51. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45596 by devolved on May 28, 2007 at 11:51 am

epeeist writes "If you want to claim evolution, cosmology and geology are invalid because they deal with "questions of origins or of unobserved history" (the Oxford comma is unnecessary) then you also invalidate creationism since it only deals with questions of origins and unobserved history."

epeeist you are, in part, correct in what you say. Neither creationism nor evolution belongs within the realm of operational science. I would be stupid to claim that 'cosmology and geology are invalid'. I do claim that Natural Selection is science but the evolution you believe in is not and I've explained why.

Here's my response to your earlier post.

1. Equivocation is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). (Wikipedia)

2. Epeeist writes, "Firstly, lets get rid of the equivocation. All the above were Christians, but they were not "creationists" in the sense that is accepted today."
a. It wasn't my intention to mislead.
b. I am not sure what you imply by your comment: "…they were not "creationists" in the sense that is accepted today."

3. I appreciate that it can be difficult, dangerous and sometimes fatal to express beliefs. However I see no reason (short of facing torture etc) why Christians should want to declare themselves atheists at any point in history.

4. I said, "The majority of the world's major scientific discoveries were made by creationists." It was made as an historical statement.
That does not imply:
a. Scientists have to be Christian or creationists to produce science.
b. To quote epeeist, "All of the above scientists produced science because of their Christianity."

5. You take Isaac Newton as an example and claim (without quoting any source) that he was an alchemist.
Here are two quotes from Newton:
a. 'This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" or "Universal Ruler". … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.'
[Principia, Book III; cited in; Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings, p. 42, ed. H.S. Thayer, Hafner Library of Classics, NY, 1953]
b. 'Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.'
[A Short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton by Sir David Brewster, Edinburgh, 1850; cited in; Newton's Philosophy of Nature, p. 65, Ref. 2]

6. "Does this (belief in Christianity) affect (the) science?"
Yes!

7. "In some cases the course of an individual may have been changed by their membership of the church."
I really don't understand your point here. I do agree that scientists have suffered at the hand of the church and at the hand of other scientists (and others). It is a common misunderstanding that Christians believe themselves to be perfect. My own journey from atheism to Christianity led me to realise just how far from perfect I am.

8. Lord Kelvin calculated an upper limit for the age of the Earth which he estimated to be less than100m years. Does that disprove my claim that he was a creationist?

9. "Does the fact that the scientists you mention were Christians have any bearing on the authority of their work. The anser (sic) is again no".
The key word here is 'authority'. Synonyms of 'authority' would perhaps include 'influence' or 'weight'.

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins is an atheist give him greater influence in what is a post-Christian, secular society? What do you think?

10. ". I could have just pointed out the equivocation, amphiboly, and argumentum ad verecundiam…"
a. you did point out equivocation (see 2 above)
b. amphiboly = "nothing is good enough for you"
Jesus is.
c. argumentum ad verecundiam
Thank you.

52. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45584 by devolved on May 28, 2007 at 10:17 am

epeeist I would welcome your comments on the following

Starting points

1. Science is a fantastic tool. Through it we have discovered huge amounts of useful information about the universe we live in. It has limitations but we recognise that through science and technology mankind has been tremendously blessed.

2. There are two distinct realms of science
a. Operational
b. Historical

Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. Historical science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work.
Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Historical science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a 'time machine' to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

3. The exclusion of supernatural phenomena from historical science cannot be justified on scientific grounds as it is an expression of a particular (naturalistic) paradigm. To amplify this let me postulate two contradictory positions:
a. God does not exist
b. God does exist

c. If a. is true there is no value in examining supernatural explanations
BUT
d. If b. is true there is significant value in examining supernatural explanations

4. Much dispute exists over the use of particular words such as 'evolution'. To make matters clear I make the following distinction-
a. "Natural selection involves the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information.
b. Evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc.

5. People of all persuasions are capable of doing science (good or bad).

6. The data we all look at when doing science is the same but we draw different conclusions from that data because people have differing and sometimes conflicting axioms (or presuppositions). Data does not 'speak for itself', it has to be interpreted and no-one has a 'neutral' or unbiased position.

[Dr John Morris writes: "The key to enjoying and benefiting from museums is being able to distinguish facts from interpretations of the facts, or inferences drawn from the facts. This is particularly true when dealing with the question of origins, or of unobserved history."]

