalism.

2. The education system is severely biased against Creationism, and therefore it holds back anyone who doesn't accept its dogmatic views, refusing to allow them to advance in the world of academia.

I think we've already shown that #2 is certainly true.

Well you are correct, those are two possibilities that may be equally true. But in order for those possibilities to be true I'd be interested to hear exactly how the education system could hold someone back from a higher education simply based on one concept.

I'm even willing to accept your notion that the educational system is biased against Creationism given that it is technically supposed to be a secular organization. But you'd still have to demonstrate how disagreement with regards to one aspect of the multitude of educational topics, on top of the vast specific fields of study where evolution has no bearing whatsoever on the success of the student, would have an impact on their ability to achieve higher education.

If you're going to claim a prejudice that is so prevelant that it's actually preventing students from achieving a higher education you're going to have to prove it.

Socrates

March 25th 2003, 11:23 PM

10D:
When Scientific American published their "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" they included a graph published from a survey that clearly shows a drastic decline in the number of people who "believe the Earth and humans were created 10,000 years ago or less" as their eduction levels increased. It spanned from a high school eduction to a Ph.D. and I have yet to see any Creationist try to explain that other than it seems pointless to the actual article.That's right. It's the argumentum ad numerum fallacy. And since the Sci.Am. TEXT did not incorporate it, AiG rightly did not waste any time on it. Instead they demolished the ARTICLE itself at www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp :bonk:

Hahah, all the Sci.Am. people could do is try to bully AiG into removing their article www.answersingenesis.org/news/0711sciam.asp, and of course AiG told them to take a flying. Then we hear that an atheist lamented the fact that the Sci.Am. editor was chickening out of further overt attacks on creation, because they had lost subscriptions over this.

Tycho

March 26th 2003, 06:32 AM

Yesterday @ 10:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44660#post44660)
RightIdea:
1. The education system is severely biased against Creationism, and therefore people who ascend within it are indoctrinated into dogmatic naturalism.

The education system is also severely biased against the flat Earth. Why is this? Is this a good state for the education system to be in?

Socrates

March 26th 2003, 06:36 AM

Yes, because there is REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE evidence against the Flat Earth, as people have known throughout Church history. There is NONE against creation. One of these days people like Tycho might surprise us all and learn the difference :bonk:

Tycho

March 26th 2003, 06:55 AM

Today @ 03:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45240#post45240)
Socrates:

Yes, because there is REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE evidence against the Flat Earth, as people have known throughout Church history. There is NONE against creation. One of these days people like Tycho might surprise us all and learn the difference :bonk:
Wow. Another lie from Socrates. Since he seems to believe that swapping URLs is proper debate,
The Age of the Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) . Specifically, this is evidence against a young Earth.

Socratism

March 26th 2003, 08:08 AM

Today @ 05:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45243#post45243)
Tycho:

Wow. Another lie from Socrates. Since he seems to believe that swapping URLs is proper debate,
The Age of the Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) . Specifically, this is evidence against a young Earth.

As I indicated in another thread the problem is that many scientists have deluded themselves into thinking that they have reliable techniques for determining the age of the Earth.

Actually what they have is data that can falsely be interpreted to come to the erroneous conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old.

Tycho

March 26th 2003, 08:16 AM

Today @ 05:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45261#post45261)
Socratism:
Actually what they have is data that can falsely be interpreted to come to the erroneous conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old.
Of course the data must be erronous! If the Earth were billions of years old, then Socratism would be wrong. Therefore, the Earth cannot be billions of years old.

[/sarcasm]

tgamble

March 26th 2003, 11:54 AM

[i]Today @ 03:23 AM That's right. It's the argumentum ad numerum fallacy. And since the Sci.Am. TEXT did not incorporate it, AiG rightly did not waste any time on it. Instead they demolished the ARTICLE itself at www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp

And as usual, they didn't let honesty or facts get in the way of their pathetic tirade.
http://creationcrap.batcave.net/aigresponse.html

tgamble

March 26th 2003, 11:56 AM

Today @ 12:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45261#post45261)
Socratism:

As I indicated in another thread the problem is that many scientists have deluded themselves into thinking that they have reliable techniques for determining the age of the Earth.

You're the one who's deluded himself into thinking they do NOT have reliable tecniques!

Actually what they have is data that can falsely be interpreted to come to the erroneous conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old.

You only insist that it's false because you don't want it to be true. You have no evidence.

bar Jonah

March 26th 2003, 12:12 PM

Today @ 03:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45243#post45243)
Tycho:
Wow. Another lie from Socrates. Since he seems to believe that swapping URLs is proper debate,
The Age of the Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) . Specifically, this is evidence against a young Earth.
Then could you please enlighten us all by explaining how the age of the Earth is either OBSERVABLE or REPEATABLE???

You have a time machine, do you? You're dangerously approaching blatant intellectual dishonesty, here.

There are lots of real, evidential arguments for a naturalistic origin of the universe. But when you say things like the above, all you do is show yourself to be either dishonest or foolish. The age of the earth is not observable or repeatable, ala the scientific method. (Or without the scientific method, for that matter.) To claim otherwise is utterly preposterous.

QED

March 28th 2003, 10:45 PM

03-25-2003 @ 12:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44467#post44467)
Socrates:

QED has once more failed to DEMONSTRATE that I or anyone else EVER interpreted the pillars of the Earth or "windows of heaven" as anything OTHER than metaphors.

And, considering that it was never my contention that you or anyone else EVER interpreted the pillars of the Earth or the windows of heaven as anything other than metaphors, I think it is quite logical that I have not bothered to demonstrate it. Why would I DEMONSTRATE what I do not PROFESS??

Once again, for the reading-impaired - the fact that you and everyone else interpret these passages (especially the windows of heaven) as metaphors despite the utter lack of a Biblical reason to do so, and because of scientific (or other extra-biblical...) knowledge is the DEMONSTRATION that your previous claim is false. That would be the one where you accept empirical science only where the Bible is silent and only the Bible where the Bible speaks. If you actually held that position (rather than merely professing it), you would interpret the windows in the sky literally. If that was truly your position, and you were consistent, then you would be on the attack against atheistic gutter meteorology, in much the same way that you are on the attack against atheistic gutter evolution: because the Bible is not silent on this point, and offers no more justification for a metaphorical interpretation of windows in the sky than it does for the creation week.

As always, he sets up a straw man about the grammatical-historical approach and insteads caricatures it as crass hyperliteralism, as the various Infudgel groups do. It's probably where he picked up this nonsense from.

No straw man, just pointing out that what you are calling the "grammatical-historical approach" is nothing more than a $10 word that you use to mean that you can legitimately interpret literally except where failing to do so would make you a laughing stock even within your fundamentalist circles.

So his pathetic excuse is discredited for fearing fallible theories about the past, invented mainly by people with an anti-Christian agendum like Darwin, Huxleys, Dawkins, etc., over God's infallible eye-witness account.

Yes, but which people with anti-Christian agendas taught you to believe in godless meteorology over God's infallible eye-witness account?

One day QED might just admit that he simply DISBELIEVES Christ rather than his pretence that he just "reinterprets" His words.

But for now, I will stick by admiting, nay - proclaiming - that I DISBELIEVE that Socrates interpretation of some parts of the Bible reflect reality in any way, shape, or form.

And, because Socrates is on the record as an arrogant usurper of the authority of scripture, I firmly believe he will continue to pretend that my rejection of his personal hermeneutics equates to a rejection of Christ's teachings. I think most everyone else will be able to see through the ploy.

gladiatrix

March 28th 2003, 11:08 PM

03-19-2003 @ 07:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=39954#post39954)
Socratism:
No. Fortunately we live in a country that has received God's Grace (so far) because of the wisdom of our forefathers in following Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, my education indoctrinated me into the false religion of evolution, but by the Grace of God I somehow broke free of that religion. The scales fell off my eyes and I was able to see clearly for the first time how false and deceptive this destructive belief had been.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. The truth shall make you free.
I'm rather new here and was reading the beginning of this thread when I came across the above... It's off topic as I see at this end of the thread, but I couldn't let his remarks pass unchallenged... I ask your indulgence for a moment...........

Bullocks!! Indeed the shall make you free and one of the biggest UNTruths flogged by the Religious Right is the myth that "this nation is founded on Christian principle".......

How did Christianity contribute to the writing of the Constitution , especially in light of the fact that some Christains are alway trumpeting that this is a "Christian nation founded on Christian principles". But it that really true? Let's look at: A = Constitutional principle B = What the Bible says on the subject Adapted/Quoted FROM Christian Bible Foundations of the U.S.A (http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/usa.htm)

Sometimes now we hear that the United States is "founded on biblical principles", as a slightly softened version of the "Christian nation" idea. People making that claim don't give specifics on what foundations of the U.S. and what parts of the Bible they mean.

