young creation?

[Botz]

SA.

By the way, on a side point, creationists usually explain the fossil record in terms of a flood. I have always wondered how they explain marine extinctions in this way, or extinctions at all in the fossil record! Anyway.

I am not sure...I obviously believe in a worldwide flood as described in the Bible...I presume that aquatic species were left high and dry in some cases...or sucked into fissures...and also choked with silt and eventually buried in the debris...I will try and find out in the coming weeks. I also don't automatically think that things became extinct at the flood...but more likely directly afterwards...that would certainly be true of those creatures in the Ark.

I question how hard you try Botz. Not just you, but all creationists I've met.

I do not have a natural interest in Science and labouring to understand a fraction of all the Scientific data available is not easy for me...but I am devoting time to it now.

Also, and I don't want to get too personal here, but the Coelacanth is a fairly famous fossil. There are web resources all over the internet that are simply to find on google that would have told you the full story behind this amazing discovery. If you had really been dedicated, even in a small way, to getting yourself informed, you could easily have done so. I suggest therefore that you were really interested in getting yourself armed against evolution, at the expense of being informed properly.

That is a fair enough observation...you can be close and personal I do not easily take offence...the coelacanth was part of the dim and distant past that I happened to remember.....and I was partly right in my assumption.

My main armour against evolution comes from the overview expressed in the Bible..I am certainly not frightened by what I may find...just a little unsure how deeply I can go into things without becoming a Scientist...or devoting myself to years of study. True Science is not the enemy of the Biblical account but the 'Theory of Evolution' has proven to be so.

To your credit, you are reading a book by Richard Dawkins (although I would have recommended starting with the easier "River out of Eden", I did). Dawkins in one of his books even mentions Coelacanth, it's where I first heard of fossil animals.

Well at least reading Dawkins gives me some kudos.

Question is, why is it that I managed to find this, and not you, or WhysoBlind who was my main opponent on the stuff about radiometric dating. I would suggest again that it's because neither of you have really looked very hard, especially WhysoBlind.

I am only recently getting into this subject..I will endeavour to be a better student!

I'm glad that I'm starting to at least instill enough doubt in you that you might double check what a creationist says against what science says.

That is a healthy and reasonable type of doubt that I gladly accept...I think as Christians we do sometimes come with many pre-conceptions that are in fact mis-conceptions and it is good that they are tried and tested and exposed for what they are.

Now I want you to do some research. It's not going to be hard. I want you to take Raup's quote, type it into google with quotation marks round it, select 25 sites per page, and do a search. Out of the first 4 pages (100 results) I want you to tell me how many were creationist websites. Remember, it's been 24 years since this was unmasked as a misquote, that was before the web was even around. There's even a page on talkorigins dedicated to this quote, and unmasking it as a misquote.

I will do my homework and get back to you.

God is outside of science's remit for 2 reasons:

1. Science is defined as an investigation of natural causes. The fact that God may be the author of these is by-the-by to science, it is an area for theology to cover.

2. The reason science only looks at natural causes rather than divine is that these causes are testable, repeatable, observable and we are able to make predictions about them. Therefore natural causes are such that the scientific method can easily be applied to them. Divine causes are not so - not only do they fall outwith the remit of science, they fall outside its capabilities.

Again I still do not grasp this if all natural causes are initiated by G-d in the first place then the testable element still has its genesis in G-d.

Remember, science isn't meant to be the source of all knowledge and truth. Science is ONLY meant to be the source of knowledge and truth about natural causes and effects. It won't tell us why we are here, it won't tell us that we require salvation, it won't tell us about metaphysical concepts such as sin, and it won't tell us if God is acting in the natural world. It can't, it's impotent to. We have to rely on other strains of philosophy to tell us these things.

So then maybe there is validity in the field of Creation Science...as they are able to bring something to the table that the rest of Science has closed itself off to...as long as their approach is truely Scientific...and charlatans and dishonest Creationists aside...I don't think you can tar them all with the same brush.