Again I thank you for you last post and will respond once I've had a chance to consider your points.

53. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45572 by devolved on May 28, 2007 at 8:52 am

Thank you epeeist for post 92.

54. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45571 by devolved on May 28, 2007 at 8:49 am

Billy, Isaiah 40 contains some beautiful poetic images:

21Do you not know? Do you not hear?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
23who brings princes to nothing,
and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness.

Billy has his source, I choose another so for balance follow this link
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1814/

You'll notice the challenge to atheists in v21 Billy.

Billy asks, "Realised how evolution works yet?"
I can still only find just so stories. Of course it's impossible to do science in the past so none of our claims about what happened can be tested scientifically. However it's worth asking who is doing bad science:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891

Billy falsely claims, "…you did lie about once believing in evolution."
No I was once just as convinced as you Billy. Now I'm willing to see convincing evidence but can't find much on this website (even when I'm not asking questions).

Billy recommends, "I recommend everyone reads this link"
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/133/
and so do I so at least we agree about one thing!

And as for me 'mining' the internet I resolutely refuse to re-invent the bicycle.

Billy claims, "you got the quotes from who are intent on misprpresentation (sic)" by which he must mean people who don't agree with him (as he hasn't given any examples to date to substantiate his claim).

'Misprpresentation' = more letters = more information??? Remind me, how does evolution work Billy?

55. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45558 by devolved on May 28, 2007 at 7:07 am

Welcome back Billy with your usual salvo of nonsense over logic. You're nothing if not predictable.

"Please tell me where the dinosaurs are?"
I found one near your home Billy. You can read more about it here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/133/

Billy "And how did noah's family harbour all known human pathogens and live?"
They didn't.

Billy "Why does the bible say the earth is flat?"
Your bible might. My Bible doesn't.

Billy "My arse! WHAT KIND OF STUPID ARGUEMENT (sic) IS THAT?"
Have you evolved a new organ through which you think and speak Billy? More evidence of mutations providing more information I'd guess.

56. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45550 by devolved on May 28, 2007 at 5:42 am

Are 'hypothetical entities' related to 'ad hoc assumptions'?

Do you understand my question epeeist or do you prefer to dodge it? I've seen the infidels link.
It says "The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations." When was I guilty of that?

And as a matter of fact which of the scientists I mentioned wasn't a creationist? I repeat, whoever throws mud ends up losing ground.

My argument is simple. All human reasoning rests upon assumptions. The difference is that I affirm that and you don't.

So just in cse you missed it, I repeat, "Are 'hypothetical entities' related to 'ad hoc assumptions'?"

57. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45528 by devolved on May 28, 2007 at 4:26 am

When you lose an argument throw mud. Well done epeeist give yourself a big pat on the back.

58. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45497 by devolved on May 28, 2007 at 2:54 am

epeeist claims, "If we followed your idea of simply following an authority we would never have got to Copernican astronomy, never mind GR or QM."

The majority of the world's major scientific discoveries were made by creationists: physicists such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin; chemists such as Boyle, Dalton and Ramsay; or biologists such as Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, and Pasteur.
What complete and utter nonsense epeeist!

epeeist (does he actually exist) asserts, "You just don't see it do you. Imposing an ad hoc assumption completely invalidates anything in the rest of the paper."

So what don't I see? How do you know that the past exists except as a figment of your imagination? How can any scientist conduct science without making ad hoc assumptions? Everything you post as an argument rests upon ad hoc assumptions!

"Most scientists assume that physical laws merely exist and that they can be extrapolated into the past to tell us how creation happened. In other words, God is irrelevant to the question of origins. …. Sadly, the god of most scientists is at best the one of the deists and at worst entirely ad hoc."
(Prof. Danny Faulkner PhD Astronomy).

I'm intrigued to find this (non-creationist) post on the internet that begins: "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory."
Are 'hypothetical entities' related to 'ad hoc assumptions'? Maybe epeeist could comment on the link:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

This is the best one I've ever read from epeeist, "No scientist I know has an "anti biblical" bias except when someone tries to frig the data to fix things to a preconcieved (sic) point of view." Try reading any book by Richard Dawkins to disprove that corker!!!

Stop kidding yourself epeeist!

59. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45408 by devolved on May 27, 2007 at 3:45 pm

D'Arcy writes "So God can speed up light and slow down time, but he still can't or won't rid humanity of disease, poverty and malnutrition. Any answers to that devolved? Or is it that He works in a mysterious way."

First thank you for reading the earlier link, I appreciate that you spent time doing that.

As I write I have a close friend close to death in hospital so I am not exempt from asking similar questions. Another friend lost her son five years ago. The pain is still amost unbearable and she finds little consolation in her church.

Is God mysterious. Yes. Does anyone fully understand, or is anyone able to fully answer you? No.

Is there any answer at all? Yes in part.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3774/

Will it satisfy you. I doubt it. I know how easy it is to have answers all sorted out until its my pain, my loss, my unanswered questions. I would be a fool to answer any other way. I hope you will accept a frank and honest reply. Thank you again.

60. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45387 by devolved on May 27, 2007 at 2:13 pm

epeeist writes "The article suffers from pre-suppositional bias in that it states that the biblical framework is "non-negotiable"."

Well you'll be pleased to know that I half agree with you but you also 'suffer' from a presuppositional bias in rejecting the Biblical framework.

But I am very grateful for your input and would ask for more. Perhaps you could use your scientific skills to comment on the following:

"An entirely legitimate question, then, is how we could possibly see stars millions and billions of light years away if the earth is so young. Part of the reason scientists like myself can have confidence that good science will vindicate a face-value understanding of the Bible is because we believe we have at least an outline of the correct answer to this important question.

This answer draws upon important clues from the Bible, while applying standard general relativity. The result is a cosmological model that differs from the standard big-bang models in two essential respects. First, it does not assume the so-called cosmological principle and, second, it invokes inflation at a different point in cosmological history.

The cosmological principle is the assumption that the cosmos has no edge or boundary or center and, in a broad-brush sense, is the same in every place and in every direction. This assumption concerning the geometry of the cosmos has allowed cosmologists to obtain relatively simple solutions of Einstein's equations of general relativity. Such solutions form the basis of all big-bang models. But there is growing observational evidence that this assumption is simply not true. A recent article in the journal Nature, for example, describes a fractal analysis of galaxy distribution to large distances in the cosmos that contradicts this crucial big-bang assumption.

If, instead, the cosmos has a center, then its early history is radically different from that of all big-bang models. Its beginning would be that of a massive black hole containing its entire mass. Such a mass distribution has a whopping gradient in gravitational potential which profoundly affects the local physics, including the speed of clocks. Clocks near the center would run much more slowly, or even be stopped, during the earliest portion of cosmic history. Since the heavens on a large scale are isotropic from the vantage point of the earth, the earth must be near the center of such a cosmos. Light from the outer edge of such a cosmos reaches the center in a very brief time as measured by clocks in the vicinity of the earth.

In regard to the timing of cosmic inflation, this alternative cosmology has inflation after stars and galaxies form. It is noteworthy that recently two astrophysics groups studying high-redshift type Ia supernovae both concluded that cosmic expansion is greater now than when these stars exploded. The article in the June 1998 issue of Physics Today describes these "astonishing" results which "have caused quite a stir" in the astrophysics community. The story amazingly ascribes the cause to "some ethereal agency.""
John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

The full article (and references) can be found:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4024/

61. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45306 by devolved on May 27, 2007 at 6:19 am

A rely to Nikki (as ever the abuse isn't worth replying to).

"A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false."

Can you provide examples of this recurring theme in 'antievolution literature'?

"This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here."

Unless of course 'common descent and transmutation of species' is false and just saying that it's true doesn't make it so. The question I keep asking is are we looking at evolution or devolution? The answer it appears, depends upon what you believe. If you start with a naturalistic bias you come to one conclusion. If you start with a supernatural bias you come to another. What's certain is that the facts don't speak for themselves!

"Itis not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven (sic) were more restricted than that."

What exactly is your point? Can we agree that no attempt to demonstrate "spontaneous generation" has yet been successful and that there have been many attempts?

62. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45287 by devolved on May 27, 2007 at 5:05 am

Q "Perhaps devolved can explain to us how the light from stars and galaxies that are way beyond 6500 light years distance can be viewed by us here today on Earth?"