Of the many foundations of our country, I was able to find two which are supported in the Bible, and several which run contradictory to the Bible.

(A)FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I don't find in the Bible any defense of freedom of speech.
(B) On the contrary: "he that doubteth is damned" (Romans 14:23); "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...whose mouths must be stopped.." (Titus, 1:10-11); and "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ......and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19). The last passage could be construed as being against democracy, since anyone who runs for office against an existing administration is sowing discord.

(A)RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE. This is embraced in both the original Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) and in the First Amendment. Yet in the Bible we have:
(B) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3); "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18); "He that sacrifice unto any god save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20); "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23); "he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" (Leviticus 24:16). [Such stoning was actually carried out, in 1 Kings 21:13] Anyone proselytizing for another religion is to be put to death, and if that person is a member of your family, you are to strike the first blow to kill him or her (Deuteronomy 13:5-10). "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). The practice of "shunning" someone who disagrees with you on religious matters is advised in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

(A)A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Our Constitution demands this (Article IV, Section 4). But I find nothing in the Bible to support it.

(B) On the contrary, Romans 13:1-7 tells people to obey authority because it is instituted by God. NOTE: For an interesting view of this go HERE (libertarian) (http://libertariannation.org/a/f23l2.html)

(A)"CORRUPTION OF THE BLOOD" is forbidden by the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2). In the Bible, though:

(B) "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). [However, the Bible does contradict itself on this: "... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16)]. Also: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut. 5:9); "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). Bastards may not enter the temple, nor their descendants (Deut. 23:2). God even killed a baby because of a sin by its father (2 Samuel 12:14). Ahab escaped punishment for murder by making an elaborate apology, and his descendants were punished instead (I Kings 21:29). The doctrine of original sin is also against this part of the Constitution.

(A)SLAVERY. This was an important social and economic foundation of our country both before and after independence. It was an institution condoned by the founders and recognized and defended by the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise" (http://www.aaregistry.com/detail.php3?id=552)

(B)Slavery is also condoned in both the Old and New Testaments, but it is never condemned. On the contrary, it is codified, and made an inherited condition:

Exodus 21:4ff gives rules for keeping slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says that heathen may be purchased as slaves, that their children become slaves, and that they are inherited as property by the owner's children for ever. Other places that indicate that slavery is a hereditary condition are: Genesis 9:25, Exodus 21:4, Corinthians 7:20. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says that when you conquer a city, if it surrenders then all people inside it become your slaves; but if it doesn't surrender, then all males are to be killed and all women and children "take unto thyself". Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to honor their masters.

In the book of Philemon, Paul sends a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his former master. But this conflicts with the admonition in Deuteronomy 23:15 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped..." So the Bible is on both sides of the 1857 Dred Scott case!

(A)TREATMENT OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. Here is another place where one of the foundations of our country is justified by the Bible. NOTE: No Constitutional protection for the original inhabitants of this country................

(B)"Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy....And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein.." (Numbers 33:52-53). This biblical injunction was obeyed many times by Americans.

(A) WOMEN'S RIGHTS Not mentioned by the author of the previous website is women's rights which are ignored by the Constitution......

(B)The Bible is very clear on their inferior status (http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/christianity_and_women.htm) as reinterated in these articles:
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, by John Knox (1558) (http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FirBlast.htm)

A 1993 DEFENSE of the Knox Hatred of Women (http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/GovtWome.htm)(yes, you see correctly 1993, in the 20th Century and then there's the SBC's (Baptist) notion (http://www.erlc.com/President/dr_land_on_the_news.htm#..on%20questioning%20biblical%20submission) of "freedom" for women { their "all people are equal (men,women), but some people (men) are more equal than others (women)" Orwellian Newspeak)}

Looks like the "Christian" contributions of slavery and discrimination against women and minorities did indeed get into the Constitution. NOTE:Of course, Christians are not the only religious group with adherents guilty of promoting the slavery or discrimination. Not all Christians now support the submission of women and /or slavery (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/Library/opposition/vol1num5/art1.htm) (views of Randall Terry, a Christian Reconstructionist) (http://reason.com/9811/col.olson.shtml) And yes IMO the views of such Christains are totally inimical (http://www.americanatheist.org/win97-8/T2/archenemy.html) to freedom in any shape, form, or fashion.

The bottom-line here is that the Constitution is a SECULAR document (begins with "We, the people, NOT We, the Christians), containing no mention of God or Christianity. There is even a provision outlawing religious tests for holding office (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art6.htm).

The phrase "one nation, under God, was ADDED to the pledge of alligance at the behest of the likes of Joseph McCarthy in 1954 (got to counter those "evil, Godless commies, don't you know!) . The phrase "in God we trust" (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html) did not appear on a LIMITED set of coins until the mid 1860s (it didn't appear on the same coins in a consistent fashion, either). It didn't appear on the paper currency til 1957 (again as a counter to all those "evil, godless commies! Better dead than atheist-Red!)

Here is why I think the Founders were great men. Nathan Poe said it better than I could so, in his own word.....

Nathan Poe said this in Post #26 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=701087#post701087)

I've always said that the founding fathers were great for a reason.

Many of them were very religious, and give their faith a great deal of credit for their personal lives and success.

But they possessed a great quality that many great men have: They knew that what worked for them might not work for others. So they decided to respect their religion, but not to inflict it upon others.

They possessed another great quality that many great men have: They learned from history's mistakes, and saw the corruption and oppression state-sanctioned religion can cause.

They possessed one great quality that few great men, except themselves, had at the time: Their faith in ordinary people to decide for themselves how to live, without the need of kings or Gods to pass down royal/divine decrees.

Lastly, they possessed the most important quality of all: an acceptance of their own limitations. They knew that they did not have all the answers, so they encouraged the advance of knowlegde so that future generations could not only build on what they had started, but correct their mistakes.

None of this could have been possible in a true "Christian nation." When was the last time a Holy Man admitted he was wrong? 

When it comes to the "wall of separation" issue between the state and religion, I don't think that politically aggressive Christians like the Christian Right want the wall down so much as they want a special door in that wall marked "FOR TRUE Christians™ ONLY" (rigorous enforcement against favors for and promotion of all other religions but their flavor of Christian fundamentalism aka TRUE Christianity™).

Thank you, back to your regularly scheduled dueling.....http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/starwars/star-wars-smiley-023.gif

TheFiveSolas

March 28th 2003, 11:27 PM

TenDimensions wrote:

If you're going to claim a prejudice that is so prevelant (sic) that it's actually preventing students from achieving a higher education you're going to have to prove it.

Here's one example:

Before you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences, there are several criteria that must be met...You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me...If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation...Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school... The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology.

The above comes from Dr. Michael Dini, professor of biology at Texas Tech University and can be read in its entirety at:
http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm

The online campus paper puts it this way:

A Texas Tech associate professor of biology is receiving criticism for requiring his students to believe in the theories of evolution before he will grant them a letter of recommendation.

The full article can be read at:
http://www.universitydaily.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/10/24/3db7603f379cc

So, Dr. Dini doesn't care if you got A's in his class (showing that you fully understand the theory of evolution), if you can't tell him that you also BELIEVE in evolution then he will REFUSE to write a letter of recommendation (which is something that is REQUIRED in order to get into medical school!)

What's ironic is that Dr. Dini would have refused to write a recommendation for people like Louis Pasteur simply because he was a creationist.

tgamble

March 28th 2003, 11:32 PM

[i]03-25-2003 @ 06:14 AM

And don't even pull that "well, their works weren't up to snuff, weren't of sufficient scientific quality" crap. If you do, you'll then be guilty of one of the things you accuse us of -- circular logic.

"Your creationist 'science' isn't valid because it isn't peer-reviewed."
"Your creationist 'science' isn't peer-reviewed because it isn't valid."

Circular logic I leave to the creationists (the bible is true because it's the word of god, it's the word of God because it's true). I tend not to use it.

Nope, your "science" isn't valid because it depends on desperate handwaving of problems, appeals to miracles and the supernature, ignoring relevent data that doesn't fit, making predefined and unchangeable conclusions before you start etc. etc. etc.

If creationsits want to publish in peer reviewed scientific journals, they'll have to come up with something worth publishing in anything other than the National Enquier.

But they can't. Because the "science" they cling to was shown to be false centuries ago.

TheFiveSolas

March 28th 2003, 11:40 PM

tgamble,
I'm still waiting for your scientific defense of human free will/choice. Remember, without it you can't claim to have freely come to the view that you now espouse.

tgamble

March 28th 2003, 11:44 PM

And one could add the DOCUMENTED refusals to publish creationist letters, articles or even the right of reply to an attack, as shown in this article

AIG's whining is hardly evidence of persecution of creationists!