. Even a small group should statistically show variation, if not quite as inclusive variation as a large group. Now, I don't know the size of the actual scientific community as opposed to the creationist community, I would imagine it is several orders of magnitude different - but nevertheless, there ought still to be variation in the creationist community if it's not just a club for people with a very specific bias. There is no such variation however.

Surely it is fair enough to have certain rules to be a member of a club/organization...and the criteria for being a Creation Scientist is that you believe in the whole of the Biblical account...besides within their ranks there must still be a vast diversity of opinion because the Bible only provides a very broad frame-work and very little detail.

What I am saying to you is that evidence can often be interpreted into several hypotheses. In other words, several hypotheses may well explain the evidence or characterise it well.

However, in science, every hypothesis has to make testable conclusions. A hypothesis does NOT become a theory until at least one prediction has been proven true. That means that, when you say later that many predictions may be impossible to test, were this true, a hypothesis would never become a theory. It has to make at least some testable predictions.

Now, these hypotheses may well be subject to internal bias of the htpothesiser (if that's a word). But, when we go and test the conclusions, it becomes fairly clear who was right (if anyone) and who was wrong (almost everyone). Hence the bias is filtered out.

Thanks that has become clearer to me than before...younwill forgive me if I am a little slow sometimes but you be patient and I will persevere and I am sure I will get there in the end...even if I finally understand and disagree.

Again that was a good Christian web-site you gave me ...and you should never be tired of putting up the same good sites on a regular basis as your audience will always fluctuate.

Out of curiousity SA have you read much of the Bible yourself in order to see where the Creationists get their perspective?

[Bread_of_Life]

Botz

I am not sure...I obviously believe in a worldwide flood as described in the Bible...I presume that aquatic species were left high and dry in some cases...or sucked into fissures...and also choked with silt and eventually buried in the debris

I see. Nevertheless, it seems strange that we should have 4 documented great extinctions in the record, as well as many mini-extinctions elsewhere. I'm sure you'll be able to get me an answer though, thanks for taking the time to look.

I do not have a natural interest in Science and labouring to understand a fraction of all the Scientific data available is not easy for me...

Perhaps I could recommend a good book to start with. I have mentioned it before. Science vs Creationism should give you an excellent start. There are some really good essays in there, some really hard ones, and some poorly written ones, but it's worth it to read the good ones.

It will also give you a good "heads up" on creationist tactics.

My main armour against evolution comes from the overview expressed in the Bible..I am certainly not frightened by what I may find...just a little unsure how deeply I can go into things without becoming a Scientist...or devoting myself to years of study.

I would say, go as far as your interest takes you!

Well at least reading Dawkins gives me some kudos.

Reading anything at all gives you "kudos", outside of the KJV bible. Many creationists I have encountered really havn't read anything at all about science outside of highschool, and answersingenesis.org. That is the sad reality in many cases.

I will do my homework and get back to you.

I hope the results will not surprise you too much.

Again I still do not grasp this if all natural causes are initiated by G-d in the first place then the testable element still has its genesis in G-d.

Unfortunately, there's only so far science can go. Sure, maybe at the beginning of the universe God set it all off. But how can we test that? What experiment can we set up to show that it is true? What predictions does it make that are unique and testable?

So then maybe there is validity in the field of Creation Science...as they are able to bring something to the table that the rest of Science has closed itself off to...as long as their approach is truely Scientific...

Their approach cannot really be truely scientific, though can it. The reason is, as you said below:

Surely it is fair enough to have certain rules to be a member of a club/organization...and the criteria for being a Creation Scientist is that you believe in the whole of the Biblical account...

This in of itself, even without the lying and misquoting, is an unscientific approach.

Science goes from evidence to theory. That is, scientists examine the evidence, and form the best theory to explain that evidence. They then test the theory.

Creationists go from theory to evidence. They already believe in their theory, and refuse to change it no matter what evidence comes up. This often forces them to twist evidence, ignore evidence, or make ad hoc additions to their theory to shelter it from disproof.

Let me give you an example of this. Creationists were fond of using the decay of the earth's magnetic field to "prove" a young earth. Then they got told that the magnetic field was reversing, and that it had reversed many many times before (demanding a much longer timescale, in other words, their young earth proof had become an old earth proof!)