A: devolved points you towards the work of an astrophysicist (which devolved is not).
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf



epeeist is still avoiding the issue
Here was my challenge:
As ever epeeist wants to attack me but I'm not the issue. Here's an article by a creation scientist.
Critique it epeeist for all our sakes:
http://trueorigin.org/abio.asp

I didn't mention evolution in my challenge. So I'm still waiting for a critique.

Your critique so far is "It fails at the first hurdle "The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal]." Well that's not a creationist's position so perhaps you'd like to expand?

But the most thoughtful and import comment came from thirdchimpanzee so thank you for that. Here it is:
"One more scientific observation, if you conduct 10,000 experiments and 9,999 of the experiments arrived at the same answer, within an order of magnitude, and one experiment was different by a factor of one million - the reasonable thing to do is assume there was something experimentally wrong with the oddball result. You may try to investigate how the experiment had been conducted differently and so on, but at some point you put it aside and carry on with your work according to the 99.9% of results."

I completely agree with you but you completely miss my point. I don't expect anyone on the site to believe in a young earth. I do question your ability or willingness to consider scientific evidence that hasn't been distorted by applying a particular set of presuppositions. So if you can look at this creationist argument:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp



And of course I keep hearing the argument that it's not 'peer reviewed'. Well of course it isn't. If you run the club and set the rules so that only people who agree with you get to play what do you expect? If ever science was a game of playing with loaded dice this is it.

Here's a documented example of presuppositional bias eliminating scientific work:
As for ID supporters getting published in 'mainstream' peer-reviewed journals, take a look at what happened two years ago when a paper by Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington:
'The dispute deepened when the journal, bowing to pressure from Darwinists, declared it would no longer publish papers with an intelligent design perspective, reports Discovery Institute, even if an article passes peer review. The NCSE (National Center for Science Education, led by Eugenie Scott) has argued that Meyer's paper should not have been printed.' http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0904.htm#intdes145

The full article is available for those willing to read it:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4704/86/


And the reason I'm not going away is this (extracted again from the link immediately above:
" Usually random mutations are bad, even lethal for organisms; more rarely, a random mutation to the genome can result in a trivial positive change to an organism's functioning and hence its survival.
Let's be clear about this – with one possible and disputable exception (see CMI's article, The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste), there has never been documented, in the history of science, even one mutation that has added new functional information to the genome. Your writer's statement is playing with words at best. Some mutations have resulted in a positive change only in the sense that a loss of functionality has actually helped the organism – e.g. beetles born without wings on a windswept island, or cave-dwelling fish born blind. This is not documented evidence of evolution, it is the opposite: devolution.
'All point mutations studied on a molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.' Dr Lee Spetner, Not by Chance (1997).

63. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45173 by devolved on May 26, 2007 at 5:07 pm

abiogenesis

NOTHING to do with evolution?

"Not to be confused with "spontaneous generation," it is the theory that life originally arose from non-living matter, given the proper conditions during the early earth."
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html

epeeist you really are struggling!

64. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45172 by devolved on May 26, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Critique! Is that really the besy you can do epeeist? Perhaps it is. And you wonder why I am inclined to think that you really can't argue science with creationists.

Come on you really do need to put your science hat on and do much better. I am amazed.

65. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45133 by devolved on May 26, 2007 at 1:34 pm

As ever epeeist wants to attack me but I'm not the issue. Here's an article by a creation scientist.

Critique it eppeist for all our sakes:
http://trueorigin.org/abio.asp

66. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45110 by devolved on May 26, 2007 at 12:06 pm

I was shopping in Sainsbury's yesterday [a UK supermarket chain] and saw a dump bin with 'The God Delusion' in it and across the bin in very prominent type was the invitation to 'Join the Debate', so here I am.

The other reason I'm here is that I've read 'The God Delusion' and I think it's very cleverly written propaganda written with the express intent of branding Christianity as 'evil'. I've also read a short and very interesting reply called 'The Dawkins Letters' by David Robertson [ISBN 978 184550 2614 £4.99]. Apparently the 1st chapter was posted on this website and David was subjected to similar abuse to me. I have yet to find anyone on the website who has written a critique of David's book.

I'm not sure what USA_Limey hopes to achieve by using foul language. It hardly reflects well on Richard Dawkins website and is evidence that not all atheists have developed a higher consciousness.