They claim Mimms wasn't hired because he wasn't a creationist. No evidence for this, merely their persecution complex.

They whine about SA not publishing Johnson's response to Gould. Big deal. SA no doubt had better things to publish than some idiot lawyers ravings against science.

A Texas uni professor refuses to write recommendations for students applying for Medical School unless they affirm belief that man evolved from ape-like creatures, although he has no medical qualifications himself www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0114dini.asp.

The link is dead but I doubt AIG's spin on the issue is accurate.

It never is.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44341&highlight=professors+letter+probe

At best, one may be able to criticise a particular aspect of evolution, but never evolution itself (in the goo-to-you sense).

evolution in the "goo to you sense" doesn't exist. It's a stupid creationist strawman.

And note, plenty of scientific journals have published overt ATTACKS against Biblical Christianity.

You want to call your religious dogma "science", don't whine when it's raked through the mud like any false science.

2. The education system is severely biased against Creationism, and therefore it holds back anyone who doesn't accept its dogmatic views, refusing to allow them to advance in the world of academia.

I think we've already shown that #2 is certainly true.

No you haven't actually. Morris, Gish, Kurt Wise and others managed to get Phds despite the alleged persecution. Not getting published has nothing to do with persecution, it has to do with the fact that creationists have nothing of any scientific value to offer. 'All they have is religious dogma and archaic myths.

RufusAtticus

March 29th 2003, 01:44 AM

Yesterday @ 10:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47469#post47469)
TheFiveSolas:

What's ironic is that Dr. Dini would have refused to write a recommendation for people like Louis Pasteur simply because he was a creationist.

Actually Dini wouldn't write a letter for Pasteur because Pasteur hasn't taken one of Dini's classes, hasn't gotten an A in it, and doesn't know Dini personally. If Pasteur had sat through one of Dini's classes he probably wouldn't even be a creationist.

A couple of other points:
Dini is not some god-hating atheist scientist. He is a devout Catholic, who spent over ten years in a teaching order.
The student, Micah Spralding, never even asked for a recommendation, so he was never denied one despite what the ruckus claims.
In fact, the student never even enrolled in Dini's class, but sat in on for two sessions before he transfered to Lubbock Christian University for a semester.
He claimed descrimination after LCU wouldn't let him enroll because the semester had already begun. It appears like it was an excuse to get special treatment.
It appears that Spralding's only intent in all this was to get a letter of recommendation for med school. He had no interest in actually learning anything.

And my parody of the original new article:

Professor rigid on the cause of disease

Tommy Totone was OK with learning that germs cause disease in college, but his family drew the line when his belief in the theory became a prerequisite for continuing his education.

Jim Totone said his son left Lubbock State this semester and enrolled in Lubbock College for Jesus after encountering the policy of one associate professor in biological sciences.

Professor James Buffet's Web site states that a student must "truthfully and forth rightly" believe that germs cause disease to receive a letter of recommendation from him.

"How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in medicine expect to properly practice medicine?" Buffet's site reads.

Buffet says on the site that it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the "germs cause disease can make bad clinical decisions." . . .

Jim Totone, who owns The Brace Place, said his son wanted to follow in his footsteps and needed a letter from a biology professor to apply for a program at Southwestern University's medical school.

Totone is not the only medical professional in Lubbock shocked by Buffet's policy. Doctors Pat Boone and Marvin Gaye said they learned that germs cause disease in college but were never forced to believe it.

"I learned what they taught," Boone said. "I had to. I wanted to make good grades, but it didn't change my basic beliefs."

Gaye said his primary problem is Buffet "trying to force someone to pledge allegiance to his way of thinking." . . .

Buffet is in a position of authority and "can injure someone's career," and the criteria is the "most prejudice thing I have ever read," Gaye said.

"It is appalling," he said.

Both doctors said their beliefs that demonic possession cause disease have never negatively affected their practices, and Gaye said he is a more compassionate doctor because of his beliefs.

"I do not believe the germs have anything to do with the ability to make clinical decisions — pro or con," Gaye said.

Academic freedom should be extended to students, Boone said.

Buffet's site states that an individual who denies the evidence commits malpractice in the method of science because "good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs."

People throw out information be cause "it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs," Buffet's site reads. A physician who ignores data cannot remain a physician for long, it states.

Buffet's site lists him as an exceptional faculty member at Lubbock State in 1995 and says he was named "Teacher of the Year" in 1998-99 by the Honors College at Lubbock State.

Boone said he does not see any evidence on Buffet's vita that he attended medical school or treated patients.

"Dr. Buffet is a nonmedical person trying to impose his ideas on medicine," Boone said. "There is little in common between teaching biology classes and treating sick people. ...

How dare someone who has never treated a sick person purport to impose his feelings about germs causing disease on someone who aspires to treat such people?"

On his Web site, Buffet questions how someone who does not believe that germs cause disease can ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist.

TheFiveSolas

March 29th 2003, 02:02 AM

Rufus wrote:

Actually Dini wouldn't write a letter for Pasteur because Pasteur hasn't taken one of Dini's classes, hasn't gotten an A in it, and doesn't know Dini personally.

Irrelevant to the point I was making. IF Pasteur had fulfilled all the criteria EXCEPTING belief in evolution then he wouldn't have gotten a recommendation. The irony is that Dr. Dini asserts that someone that denies evolution, which Pasteur did (note: he was very familiar with the theory and was vehemently opposed to it), cannot be a good scientist. Yet, we find this is not the case with one of the founding fathers of modern biology.

Also, the situation surrounding the student you brought up is irrelevant to the point I made since he didn't fulfill the other requirements for a recommendation. My point was simple, according to Dr. Dini's own words, even if someone proved excellent knowledge in Dr. Dini's class, knew him personally, etc., they would have to believe in evolution in order to get a recommendation. The post I was responding to (which I quoted) was one in which someone wanted proof that belief in evolution was the sole criteria for discrimination of someone seeking higher education. I proved that point.

RufusAtticus

March 29th 2003, 05:27 AM

Today @ 01:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47600#post47600)
TheFiveSolas:

Irrelevant to the point I was making. IF Pasteur had fulfilled all the criteria EXCEPTING belief in evolution then he wouldn't have gotten a recommendation. The irony is that Dr. Dini asserts that someone that denies evolution, which Pasteur did (note: he was very familiar with the theory and was vehemently opposed to it), cannot be a good scientist. Yet, we find this is not the case with one of the founding fathers of modern biology.

:rofl:
Pasteur died in 1895, before Mendel was rediscovered and before the modern synthesis resolved the major problem with Darwin's mechanism of natural selection: the mode of inheritance. You have nothing to show that Pasteur or even Micah Spralding would have any problems fullfilling the last requirement after successfully meeting the other three. (It's amazing what an education can do.)

Appealing to Pasteur is like saying that Newton wouldn't be fit for physics graduate school because he rejected relativity.

My point was simple, according to Dr. Dini's own words, even if someone proved excellent knowledge in Dr. Dini's class, knew him personally, etc., they would have to believe in evolution in order to get a recommendation.

No. They only have to be able to give and defend a scientific answer to the question: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?"

The post I was responding to (which I quoted) was one in which someone wanted proof that belief in evolution was the sole criteria for discrimination of someone seeking higher education. I proved that point.

No you haven't, since letters of recommendation are personal statements about the quality of a student. No professor is oblidged to recommend any student. Dini is no more discriminating against creationists than he is discriminating against people who haven't taken his class or people who he doesn't know or B-students. (BTW: I see four criteria on Dini's webpage, not one. Thus it is clearly not the "sole criteria" being used. )

tgamble

March 29th 2003, 08:55 AM

Today @ 03:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47480#post47480)
TheFiveSolas:

tgamble,
I'm still waiting for your scientific defense of human free will/choice. Remember, without it you can't claim to have freely come to the view that you now espouse.

Why don't you defend how free will can exist when an all knowing God knows every decision you'll ever make?

Your question is totally irrelvent to evolution anyway.

Socrates

March 29th 2003, 12:10 PM

Rufie wrote:
Dini is not some god-hating atheist scientist. He is a devout Catholic, who spent over ten years in a teaching order.This means squat. The arch heretic Spong was Bishop in the Episcopalian church and claimed to be a devout Christian although denying the Resurrection. In any case, this bigot Dini LEFT this Catholic order, so how does RA know he isn't an embittered apostate? Finally, RA is hardly a reliable guide to what a good Christian is, since he thinks his wife was a good Christian when she married an atheist like him, whereas a good Christian would never disobey Christ's Apostle Paul's command against unequally yoking with an unbeliever.

bar Jonah

March 29th 2003, 12:43 PM

Today @ 05:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47674#post47674)
tgamble:
Why don't you defend how free will can exist when an all knowing God knows every decision you'll ever make?