So what did the creationists do? Well, at first they went into denial, saying that magnetism of rocks didn't indicate the magnetic field of the earth, or its strength. But then, as they came out of denial, they did something they often do. They made something up. They said that the magnetic field of the earth must have fluctuated wildly during the flood, reversing many times a day, during which rock deposits were laid down and took on these reversed fields. Then the field must have regained it's strength until Christ was born, and started to decay. All of this was an ad hoc addition to their theory to shelter it from disproof. It also ignored the evidence we have for field strength over the last 10,000 years.

By the way, I'm not kidding you about this - this is exactly what the ICR did, and AiG copied them. Now, I'm sorry, but if you start from a conclusion, and then look for proof, refusing to disregard your conclusion no matter what evidence you come across, then you can't be a scientist.

Thanks that has become clearer to me than before.

It's a pleasure.

Again that was a good Christian web-site you gave me ...and you should never be tired of putting up the same good sites on a regular basis as your audience will always fluctuate.

Okay, I will!

Out of curiousity SA have you read much of the Bible yourself in order to see where the Creationists get their perspective?

I've been to several Christian courses that do "walks" through the bible, and explanations of the story. I've also had some 1-2-1 tutor time with the Christian Union at my uni with a guy who taught me all about the concept of covenant throughout the old testament, and the fulfillment of covenant in Jesus.

I've also been to 2 alpha courses, one at my Uni, and one just down the road at Holy Trinity Brompton.

I have also read Gen, Exo and Lev throughout. I've read Genesis several times. I've also read a large portion of the gospels, although little of Paul's stuff. I find the first hand stuff best, Paul was really just the first to interpret it and preach it. I particularly like the clarity of John's gospel, which I have read through a couple of times.

However, please, I'm not a biblical authority, nor a "buff" as you'd call it. I know that man was created perfect, but through disobedience fell into sin. That sin got worse and worse until God destroyed the world, apart from Noah and a few of his mates, and some animals.

I know that God abhors sin, and cannot stand to be in its presence, but wished to be close to his creation. Therefore in his grace and mercy he made a series of covenants, at first to Noah, then to Moses and set down a law that people could follow to cleanse themselves of sin and be one with him again.

However, none of these covenants, laws and sacrifices were perfect. So God told Isaiah that he would send a perfect sacrifice, the lamb of God, whose name would be emmanuel (meaning God with us) to fulfill the law and make a final covenant, cleansing us of sin past present and future.

Jesus was that final covenant, the word made flesh, who led a perfect and sinless life, made an example for us to follow, preached his good news to the world, and finally, presented perfect and sinless before his father at Calvary laid down his life for our sins. His blood on the cross laid a path for us to come to God.

Jesus conquered death, in 3 days, and ascended to heavan, leaving behind him the spirit of God to inhabit the temple of now cleansed souls as a sign and helper for believers in the future. The gift of his salvation and spirit is now open to whosoever believes in him, and asks in earnest for forgiveness, and humbles themselves to him by handing him their lives.

Jesus will come again at the end of the world, and will judge us from his great white throne. Books will be opened, and among them the book of life - and if you're not in that, you're basically stuffed.

That's a basic summary of my knowledge.

[jenbe]

Hi SA.

Although I have been reading this thread with interest, i have not posted until now as my knowledge of all things scientific is limited to say the least.

It is obvious from reading your posts, that not only do you know your science, but you also have the ability to cut many peoples arguments to shreds.

It is practically impossible for an unscientific christian to defend their stance against a scientific athiest,on the grounds of science alone, because science and the Bible are two different ways of looking at the world. One is mainly concerned with physical matters, the other with spiritual matters.

Perhaps the christian, to a certain extent, cuts science from his thinking, in much the same way that the unbelieving athiest cuts God from his thinking, and I would suggest that the motive for the athiest to study science, is mainly to equip him to be more and more the centre of his own world.