By contrast I thank don malvado for useful information. Let me return the compliment and if it's inappropriate please tell me.

"The growth rate of stalactites and stalagmites in many caves today is of course quite slow. But even in such caves the current slow rate of growth cannot be guaranteed to have always been this sluggish. Caves and their formations in tropical areas develop much faster than those in more temperate regions because of higher annual rainfall. But many factors, apart from the obvious unknown rate of water drip in the past, influence growth rate.

Research over the past five years in the Kelly Caves of Kangaroo Island has shown that stalactites can grow at rates of up to 1/2 inch (7mm) in four years. This is contrary to the usual evolutionist claim that stalactites grow, at the most, an inch a century and therefore any limestone caves must be very old. Such a high rate of growth in stalactites indicates that even many of the larger stalactite growths could have occurred in a reasonably short time, and therefore the caves are not necessarily old at all."

I appreciate that some of you will automatically dismiss these reports if I divulge the sources. Of course rejecting valid evidence on the basis that it's drawn from a source that doesn't agree with your own biases and presuppositions is as unscientific and bigoted as you can get but then this is a religious website so I shouldn't be too surprised. After all in all the posts I've made on this website I'm still waiting for a scientific critique of the information I provide. Lots of abuse, may snide remarks and lots of shallow rhetoric but as yet no science.

67. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #44893 by devolved on May 25, 2007 at 2:00 pm

In October 1953, National Geographic published a photo of a bat that had fallen on a stalagmite in the famous Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico, and had been cemented on to it. The stalagmite had grown so fast it was able to preserve the bat before the creature had time to decompose. [Mason Sutherland, Carlsbad Caverns in Color, National Geographic, October, 1953, p. 442.]

A photograph taken in February, 1968, shows a curtain of stalactites growing from the foundation ceiling beneath the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. Some of the stalactites had grown to five feet long (a metre and a half) in the 45 years since the memorial was built in 1923. [John C. Whitcomb, Jr, The World That Perished, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, pp. 114–115.]

68. Transcending Jerry Falwell

Comment #44863 by devolved on May 25, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Nails' "Funny that, I'm still waiting for an answer from bizarro or devolved on my evolution of haemoglobin post......." Please repeat your question.

"Let's start with Genesis - methusela was how old?
Noah's ark...shall I continue?"

What's your point? I can't answer questions you haven't asked!

epeeist - it's none of your business.

69. Fears for Democracy in India

Comment #44756 by devolved on May 25, 2007 at 8:59 am

This is a fascinating and thoughtful article ending with this profound comment' "...the real root of domination lies deep in the human personality."

One of the little known human tragedies in India is the 3000 year enslavement of the Dalit people.
Anyone interested in learning about this should follow this link:
www.dalitnetwork.org

I don't know who first said it but I recently saw a poster that said, "The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart."

70. Transcending Jerry Falwell

Comment #44716 by devolved on May 25, 2007 at 8:10 am

konquererz claims, "they believe in a book that is full of obvious errors while saying its perfect"

Easy to say! Where's the proof?

71. Transcending Jerry Falwell

Comment #44667 by devolved on May 25, 2007 at 6:52 am

Kathleen claims, "Educated Christians may have dressed up on Sundays and kept a Bible in the house, but otherwise they whispered prayers at bedside and wouldn't consider holding hands to bless food in a restaurant. It wasn't done."

Maybe she needs to read the Bible, "Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." [Acts 2:46-47]

72. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44511 by devolved on May 25, 2007 at 3:11 am

So when I listen to the weather forecast and I'm told about sunrise and sunset I shouldn't take it seriously because the BBC doesn't understand meteorology?

Sisyphus needs to know that you can make the Bible say anything you want and he's proved it with his article.

Did you know that the Bible says that God doesn't exist? Look it up in the first verse of Psalm 53.

73. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44503 by devolved on May 25, 2007 at 2:48 am

Nerd_instinct asks "….. to relate any instance of human good that could arise uniquely from faith."

So how do you know anything about 'human good'? Here's a response of Richard Dawkins to a fellow atheist:

Jaron Lanier: 'There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.'
Richard Dawkins: 'All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth.'
['Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,' Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p.62.]

I am not suggesting that only 'religious' people can be good. I know lots of people with no religious faith and quite often their behaviour is as good or better. That's NOT the issue.