Your question is totally irrelvent to evolution anyway.
Which is exactly one of the reasons why I and many others here are Open Theists who believe that God is omniscient and knows everything there is to know ... but that the future doesn't exist to be known, and therefore God doesn't know all of the future.

tgamble

March 29th 2003, 12:50 PM

Today @ 04:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47794#post47794)
Socrates:

Rufie wrote:
Dini is not some god-hating atheist scientist. He is a devout Catholic, who spent over ten years in a teaching order.This means squat. The arch heretic Spong was Bishop in the Episcopalian church and claimed to be a devout Christian although denying the Resurrection. In any case, this bigot Dini LEFT this Catholic order, so how does RA know he isn't an embittered apostate? Finally, RA is hardly a reliable guide to what a good Christian is, since he thinks his wife was a good Christian when she married an atheist like him, whereas a good Christian would never disobey Christ's Apostle Paul's command against unequally yoking with an unbeliever.

You seem to be getting more nasty, spiteful and bitter all the time.

I guess it's the result of having no evidence for your childish myths.

Socrates

March 29th 2003, 01:12 PM

tgamble wrote:
They claim Mimms wasn't hired because he wasn't a creationist. No evidence for this, merely their persecution complex.Yeah, right, so Harper's Magazine is part of the right wing creationist conspiracy too? They published a taped conversation between Mims and the then editor of Scientific American Jonathan Piel [‘Science’s Litmus Test’, Harper’s Magazine, March 1991]. Piel admitted that Mims' work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’ and ‘first rate’,and ‘should be published somewhere’. But the transcript is explicit that this outstanding writer was not hired simply because he was a creationist.

Perhaps the journal Science is also part of this vast conspiracy [G. Easterbrook, ‘Science and God: A Warming Trend?’ Science, 277(5328):890–893, 1997 — see p. 891]?

Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.

TheFiveSolas

March 29th 2003, 01:16 PM

Rufus wrote:

No. They only have to be able to give and defend a scientific answer to the question: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?"

I quoted what Dr. Dini meant by the statement "scientific origin", he was referring specifically to evolution. My point still stands.

Socrates

March 29th 2003, 01:22 PM

Rufie's parody is too stupid for words :dufus:, but it shows the lengths people will go to to justify their bigotry. Fact is, the discoverer of the germ theory was the creationist Pasteur! And the germ theory is supported by OPERATIONAL science in the PRESENT, while evolution is a hypothesis about Earth's PAST based on such crass nonsense that Rufie thinks God (whom he doesn't believe in anyway) wouldn't have created things that way.

Furthermore, Dini doesn't know what he's talking about -- he's never practised medicine or even been to medical school :dufus:. Many creationist medical doctors are amused that this apostate Catholic thinks he knows that the evolutionary hypothesis is essential to medicine when they know from experience that this is nonsense! But then, an evolutionist always knows better than a creationist on ANY subject, at least in the warped minds of its fanatical defenders like Rufie. :bonk:

Bald Ape

March 29th 2003, 01:29 PM

Point/Counter Point

Point (from Socrates, bible expert):
Finally, RA is hardly a reliable guide to what a good Christian is, since he thinks his wife was a good Christian when she married an atheist like him, whereas a good Christian would never disobey Christ's Apostle Paul's command against unequally yoking with an unbeliever.

Counter-point (from Jesus of Nazareth, carpenter):
If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her...You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Anyone want to pick a winner in this debate?

tgamble

March 29th 2003, 01:31 PM

Today @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47835#post47835)
Socrates:

Rufie's parody is too stupid for words :dufus:, but it shows the lengths people will go to to justify their bigotry.

Still being nasty and insulting I see.

Fact is, the discoverer of the germ theory was the creationist Pasteur![/QHOTE]

So the hell what? It's doubtful he was a YEC.

[QUOTE]And the germ theory is supported by OPERATIONAL science in the PRESENT, while evolution is a hypothesis about Earth's PAST based on such crass nonsense that Rufie thinks God (whom he doesn't believe in anyway) wouldn't have created things that way.

My, but you are dishonest today! Evolution is also supported by operation science done in the present.

Don't forget the study of the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology etc. etc. etc.

Furthermore, Dini doesn't know what he's talking about -- he's never practised medicine or even been to medical school :dufus:.

Irrelvent. He's still right that evolution is an important part of biology. He still has the right to refuse a reccemendation to anyone he sees as unqualified. Get over it.

Many creationist medical doctors are amused that this apostate Catholic thinks he knows that the evolutionary hypothesis is essential to medicine when they know from experience that this is nonsense!

Naturally, they haven't done any medical research.

Nope, they just prefer to reject science in favor of silly myths.

The cure cure for cancer won't be found by saying goddoneit!

But then, an evolutionist always knows better than a creationist on ANY subject, at least in the warped minds of its fanatical defenders like Rufie. :bonk:

STill no evidence for creation "science" I see. Just bitter ravings and insults. LOL!

TenDimensions

March 29th 2003, 01:59 PM

03-26-2003 @ 05:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45240#post45240)
Socrates:

Yes, because there is REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE evidence against the Flat Earth, as people have known throughout Church history. There is NONE against creation. One of these days people like Tycho might surprise us all and learn the difference :bonk:

Care to share with the the REPEATABLE and OBSERVABLE evidence for black holes?

You're truly lacking in scientific understanding if you think repeatability and direct observance are two REQUIREMENTS for science. They may be central tenets, but are not requirements.

TenDimensions

March 29th 2003, 02:06 PM

Yesterday @ 10:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47469#post47469)
TheFiveSolas:
So, Dr. Dini doesn't care if you got A's in his class (showing that you fully understand the theory of evolution), if you can't tell him that you also BELIEVE in evolution then he will REFUSE to write a letter of recommendation (which is something that is REQUIRED in order to get into medical school!)

What's ironic is that Dr. Dini would have refused to write a recommendation for people like Louis Pasteur simply because he was a creationist.

I'm well aware of the Dr. Dini situation. The position of the university isn't so much whether evolution is right or wrong as is whether or not Dr. Dini has the complete authority over deciding who to give recommendations to on a basis determined solely by himself.

Since he does have this right a Creationist professor has the exact same rights. I fail to see how this matters very much outside of someone pursuing a biological career and absolutely requiring a recommendation from Dr. Dinni.

TenDimensions

March 29th 2003, 02:08 PM

Yesterday @ 10:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47480#post47480)
TheFiveSolas:

tgamble,
I'm still waiting for your scientific defense of human free will/choice. Remember, without it you can't claim to have freely come to the view that you now espouse.

tgamble, you might want to take a look over in the Philosophy section under the TAG thread. Some interesting debate going on now.

Butters

March 29th 2003, 03:00 PM

"Which is exactly one of the reasons why I and many others here are Open Theists who believe that God is omniscient and knows everything there is to know ... but that the future doesn't exist to be known, and therefore God doesn't know all of the future."

Wow. Just a couple of questions. Exactly what is your definition of omniscient. If God doesn't know the future, then his plan is not fixed, and could change from what the bible predicts. If the future doesn't exist to be known, then that means God doesn't KNOW ANY of the future. right?

RufusAtticus

March 29th 2003, 04:03 PM

Today @ 11:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47794#post47794)
Socrates:

Rufie wrote:

Socrates, the correct diminutive of "Rufus" is "Rufulus." You can't even get your flames right. :bonk:

In any case, this bigot Dini LEFT this Catholic order, so how does RA know he isn't an embittered apostate?

Because the NY Times talked to some of his students who say that he still is a devout catholic. He appears to have left his order for professional reasons, not religious ones.

Finally, RA is hardly a reliable guide to what a good Christian is, since he thinks his wife was a good Christian when she married an atheist like him, whereas a good Christian would never disobey Christ's Apostle Paul's command against unequally yoking with an unbeliever.

And here I thought being a good Christian only required faith in Jesus Christ as a Lord and savior. Maybe I should use Socrates as a my christian role model, but then I'd just have a potty mouth.

RufusAtticus

March 29th 2003, 04:04 PM

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47832#post47832)
TheFiveSolas:

Rufus wrote:
I quoted what Dr. Dini meant by the statement "scientific origin", he was referring specifically to evolution. My point still stands.

Yes Dini is thinking about evolution. But no "belief" is necessary and the student is free to offer an alternate, equally scientific response.

bar Jonah

March 29th 2003, 04:07 PM

Today @ 12:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47924#post47924)
Butters:
Wow. Just a couple of questions. Exactly what is your definition of omniscient. If God doesn't know the future, then his plan is not fixed, and could change from what the bible predicts. If the future doesn't exist to be known, then that means God doesn't KNOW ANY of the future. right?
Omnisciene is the divine quality that God knows everything there is to know. Open Theism does not limit God; it limits Creation by saying the future doesn't exist to be known. God can't know something that doesn't exist and is therefore unknowable.