I would say there are three views of science, the first being the popular view of science in society..ie..The physical world is self existent, and the world of living things, arising out of a series of chance or accidental happenings over millions of years.

2..The middle ground..ie..some religious refinements of this view.

a..The existence of the universe to God,

b..The existence of laws and patterns to God, but with the proviso that it was God who planned the chance happenings etc..and with this in mind, there may be those on this site who could be pursueded into this particular view point.

3..The Biblical view of science..which I am sure you would say was no view at all..

God miraculously created, planned and ordained the laws of nature, and upholds the created universe and its laws by his Word.

There is really no way of marrying these views together, so to a certain extent you are preaching to the unconvertable...but you do at least have that in common with us poor deluded folk.

Although understanding that evolution takes place continually, I am assuming that the THEORY of evolution is still just that..a theory..as is the theory of creation. However, from an out and out Christian, unscientific, view point, Iwill say,

Nothing that man discovers or teaches will ever undermine the eternal truth of God as creator of all things.

The Bible describes in very simple terms the distinction between men and God...we are the clay, He is the potter, and we are the work of HIS hand.

The theory of evolution is like giving power to the clay to form itself into some useful object over a long period of time , denying the hand of the potter who has the wisdom, skill. and power to do as He pleases.

Jill.....

[Botz]

Hi SA

I see. Nevertheless, it seems strange that we should have 4 documented great extinctions in the record, as well as many mini-extinctions elsewhere. I'm sure you'll be able to get me an answer though, thanks for taking the time to look.

Just give me some time and I will get back to you on this...if I ever forget to get back about something just give me a reminder...ta.

I will see if I can borrow a copy of Science vs Creationism from the library.

Many creationists I have encountered really havn't read anything at all about science outside of highschool, and answersingenesis.org. That is the sad reality in many cases.

I reckon you haven't been mixing with the 'right' Creationists.

Unfortunately, there's only so far science can go. Sure, maybe at the beginning of the universe God set it all off. But how can we test that? What experiment can we set up to show that it is true? What predictions does it make that are unique and testable?

I'm not sure..I'm not the Scientist...I would have thought that you might try and formulate a hypothesis and work within the framework you restrict yourself to....and this could be repeated in using different frameworks.

1. Could be testing for what to expect if the Earth was a young earth

2. For an ancient earth

3. For a random co-incidence,etc etc

Science goes from evidence to theory. That is, scientists examine the evidence, and form the best theory to explain that evidence. They then test the theory.

Creationists go from theory to evidence. They already believe in their theory, and refuse to change it no matter what evidence comes up. This often forces them to twist evidence, ignore evidence, or make ad hoc additions to their theory to shelter it from disproof.

Again I would have thought that there is validity for both methods.

Now, I'm sorry, but if you start from a conclusion, and then look for proof, refusing to disregard your conclusion no matter what evidence you come across, then you can't be a scientist.

I guess that is why they have to make a distinction and call themselves Creation Scientists and why they are disdained by many in the Scientific world..."its Science but not as we know it Captain." I do understand your point though...but I would like to see it demonstrated especially where a Creationist has made an error that is so obvious to all and yet clings to this falsehood for religious reasons and enters the land of self-deception.,,, I will look into this as well....I did note your story about the decay of magnetic fields...I just want to find something myself.

I thought the summary of your knowledge of Christian things was very good and I can see that although you may disagree strongly with some things you have at least been very open to hearing and learning the Christian message and are not as hardened to the Gospel as you sometimes give the impression...like many Scientists you are very measured in your response and seek accuracy and evidence.

I loved your final paragraph...

Jesus will come again at the end of the world, and will judge us from his great white throne. Books will be opened, and among them the book of life - and if you're not in that, you're basically stuffed.

I hope you don't mind me quoting that in a preach sometime it is one of the most fundamentally down to earth and honest summaries I've heard from an Atheist or anyone.

Ciao. Botz

[Bread_of_Life]

Botz

I will see if I can borrow a copy of Science vs Creationism from the library.

I'm certain you'll find it an excellent read, it's by Ashley Montagu btw.

I reckon you haven't been mixing with the 'right' Creationists.