The real question is how to define GOOD without God?

You may not like this answer from the Bible but what's the alternative?
"When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation."
[The Message (modern paraphrase of the Bible) Romans chapter 2]

Let me give you a practical demonstration of the problem. Parts of Central Africa are now over-populated in the sense that the number of people living on the land exceeds the capacity of the land to feed them. From a survival point of view genocide might be deemed to be 'good' but how many of us would agree that genocide is 'good' and if we don't how do we derive a sense of what is good or bad without a belief in God?

74. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #43234 by devolved on May 21, 2007 at 2:01 am

Billy I forget to thank you for the link to the guy who's lost his faith. It's a really useful article.

Please accept this link in return:
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/ross_olson_evolved.pdf

Catch up with you in a few days when I get back home.

75. Catholic Church Reconsiders Limbo

Comment #43231 by devolved on May 21, 2007 at 1:41 am

At his death Jesus was crucified with two criminals. One cursed him the other asked "…"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." [Luke 23:42-44 English Standard Version]

Mankind has a very long tradition of distorting God's teaching and inventing monstrous theories, destructive rules and evil empires. The Bible charts many of them. The link below is but one more recent example:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5043

76. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #43108 by devolved on May 20, 2007 at 2:13 pm

I missed this gem from Billy earlier, "...surely you should just bow to my authority." Even if he's wrong or thinks he's God?

Billy made a stupid and unsupported comment about the quality of the NIV translation. I posted details of the translators. It contains the names of world class theologians and scholars. Try googling the name Gordon Fee for example.
The NIV is not perfect (no translation is) but it commands wide support amongst evangelical Christians. Does that answer your question epeeist?

My qualifications are irrelevant to this debate. It's not my science against yours, but PhD scientists who disagree with your presuppositional biases. If you can't or won't critique them what conclusions can I draw? Dismissing them as fundamentalists really cuts no ice.

I have posted below Genesis 2:19 from 4 of the most widely accepted modern translations for those interested in good Bible scholarship:

Genesis 2:19

New International Version:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

New American Standard Version:
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

English Standard Bible:
So out of the ground the LORD God formed[a] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

footnote [a] Or had formed

New Revised Standard Version:
So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Judge for yourself whether Billy is right or wrong.

77. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #43067 by devolved on May 20, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Billy claims "No serious scholar holds the NIV to be a good translation."
Billy you may have a PhD but you really make some extraordinarily stupid comments.

In the 17th century, King James translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work.

The NIV Committee on Bible Translation
The NIV Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) is a "continuing committee of fifteen" formed in 1965 for the purpose of creating and revising the NIV. From 1965 to 1983 the members of the CBT [1] were:
1. E. Leslie Carlson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Carlson died in 1967 and was replaced by Larry Walker.
2. Edmund P. Clowney, Westminster Theological Seminary.
Clowney resigned in 1968 and was replaced by Robert Preus.
3. Ralph Earle, Nazarene Theological Seminary
4. Burton L. Goddard, Gordon Divinity School
5. R. Laird Harris, Covenant Theological Seminary
6. Earl S. Kalland, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary (Denver)
7. Kenneth S. Kantzer, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Kantzer resigned in 1969 and was replaced by Richard Longenecker.
8. Robert Mounce, Bethel College (St. Paul).
Mounce resigned in 1967 and was replaced by Youngve Kindberg.
Kindberg resigned in 1983 and was replaced by Donald Wiseman.
9. Stephen W. Paine, Houghton College
10. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Central Michigan University
In 1974 the "long-inactive" Pfeiffer was replaced by Kenneth L. Barker
11. Charles C. Ryrie, Dallas Theological Seminary.
Ryrie resigned in 1977 and was replaced by Ronald Youngblood (appointed 1979).
12. Francis R. Steele, North Africa Mission.
Steele resigned in 1969 and was replaced by William J. Martin.
Martin died in 1980 and was replaced by Bruce Waltke.
13. John H. Stek, Calvin Theological Seminary
14. John C. Wenger, Goshen Biblical Seminary
15. Marten H. Woudstra, Calvin Theological Seminary
During 1976-1978 there was "an expansion of the CBT for editing purposes" in which the following six scholars served as de facto members of the committee: Elmer Smick, Bruce Waltke, Herbert Wolf, Ronald Youngblood, Gleason Archer, and Roy Hayden.