God's plan is not fixed -- that should be obvious on its face. God's plan changes in response to the actions and decisions of men. Read Jeremiah 18. God says in the first person that He changes His plan in response to men.

But Open Theism is often referred to as the Partially Open View for a good reason. God knows the future in regards to things that do not involve human free will. For example, Creation is ruled by physical laws. If human free will isn't affecting part of Creation (such as an avalanche on a mountain), God can predict where every single snowflake is going to end up at the bottom. No free will involved, therefore it's simply a complex set of dominoes with a perfectly predictable outcome.

But also, there are some things God decides will happen because He decides He will make it happen, regardless of human free will. For example, God can decide He will do something in the future regardless of human decisions. The most notable example of this is the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In God's plan, this HAD to happen. Therefore, He made it happen. It didn't have to happen exactly as it did, but it did have to happen with certain predetermined aspects (pierced but no bones broken, in a certain time frame, etc.) to fulfill prophecy.

So, yes, God knows some of the future, because God intends to do things (and no one can stop Him from doing what He decides to do), and God can predict mechanical aspects of Creation with 100% accuracy. He simply doesn't know the future decisions of men... because they don't exist to be known.

Socratism

March 29th 2003, 04:11 PM

Today @ 02:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47924#post47924)
Butters:

"Which is exactly one of the reasons why I and many others here are Open Theists who believe that God is omniscient and knows everything there is to know ... but that the future doesn't exist to be known, and therefore God doesn't know all of the future."

Wow. Just a couple of questions. Exactly what is your definition of omniscient. If God doesn't know the future, then his plan is not fixed, and could change from what the bible predicts. If the future doesn't exist to be known, then that means God doesn't KNOW ANY of the future. right?

God does not "know" the future in the sense that He "sees" it like one might do if time machines were possible, but if God wants to make something happen in the future He is quite capable of making it happen, so in that sense He can "know" the future as far as those events which He deems necessary to carry out His overall plan.

Scripture clearly teaches that God's plans are not cast in stone, but like the war in Iraq, the final outcome is certain even if the details are not.

This is the reasoning behind "free will", for it is probably true that God is reserving only certain major events for His direct control, although it must be admitted that we cannot be absolutely certain whether or not He is acting on a smaller scale in ways so subtle they are not ordinarily detectable.

RufusAtticus

March 29th 2003, 04:23 PM

Today @ 12:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47835#post47835)
Socrates:

Rufie's [sic] parody is too stupid for words,

Once again Socrates can't even get his flame right. The parody is just as stupid as the original article. I only changed the names and the subject. Everything else is the same.

but it shows the lengths people will go to to justify their bigotry.

This is funny coming from a man fond of the phrase ipse dixit.

Fact is, the discoverer of the germ theory was the creationist Pasteur!

Who died in 1895, before Mendel was rediscovered and before the modern synthesis. That's like saying that relativity is false because Newton didn't believe in it.

And the germ theory is supported by OPERATIONAL science in the PRESENT, while evolution is a hypothesis about Earth's PAST

Except for the fact that we can see evolution happening today and analyze the evidence left behind by evolution that has happened before. Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that the properties of populations and lineages of organisms, or frequencies of such properties, change over time. The theory of evolution explains this observation by identifying mechanisms that are responsible for it. Such mechanisms include mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and isolation. Evolution operates on and is observable in populations.

Furthermore, Dini doesn't know what he's talking about -- he's never practised medicine or even been to medical school.

Yeap. He's "only" a biologist intrusted with the task of preparing students for medical school.

Many creationist medical doctors are amused that this apostate Catholic

What apostate? I don't see one here.

thinks he knows that the evolutionary hypothesis is essential to medicine when they know from experience that this is nonsense!

Is that why they perscribe drugs developed using evolution? I'm pretty sure you can find "B" Doctors who think that getting an A in a biology class is not important either. Why aren't you complaining about that requirement too?

Butters

March 29th 2003, 05:35 PM

"Omnisciene is the divine quality that God knows everything there is to know. Open Theism does not limit God; it limits Creation by saying the future doesn't exist to be known. God can't know something that doesn't exist and is therefore unknowable.

God's plan is not fixed -- that should be obvious on its face. God's plan changes in response to the actions and decisions of men. Read Jeremiah 18. God says in the first person that He changes His plan in response to men.

But Open Theism is often referred to as the Partially Open View for a good reason. God knows the future in regards to things that do not involve human free will. For example, Creation is ruled by physical laws. If human free will isn't affecting part of Creation (such as an avalanche on a mountain), God can predict where every single snowflake is going to end up at the bottom. No free will involved, therefore it's simply a complex set of dominoes with a perfectly predictable outcome.

But also, there are some things God decides will happen because He decides He will make it happen, regardless of human free will. For example, God can decide He will do something in the future regardless of human decisions. The most notable example of this is the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In God's plan, this HAD to happen. Therefore, He made it happen. It didn't have to happen exactly as it did, but it did have to happen with certain predetermined aspects (pierced but no bones broken, in a certain time frame, etc.) to fulfill prophecy.

So, yes, God knows some of the future, because God intends to do things (and no one can stop Him from doing what He decides to do), and God can predict mechanical aspects of Creation with 100% accuracy. He simply doesn't know the future decisions of men... because they don't exist to be known."

So basically this is an ad hoc theory designed to circumvent the arguement of evil.

Man is part of "the creation", so why should he be exempt?

If no one can stop God from doing what he wants, and I want something different, then there goes my free will.

Can you please support the claim that the future does not exist?

Do you have a complete paper on this open theism?

"This is the reasoning behind "free will", for it is probably true that God is reserving only certain major events for His direct control, although it must be admitted that we cannot be absolutely certain whether or not He is acting on a smaller scale in ways so subtle they are not ordinarily detectable."

What again was that reasoning?

Why do you say probably true?
What is the criterea for determining what is free will and what God is 'Making " happen.

bar Jonah

March 29th 2003, 05:49 PM

You are already misrepresenting what I said, and we hardly even began discussing it. LOL

A full discussion of Open Theism is off topic here, but is much more fully discussed in other areas here at TW, in theology forums. If you want more detailed info, you can look there. :smile:

Socrates

March 30th 2003, 10:05 AM

Socrates:

Rufie's [sic] parody is too stupid for words,

Rufie:Once again Socrates can't even get his flame right.Oh here we go again -- once more, I am perfectly aware of Latin diminutives, but am not as pompous as you. The parody is just as stupid as the original article. I only changed the names and the subject. Everything else is the same.I.e. you support bigotry against students who believe the Bible! So much for the freedom of religion that your constitution guarantees.

But on this very board, your god-hating colleague tgamble flatly denies that any discrimination occurs! When faced with the irrefutable evidence, he will change take and follow yours: that this bigoted discrimination is justifiable.

Dini's university takes a different tack again, by making it an issue of academic freedom. But this would be exposed easily if a lecturer decided that no one who believed we were rearranged pond scum who got here without any divine intervention could be trusted to be a doctor. This is because it would undermine any logical basis for compassion (see Darwin v Compassion (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/449.asp)) and diminish his respect for the exquisitely designed mechanisms of the body. And if this hypothetical lecturer decided that any student who denied the overwhelming historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection was too closed-minded to be any use as a doctor ...

but it shows the lengths people will go to to justify their bigotry.
This is funny coming from a man fond of the phrase ipse dixit.Yep, to describe the nonsense coming from evolutionary bigots. And Dini's policy IS bigotry by any lexical definition.

Fact is, the discoverer of the germ theory was the creationist Pasteur!
Who died in 1895, before Mendel was rediscovered and before the modern synthesis. That's like saying that relativity is false because Newton didn't believe in it.Think again -- YOU brought up germ theory, and I turned it on its head by pointing out that a creationist had discovered. Mendel was one too!!
And where is the slightest proof that the neo-Darwinian synthesis would have changed Pasteur's mind, especially as his belief that creation had FINISHED was a key to his rejection of spontaneous generation.