Perhaps you'd like to show me them, have you been hiding them under you bed!?

1. Could be testing for what to expect if the Earth was a young earth

This is most certainly testable, and has been tested many times. But this isn't a religious issue, it's got nowt to do with God. It's a scientific issue. The fact that it appears in a religious text means that the religious text is making a scientific claim, not that the claim is religious.

2. For an ancient earth

Again, 100% testable. Scientific claims usually are.

3. For a random co-incidence,etc etc

Sometimes less testable, especially when we're talking about ultimate causes. Straying into other domains of philosophy this.

Again I would have thought that there is validity for both methods.

Unless there is some reason you can be absolutely positively totally sure that your theory is right, which is very very rare, then no, not really.

For example, if we found evidence that the laws of logic may be violated, we are more certain of these laws than we are of the evidence, so these may take precedence.

However, any theory - whether that be the theory that the literal reading of Genesis is true, or the theory that Jesus died on the cross, or the theory that the earth is really old - all will rely on evidence.

If they are reliant on evidence, then they should also be *SUBJECT* to evidence - that is, that we should not disregard evidence to the contrary arbitrarily. That is why, in every scientific discipline, we move from evidence to theory, because there is no theory of which we are so certain that we are not willing to examine evidence against it.

I do understand your point though...but I would like to see it demonstrated especially where a Creationist has made an error that is so obvious to all and yet clings to this falsehood for religious reasons and enters the land of self-deception.,,, I will look into this as well....I did note your story about the decay of magnetic fields...I just want to find something myself.

There's plenty out there to find.

I thought the summary of your knowledge of Christian things was very good

Yay! Me rock bible!

I hope you don't mind me quoting that in a preach sometime it is one of the most fundamentally down to earth and honest summaries I've heard from an Atheist or anyone.

No, it's kewl.

Jenbe

and I would suggest that the motive for the athiest to study science, is mainly to equip him to be more and more the centre of his own world.

What would you suggest the motive of the theist is when they earnestly study science?

Although understanding that evolution takes place continually, I am assuming that the THEORY of evolution is still just that..a theory..as is the theory of creation.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by "theory". There is no "theory" of creation, not in scientific terms anyhow. However, there is a "theory" of evolution.

Perhaps you could tell me what you mean by "theory"? How do you think theories are made? What criteria does an idea have to meet to become a theory? What's the different between a hypothesis and a theory? If you could expand on these, I would be much obliged.

The theory of evolution is like giving power to the clay to form itself into some useful object over a long period of time , denying the hand of the potter who has the wisdom, skill. and power to do as He pleases.

What if the potter made the pot make itself? Wouldn't that be even cleverer than handling the clay?

[jenbe]

SA

sciencWhat would you suggest the motive of the theist is when they earnestly study e?

I think that would depend on what your definition of a Theist is.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by "theory". There is no "theory" of creation, not in scientific terms anyhow. However, there is a "theory" of evolution.

Perhaps you could tell me what you mean by "theory"? How do you think theories are made? What criteria does an idea have to meet to become a theory? What's the different between a hypothesis and a theory? If you could expand on these, I would be much obliged.

Theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypothesis. A theory can also be a concept that is not yet verified, but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory..phew....The theory of Creation , was actually meant to be tongue in cheek ... sorry , next time I will make it clear that I jest.

Of course what I should have said was.."The theory of evolution.....and the Unproven Fact OF Creation..bourne out by Faith in the Creator Himself.

What if the potter made the pot make itself? Wouldn't that be even cleverer than handling the clay?

Er .. I think the Bible indicates that God SPOKE creation into being...which if you think about it is probably even cleverer than the potter making the pot make itself.

But if you want just a straight answer to your question... it might come out ahead in the cleverness stakes... but I think it would lag woefully behind in the care factor.

Jill

[Botz]

SA...will get back to on this later...I replied in the other thread...I have just got back from Portsmouth where I saw a concert by Big Bill Morganfield who is the son of Muddy Waters...it was excellent...real full on blues.