And the germ theory is supported by OPERATIONAL science in the PRESENT, while evolution is a hypothesis about Earth's PAST

Except for the fact that we can see evolution happening todayAnd as we see, RA is once more resorting to deceitful equivocation, since what he means is simply "change" which creationists do NOT deny!and analyze the evidence left behind by evolution that has happened before.[list]Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is both a fact and a theory.[list]Sez U The fact of evolution is that the properties of populations and lineages of organisms, or frequencies of such properties, change over time.If that's all it means, then all of AiG must be evolutionists! :dufus:The theory of evolution explains this observation by identifying mechanisms that are responsible for it. Such mechanisms include mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and isolation.None of those mechanisms are denied by creationists to cause variation within a kind. But there are even disputes within the evolutionary community whether these are sufficient to explain the major transitions in organic design. Evolution operates on and is observable in populations. The bait'n'switch is getting boring. A sure sign that evolutionists can't refute the creationist arguments so have to set up straw men such as painting us as believing in fixity of species.

Furthermore, Dini doesn't know what he's talking about -- he's never practised medicine or even been to medical school.
Yeap. He's "only" a biologist intrusted with the task of preparing students for medical school.Obviously the trust is misplaced, since he is using his position to promote anti-biblical bigotry. Anyway, I'd trust a trained an practising medical doctor over this untrained bigot any day.

Further, evolutionists claim things like coughs are a mechanism that's evolved to expel things from the airways. A creationist doctor could treat it at least equally well by regarding it as a DESIGNED mechanism.

As for antibiotic resistance, here to this is understandable by Biblical creationist principles, and there is no known example where it has arisen by NEW genetic information. See Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp)

Many creationist medical doctors are amused that this apostate Catholic
What apostate? I don't see one here.He's not in the Catholic organisation any more, and he's even more overtly bigoted against Bible believing students than most overtly atheistic lecturers.

thinks he knows that the evolutionary hypothesis is essential to medicine when they know from experience that this is nonsense!

Is that why they perscribe drugs developed using evolution?What are you on about now, unless you are deceitfully equivicating AGAIN. This time, to use what has been known for years as an iterative algorithm has been renamed an "evolutionary" one. Another relevant article is'Evolution—a science that's leading to cures'? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1118cinti_enq.asp)I'm pretty sure you can find "B" Doctors who think that getting an A in a biology class is not important either. Why aren't you complaining about that requirement too?When you quit such frivolous and demented comparisons, you might be taken seriously. But this overlooks the fact that this Dini would fail the best and brightest students, even if they UNDERSTAND evolution, if they don't BELIEVE it.

AdvocatDiaboli

March 30th 2003, 12:08 PM

One thing that puzzles me is this: why don't creationists have to explain how God created everything, but evilutionists must explain macroevolution, beneficial mutations, common descent etc?

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Scroll down to The Question of “How?”

"It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place). The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal."

QED

March 30th 2003, 12:34 PM

But this overlooks the fact that this Dini would fail the best and brightest students, even if they UNDERSTAND evolution, if they don't BELIEVE it.

Maybe you should do some research, Socrates - Dini's policy has nothing to do with passing his class. It has to do whether he will give a personal recommendation. You are a scientist, right? (You once claimed that you were.) Do you know what a recommendation from a professor is? How did you fail to figure that out? How did you manage to discuss this issue for multiple pages of posts without even knowing what the issue was about?

It's about a personal recommendation - not about class requirements.

Ruf correcly points out that your argument that one doesn't have to accept evolution to be a good doctor is irrelevant - one doesn't have to make an A in the class to be a good doctor either. These are the requirements Dini has for putting his own personal recommendation forward for a student.

As to your other comments (re: whether a creationist professor might do the same with his own students) - yes he would be well within his rights. His justification doesn't hold up under scrutiny, but since it is his personal recommendation, then it is his personal opinions that will guide it. Not the university, not the scientific establishment, and not the justice department.

Furthermore, this is not religious discrimination. A student can have any theological notions she likes, including the primitive YEC views. She must merely demonstrate that she is still capable of making a scientific affirmation, even if it is different from or inconsistent with her religious view. IOW, she must show that she recognizes the difference between a scientfic conclusion, and one that has another source, and to be able to scientifically assert the former, even if she holds a conflicting religious view that she feels is a more accurate reflection of reality.

If she has been duped by the creationists into believing that YEC is a proper scientific conclusion based on the available evidence after having supposedly studied science for four years, then she needs more work on discerning the difference between science and pseudoscience.

This is because it would undermine any logical basis for compassion...

A heck... I'll stoop to the challenge - since when do we need a logical basis for compassion? You don't even need a logical basis for scientific research!

tgamble

March 30th 2003, 12:54 PM

But on this very board, your god-hating colleague tgamble

Doens't your bible tell you NOT to tell lies?

flatly denies that any discrimination occurs! When faced with the irrefutable evidence, he will change take and follow yours: that this bigoted discrimination is justifiable.

It's not "bigoted discrimination" you twit!

Yep, to describe the nonsense coming from evolutionary bigots. And Dini's policy IS bigotry by any lexical definition.

Yeah, bigoted against students who don't get an A in the class. ROTFL!

None of those mechanisms are denied by creationists to cause variation within a kind.

A "kind" having no scientific meaning whatsoever and defined as whatever the creationist wants.

The rest of your hate filled, insulting and deceitful rant isn't even worth responding to.

tgamble

March 30th 2003, 12:59 PM

Today @ 04:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48528#post48528)
QED:

Maybe you should do some research, Socrates - Dini's policy has nothing to do with passing his class. It has to do whether he will give a personal recommendation.

Good point! i missed that first time reading his ravings. He's even more deceitful than I thought!

You are a scientist, right? (You once claimed that you were.)

If he's a scientist, I'm Donald Duck.

If she has been duped by the creationists into believing that YEC is a proper scientific conclusion based on the available evidence after having supposedly studied science for four years, then she needs more work on discerning the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Exactly. Well said! No creationists has ever come to their conclusions abouta young earth becasue o the evidence!

tgamble

March 30th 2003, 01:14 PM

Today @ 04:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48516#post48516)
AdvocatDiaboli:

One thing that puzzles me is this: why don't creationists have to explain how God created everything, but evilutionists must explain macroevolution, beneficial mutations, common descent etc?

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Scroll down to The Question of “How?”

"It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place). The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal."

Except of course for

claiming that animals onthe ark hybernated.

nonsense about the speed light slowing down/created in transit etc.

ramblings about vapor canopys and other impossible sources of water for the flood myth.

Other speculations to make the flood and creation myths look possible.

etc. etc. etc.

Socratism

March 30th 2003, 02:07 PM

Today @ 12:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48546#post48546)
tgamble:

Except of course for

claiming that animals onthe ark hybernated.

nonsense about the speed light slowing down/created in transit etc.

ramblings about vapor canopys and other impossible sources of water for the flood myth.

Other speculations to make the flood and creation myths look possible.

etc. etc. etc.

One can always find people on both sides of the argument who can not reason their way out of a paper bag.

Your rationalizations for evolution from a primitive replicating molecule must be pretty weak for you to focus on crummy arguments or weak speculations by some fringe creationists.

Evolutionists frequently distance themselves from their own fringe followers so why do they point to the fringe of creation believers as evidence that evolution must be true?

I have no problem recognizing that there are many very intelligent people who believe in evolution for I was once one of them, but that is not much of a scientific argument for its truth. Such arguments only appeal to those who "follow the crowd" instead of thinking and reasoning for themselves..

Unfortunately for many, Jesus remarked that "the crowd" was on the path that leads to destruction.

Socratism

March 30th 2003, 02:16 PM

If he's a scientist, I'm Donald Duck.

"Lead me not into temptation".

Butters

March 30th 2003, 02:42 PM

Yesterday @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48002#post48002)
RightIdea:

You are already misrepresenting what I said, and we hardly even began discussing it. LOL

A full discussion of Open Theism is off topic here, but is much more fully discussed in other areas here at TW, in theology
forums. If you want more detailed info, you can look there. :smile:

Not really, I've looked into it, and if every major religion, and every major religious scholar cannot convince you of the error of your way, I'm sure I can't either.

But, I would like to comment on your free will concept. In one way you are right. Strictly speaking, we do not have free will. I am a collection of chemicals, whose reactions are guided by my genitic makeup and responses to my past experinces. Every decision I make is dictated by my genitic makeup, and reactions to past experience. So really, I cannot escape "who I Am". If I get religion tomorrow, it is because my chemical, genitic, response to my enviorment has dictated my actions. so very strictly speaking, my actions are bound by who/what I am. My questions are:
Is this a fair assesment of what you are claiming?
If so, How does speacial creation eliminate this?

TenDimensions

March 30th 2003, 03:07 PM

Today @ 01:07 PM
From tgamble: nonsense about the speed light slowing down/created in transit etc.
Socratism:
Your rationalizations for evolution from a primitive replicating molecule must be pretty weak for you to focus on crummy arguments or weak speculations by some fringe creationists.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out something I think Creationists do, but because major scientific discoveries come in such infrequent intervals it is often very difficult to call them on it.

Socratism has just openly admited that the examples tgamble was citing were "fringe creationists" - he basically charged tgamble with the "straw man" fallacy. I can only assume that Socratism also was referring to the idea that the speed of light not being constant is also a "fringe creationist idea".

In recent months there was been more and more talk in responsible physicist circles that the speed of light may in fact, not be constant. This of course is such a radical departure from what is currently known that it will no doubt take years, perhaps decades, of additional testing to prove this true if the idea isn't completely debunked before that.

My point, which may be obvious by now, is that Creationists in the past and present will propose any strange and wild idea that will help their cause in explaining Creation. When science suddenly discovers something new and interesting (like the rapidly evolving mosquitoes in the London tunnels) Creationists will jump on this as a "hit" much as a psychic will claim an accurate prediction.

I have no doubt that this "fringe Creationist theory" of the speed of light not being constant will suddenly become "we knew it all along" as soon as (if ever) the possibility is proven true.

In addition to that, I wonder what would happen to the theological argument that the natural laws are immutable and therefore proof of God's existence if in fact the natural laws turn out to evolve over time?

For additional information on this research check out this interview (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s347215.htm) or do a Google search yourself! :smile:

tgamble

March 30th 2003, 03:21 PM

Your rationalizations for evolution from a primitive replicating molecule

My acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with the crackpot claims of creationists, fringe or otherwise.

must be pretty weak for you to focus on crummy arguments or weak speculations by some fringe creationists.

It's certainly news to me that the ICR and AIG are "fringe creationists"! Carl Baugh, Kent Hovind, Jack Chick are fringe creationists but ICR and AIG seem to be the sources that best represent creationist dogma.

Maybe you could direct me to a NON fringe creationist sources that explains seeing light from stars billions of light years away in a 6000 year old universe.....

Evolutionists frequently distance themselves from their own fringe followers so why do they point to the fringe of creation believers as evidence that evolution must be true?

They don't. Rather, they point to the evidence from biology, embryology, the fossil record, etc. It has nothing to do with fringe believers.

If they point to fringe arguments at all, it's only to point to the silliness of creationism. But that doesn't require the fringe arguments, the mainstream arguments are just as stupid.

AIG may not claim that people could kill a T-Rex by tearing its arms off, but they do claim humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Both claims are utterly absurd.

Socratism

March 30th 2003, 05:16 PM

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48608#post48608)
tgamble:

Maybe you could direct me to a NON fringe creationist sources that explains seeing light from stars billions of light years away in a 6000 year old universe.....

.... the mainstream arguments are just as stupid.

AIG may not claim that people could kill a T-Rex by tearing its arms off, but they do claim humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Both claims are utterly absurd.

I usually refrain from replying to postings that are devoid of any intellectual content, but I am curious about several things here:

[1] what "mainline" creationist arguments do you consider absurd?

[2] why do you think it is absurd to consider the possibility that humans and dinosaurs might have coexisted for a time?

BTW, here is a non-creationist website that points out some of the problems in current cosmological concepts.

http://www.metaresearch.org/

tgamble

March 30th 2003, 06:51 PM

Today @ 09:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48685#post48685)
Socratism:

I usually refrain from replying to postings that are devoid of any intellectual content,

Maybe you should refrain from posting postings that are devoid of any intellectual content

but I am curious about several things here:

[1] what "mainline" creationist arguments do you consider absurd?

All of em.

[2] why do you think it is absurd to consider the possibility that humans and dinosaurs might have coexisted for a time?

Because dinosaurs went extinct millions of years before humans evolved. Because there isn't the slightest reason to suggest they did (if you don't count birds anyway). The sole reason for suggesting such nonsense is belief in the creation myth.

BTW, here is a non-creationist website that points out some of the problems in current cosmological concepts.

Ok. So what?
http://www.metaresearch.org/ [/QUOTE]

Butters

March 30th 2003, 07:09 PM

Socratism,
Why is it that every time you cite a non creationist web-site, it's metaresearch? Is that the only one you can find?

Butters

March 30th 2003, 07:11 PM

And I know I shouldn't ask, because the response is likly to lower my faith in human intelligence even further, but:

If dinosaurs and humans co-existed, why is there NOT ONE case of their remains found together?

tgamble

March 30th 2003, 08:12 PM

Yesterday @ 11:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48787#post48787)
Butters:

And I know I shouldn't ask, because the response is likly to lower my faith in human intelligence even further, but:

If dinosaurs and humans co-existed, why is there NOT ONE case of their remains found together?

http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

bar Jonah

March 31st 2003, 11:41 AM

Yesterday @ 05:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48823#post48823)
tgamble:
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html
I'm curious as to why you would post that, Gamble. Of course, on the surface, one might think you were offering to support such evidence. But if you note where that story is published, we find it is at some wacky conspiracy theory website. You plan on doing some skeet shooting? LOL Set 'em up, knock 'em down? I don't think it's impossible that the story is true. But honestly, I don't find it credible. Not to mention that if this was real, you can almost guarantee it would be at AiG.

tgamble

March 31st 2003, 12:05 PM

Today @ 03:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49409#post49409)
RightIdea:

I'm curious as to why you would post that, Gamble. Of course, on the surface, one might think you were offering to support such evidence. But if you note where that story is published, we find it is at some wacky conspiracy theory website. You plan on doing some skeet shooting? LOL Set 'em up, knock 'em down? I don't think it's impossible that the story is true. But honestly, I don't find it credible.

That's good. It's actually an April Fool's joke!
http://www.nmsr.org/onyatemn.htm

:lol:

RufusAtticus

March 31st 2003, 12:41 PM

Yesterday @ 09:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48477#post48477)
Socrates:

Rufie: [sic]. . . .
Oh here we go again -- once more, I am perfectly aware of Latin diminutives, but am not as pompous as you.

If you're aware of them, why can't you use them?

I.e. you support bigotry against students who believe the Bible! So much for the freedom of religion that your constitution guarantees.

Socrates appears to be confused again between believing in the Bible and rejecting science. Considering where I am, I couldn't get anything done if I was bigoted against students who believe in the Bible. Heck, my advisor is a bible-beliving Christian as are other faculty members in my department and fellow graduate students. Not to mention my wife, her family, and my family.

When faced with the irrefutable evidence, he will change take and follow yours: that this bigoted discrimination is justifiable.

"Will somebody please think of the B-students!"

Dini's university takes a different tack again, by making it an issue of academic freedom.

Because that is what reference letters are.

But this would be exposed easily if a lecturer decided that no one who believed we were rearranged pond scum who got here without any divine intervention could be trusted to be a doctor.

And thus you get to the greatest hypocricy in this whole ruckus. Plenty of fundamentalist institutions won't even admit students who aren't creationsts, and yet creationists have the nerve to complain about a teacher's requirements for granting a letter of recomendation. "Greetings, Mr. Kettle, you're looking mighty black today."

This is because it would undermine any logical basis for compassion

Yeap, being an evolutionist makes someone not human. Can you be anymore trite?

and diminish his respect for the exquisitely designed mechanisms of the body.

"Respect the appendix!"

Yep, to describe the nonsense coming from evolutionary bigots. And Dini's policy IS bigotry by any lexical definition.

Those poor B-students. . . .

Think again -- YOU brought up germ theory, and I turned it on its head by pointing out that a creationist had discovered. Mendel was one too!!

Except you ignore the fact that being a creationist a hundred years ago is distinctly different than being one today.

And where is the slightest proof that the neo-Darwinian synthesis would have changed Pasteur's mind, especially as his belief that creation had FINISHED was a key to his rejection of spontaneous generation.

Where's your proof that it wouldn't?

And as we see, RA is once more resorting to deceitful equivocation, since what he means is simply "change" which creationists do NOT deny!

Deceitful equivocation? :rofl: You can play all the games you ant. Redefine evolution so you can argue against it better. Use train-loads of straw if you have to. But the real scientific concept will remain untouched by you pseudoscientific games.

Sez U
And the rest of modern biology.

None of those mechanisms are denied by creationists to cause variation within a kind.

Yeap creationists have no problem with evolution happening within a kind. Yet creationists can't even provide criteria to determine if creature A and creature B are in separate kinds, which they should be able to do if they were absolute biological division. As far as they can tell from nature, there could be 100 trillion kinds, or there could be one kind. Creationists like to argue that only a little bit of evolution can happen, yet they can offer no biological mechanism to limit the process of evolution as they see it.

But there are even disputes within the evolutionary community whether these are sufficient to explain the major transitions in organic design.

Nope. the debates are not whether they are sufficient, but what proportion of observations the various mechanisms are responsible for.

The bait'n'switch is getting boring. A sure sign that evolutionists can't refute the creationist arguments so have to set up straw men such as painting us as believing in fixity of species.