[Botz]

Now I want you to do some research. It's not going to be hard. I want you to take Raup's quote, type it into google with quotation marks round it, select 25 sites per page, and do a search. Out of the first 4 pages (100 results) I want you to tell me how many were creationist websites. Remember, it's been 24 years since this was unmasked as a misquote, that was before the web was even around. There's even a page on talkorigins dedicated to this quote, and unmasking it as a misquote.

I think this piece of research will make you shocked at creationist tactics and integrity.

What I found was that yes most of the sites were Creationist and when they quoted Raup they used just enough to make their point...just like you said they would...but they did not use this quote in isolation of other facts...at least none on the sites that I had a look at.

What this shows me is that they may well regurgitate some things that have been debunked or are 'old hat' or proven to be misquotes...but there are many other points they can make to back up their claims and they do not just rely on one aspect to make a point...

In one of the sites I looked at ....what was most revealing was when an evolutionist in California was trying to get the school board to teach the theory of evolution alongside the theory of creation...but was shot down by his own side because they were so strongly against any hint of Creationism.

For me it is a bit of a jungle out there and I am not really into the tit for tat tactics that I can see between some Creationist and Evolutionists...I am sure there are good men both sides of the divide who are sincerely trying to follow and be true to their particular science credo.

Again I would have thought that there is validity for both methods.

Unless there is some reason you can be absolutely positively totally sure that your theory is right, which is very very rare, then no, not really.

For example, if we found evidence that the laws of logic may be violated, we are more certain of these laws than we are of the evidence, so these may take precedence.

However, any theory - whether that be the theory that the literal reading of Genesis is true, or the theory that Jesus died on the cross, or the theory that the earth is really old - all will rely on evidence.

If they are reliant on evidence, then they should also be *SUBJECT* to evidence - that is, that we should not disregard evidence to the contrary arbitrarily. That is why, in every scientific discipline, we move from evidence to theory, because there is no theory of which we are so certain that we are not willing to examine evidence against it.

But that is the fundamental difference between a Creationist and an Evolutionist...because a Christian is meant to have come into a direct personal relationship with the Living G-d....he has no choice but to approach creation from the point of a Creator...and those that are convinced of a young earth have their theory to work back from....whereas anyone else has no choice but to go along within the guidelines that they have been taught up till this point in time.

So whereas an Atheistic approach can claim to be more valid and true to the heart of what they believe is 'true science'...a Creationist is no less scientific...it is just that he works from a different premise.

Many creationists I have encountered really havn't read anything at all about science outside of highschool, and answersingenesis.org. That is the sad reality in many cases

Well I am not keeping the good Creationists under my bed that is for sure ...I will have to invite you to our Church down in Brighton next time Ken Ham puts in an appearance...I am sure you two would have a lot to talk about that would bore the pants off me.

I am now looking into the question you asked about sea creatures from a Creationist point of view and will get back to you asap with what I turn up.

[nebula]

For example, if we found evidence that the laws of logic may be violated, we are more certain of these laws than we are of the evidence, so these may take precedence.

Are the laws of logic an invention or a discovery?

I ask the same thing about mathematics.

[jenbe]

For example, if we found evidence that the laws of logic may be violated, we are more certain of these laws than we are of the evidence, so these may take precedence

Are the laws of logic an invention or a discovery?

I ask the same thing about mathematics.

Nebula,

On the basis that Abstract things cannot be destroyed or created,the laws of logic and mathematics has to have been discovered.They exist in their own right , independent of anything else. And after all, God is the master mathematician.

This is of course purely a creationist viewpoint , and I am sure that there may, scientifically , be a totally different answer.

My view has been shaped by the fact that there are many different forms of logic, ranging from Aristotelian logic, to Western logic, to Application logic etc, but the most interesting by far ....is Womens logic.

Womens logic is in a league of it's own, completely unfathomable to men....and on this I hang my theory...that as the majority of good inventions in the world today have been claimed by men, if it were possible for logic to have been invented.....it would already have been patented.

Jill.......... (and for SAs benefit......... I have my tongue firmly in my cheek. )