Perhaps you should read the paragraph again. I'm trying to describe what evolution is. Not how creationists are wrong. :dufus:

Obviously the trust is misplaced, since he is using his position to promote anti-biblical bigotry. Anyway, I'd trust a trained an practising medical doctor over this untrained bigot any day.

So if I can find medical doctors who say that evolution is extremely important to the practice of medicine you'll believe them? For every handfull of doctors you can find I can find a room full of doctors to counter them.

As for antibiotic resistance, here to this is understandable by Biblical creationist principles, and there is no known example where it has arisen by NEW genetic information.

Considering that Luria and Delbruck (http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Luria-Delbruck_experiment.htm) showed the exact opposite in 1943, you need to brush up on your genetics.

He's not in the Catholic organisation any more, and he's even more overtly bigoted against Bible believing students than most overtly atheistic lecturers.

You do realize that people don't have to be apostate to leave the clergy; don't you?

What are you on about now, unless you are deceitfully equivicating AGAIN.

Ever heard of biotechnology? No evolution-no Epogen.

Another relevant article is'Evolution—a science that's leading to cures'? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1118cinti_enq.asp)

Apparently Wieland has never heard about a phylogeny. Nebert isn't just looking at clinical expression, he's comparing genes across organisms and using the evolutionary data to develop his treatment. Neberts work involves more than just "the ‘here and now’ operational realities of human biology."

When you quit such frivolous and demented comparisons, you might be taken seriously. But this overlooks the fact that this Dini would fail the best and brightest students, even if they UNDERSTAND evolution, if they don't BELIEVE it.

No he wouldn't, since this is about letters of recommendations and not grades. :bonk: Haven't you been paying attention? You go through all of this and all you acomplish is that you don't actually know what Dini's criteria are for? Perhaps, next time you will actually stop, think, and educate yourself before you plunge headlong into a topic with out your lights on.

Moderator Note - Rufus you have been told not to make your wife and family an issue. Please refrain. If you bring them up in this manner, don't be upset if someone comments upon your comment.

ADDENDUM 8/27/03 - Rufus has brought up that I did the above edit weeks after his post was posted. He is correct, and that was my mistake. When the post hit the active list on 4/27/03, I mistakenly presumed it was an active thread, and did not look at the date of his post. His post preceded any discussions that he and I had on this subject, and thus he had not been previously told. That is my mistake.

Butters

March 31st 2003, 05:02 PM

Oh my God! Now I see the light! How could have been so stupid? Thank God for Stefan! This is proof that evolution is wrong. Anyone can plainly see that this is a hominid. And of course the government men were part of the evil atheist conspiracy! Praise Jesus! I have seen the light!

Socrates

April 27th 2003, 08:12 PM

Rufus:Socrates appears to be confused again between believing in the Bible and rejecting science. I've never rejected science in my life! But I'm happy to expose where materialistic belief systems are masquerading as science.Considering where I am, I couldn't get anything done if I was bigoted against students who believe in the Bible. Heck, my advisor is a bible-beliving Christian as are other faculty members in my department and fellow graduate students. Not to mention my wife, her family, and my family.But we know that Cowface's idea of "believing the Bible" doesn't extend to believing the propositions taught in the Bible as interpreted by the normal rules of grammatical and historical context, whether about history or morality. So this means nothing. Fact is, RA is bigoted against any non-materialistic belief system, and also supports discrimination against GENUINE Bible-believers, as opposed to those who in reality believe in methodological naturalism and "reinterpret" (the usual euphemism for "disbelieve") the Bible. I.e. those who believe that Genesis is a historically accurate account of Earth history.

Socrates:

But this would be exposed easily if a lecturer decided that no one who believed we were rearranged pond scum who got here without any divine intervention could be trusted to be a doctor.

RA:And thus you get to the greatest hypocricy in this whole ruckus. Plenty of fundamentalist institutions won't even admit students who aren't creationsts, and yet creationists have the nerve to complain about a teacher's requirements for granting a letter of recomendation. "Greetings, Mr. Kettle, you're looking mighty black today."What piffle from Cowface. The whole point of fundamentalist institutions is to teach the authority of the Bible. This is different from supposedly secular institutions that aren't supposed to discriminate in favor of OR AGAINST religious belief.

Obviously the trust is misplaced, since he is using his position to promote anti-biblical bigotry. Anyway, I'd trust a trained an practising medical doctor over this untrained bigot any day.

RA:So if I can find medical doctors who say that evolution is extremely important to the practice of medicine you'll believe them? For every handfull of doctors you can find I can find a room full of doctors to counter them.But fact is, doctors have practised medicine quite happily without evolution. So this non-medical apostate Catholic Dini was totally absurd to make BELIEF in molecules-to-man evolution a requirement for a letter of recommendation.

Another relevant article is 'Evolution—a science that's leading to cures'? (www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1118cinti_enq.asp )

RA:Apparently Wieland has never heard about a phylogeny. Oh right, right -- what a patronizingly idiotic comment about a man who has discussed this in many articles.

When you quit such frivolous and demented comparisons, you might be taken seriously. But this overlooks the fact that this Dini would fail the best and brightest students, even if they UNDERSTAND evolution, if they don't BELIEVE it.

RA:No he wouldn't, since this is about letters of recommendations and not grades. Haven't you been paying attention? You go through all of this and all you acomplish is that you don't actually know what Dini's criteria are for? What a stupid objection. It may as well be a failure if someone who is trying to get to med school fails to get in because Dini the bigot won't recommend him. Perhaps, next time you will actually stop, think, and educate yourself. Perhaps you'll learn to read properly. But in this case it's academic because Dini the bigot and his university have backed down.

QED

April 27th 2003, 08:43 PM

If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation.

:rofl: :rofl:
This is "backing down" to Socrates. I noticed that this other criteria which Socrates thinks could lead to the student being "flunked" were not changed:

I should know you fairly well. Merely earning an "A" in a lower-division class that enrolls 500 students does not guarantee that I know you. In such a situation, all I would be able to provide is a very generic letter that would not be of much help in getting you into the school of your choice.

That SOB won't recommend a student he doesn't know well. Talk about bigotry.

Dini gives a pure and simple reason for his policy:
Scientists do not ignore logical conclusions based on abundant scientific evidence and experimentation because these conclusions do not conform to expectations or beliefs. Modern medicine relies heavily on the method of science. In my opinion, modern physicians do best when their practice is scientifically based.

And that's what a personal recommendation is about --- the professor's opinion. If a student needs a recommendation, and he is not highly enough qualified in Dr. Dini's opinion to deserve an unreservedly positive one, Dr. Dini is kind enough to let them know in advance, so they can make their inquiry with other professors who may form their opinions on a basis that is more lenient on the students' weak points.

RufusAtticus

April 28th 2003, 12:31 AM

Yesterday @ 08:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80410#post80410)
Socrates:

I've never rejected science in my life!
Then why do you rely on AiG as a resource, which does just that.

Fact is, RA is bigoted against any non-materialistic belief system

Fact is, Socrates is a false witness because this is obviously not true, as has been pointed out to him in the past. But the facts don't matter when you're crafting straw-men.

What piffle from Cowface. The whole point of fundamentalist institutions is to teach the authority of the Bible. This is different from supposedly secular institutions that aren't supposed to discriminate in favor of OR AGAINST religious belief.

So, in your views, it is okay for creationists to descriminate but not be descriminated against. You're hypocricy is really showing. Pointing out that the material claims of creationism are not supported by science is not descrimination. No more than pointing similar things to holocaust-deniers and hiv-deniers.

But fact is, doctors have practised medicine quite happily without evolution.
And doctors who don't even know Dini or have gotten only B's in biology coursees have practised medicine quite happily to. Yet I don't here you complaining about those requirements for a letter.

So this non-medical apostate Catholic Dini was totally absurd to make BELIEF in molecules-to-man evolution a requirement for a letter of recommendation.

Wow look at the straw-man. Once again Socrates bears false witness, since Dini never once require belief in molecules-to-man evolution. He only asks students to account for the origin of the human species.

Oh right, right -- what a patronizingly idiotic comment about a man who has discussed this in many articles.

But apparently let it slip his mind when writting that one.

What a stupid objection. It may as well be a failure if someone who is trying to get to med school fails to get in because Dini the bigot won't recommend him.

What a silly attempt to salvage you mistake. Is Dini the only person able to give a recomendation to students? No Does Dini require belief in evolution to pass his course? No Where is the failure?

Perhaps you'll learn to read properly. But in this case it's academic because Dini the bigot and his university have backed down.

Backed down from what? Creationist straw-man claims about his recomendation policy? A justice department that fell victim to such false claims? Dini's policy is the same as it always has been.