In January 2002 the fifteen-member CBT included the persons listed below. Nine of these (marked with an asterix) had not been involved in the making of the original NIV (1978) or of its revision in 1983. This is the committee that produced the revision of the NIV known as the TNIV (2005).
1. John Stek, Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation
Calvin Theological Seminary, Part-time Professor of Old Testament
Denominational Affiliation: Christian Reformed Church
2. Donald H. Madvig,* Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation
Retired Pastor and Professor of Biblical Studies
Denominational Affiliation: Evangelical Covenant
3. Kenneth L. Barker, Secretary of the Committee on Bible Translation
Dallas Theological Seminary, Adjunct Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Studies
Denominational Affiliation: Southern Baptist
4. Gordon Fee*
Regent College, Professor of New Testament Studies
Denominational Affiliation: Assemblies of God
5. Richard T. France*
Parrish Minister, England and Wales
Denominational Affiliation: Church of England
6. Karen H. Jobes*
Westmont College, Associate Professor of New Testament
Denominational Affiliation: Presbyterian Church of America
7. Walter Liefeld*
Tyndale Theological Seminary, The Netherlands, Interim President
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Professor Emeritus of New Testament
Denominational Affiliation: Independent
8. I. Howard Marshall*
University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Professor of New Testament Exegesis
Denominational Affiliation: Methodist
9. Alan R. Millard*
University of Liverpool, England. Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages
Denominational Affiliation: Christian Brethren (Open Brethren)
10. Douglas Moo*
Wheaton College Graduate School, Professor of New Testament
Wheaton College, PhD Coordinator in Biblical and Theological Studies
Denominational Affiliation: Independent
11. Martin J. Selman*
Spurgeon's College, London, Deputy Principal
Denominational Affiliation: Baptist
12. Larry L. Walker
Beeson Divinity School of Samford University, Visiting Professor
Denominational Affiliation: Southern Baptist
13. Bruce K. Waltke
Regent College, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Studies
Reformed Theological Seminary, Professor of Old Testament
Denominational Affiliation: Baptist
14. Herbert M. Wolf
Wheaton College Graduate School
Denominational Affiliation: Independent Baptist
15. Ronald F. Youngblood
Chairman of the Board of Directors, International Bible Society
Bethel Seminary San Diego, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Hebrew
Denominational Affiliation: Baptist General Conference

NIV Translators and Editors,
and their Institutional and Church Affiliations
The following list of NIV translators and editors is reproduced from the list sent to me by the International Bible Society in September 1993. The list does not always give the church affiliation of the persons listed. In a few cases there is no institutional affiliation given, but only a city of residence. Presumably, the names listed are all those who participated in the translation of the original NIV (1973-1978) or of the revision of 1984. Many of the people listed here are known to have had only a very minor role in the translation. -- M.D.M
1. Robert L. Alden. Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary. Conservative Baptist.
2. Gleason L. Archer, Jr. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Evangelical Free.
3. Glenn W. Barker. Fuller Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
4. Kenneth L. Barker. Capital Bible Seminary. Evangelical Free.
5. James R. Battenfield. Grace Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
6. S. Herbert Bess. Grace Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
7. Harvey J.S. Blaney. Asbury Theological Seminary. Nazarene.
8. W. Gordon Brown. Central Baptist Seminary, Toronto. No church affiliation given.
9. Donald W. Burdick. Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary. Conservative Baptist.
10. Frederick W. Bush. Fuller Theological Seminary. Presbyterian.
11. E. Leslie Carlson. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Southern Baptist.
12. Philip S. Clapp. Western Evangelical Seminary. United Methodist.
13. Edmund Clowney. Westminster Theological Seminary. Presbyterian.
14. Ralph R. Covell. Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary. Conservative Baptist.
15. John J. Davis. Grace Theological Seminary. Grace Brethren.
16. Wilber T. Dayton. Wesley Biblical Seminary. No church affiliation given.
17. Raymond B. Dillard. Westminster Theological Seminary. Orthodox Presbyterian.
18. Ralph Earle. Nazarene Theological Seminary. Nazarene.
19. David Engelhard. Calvin Theological Seminary. Christian Reformed.
20. Milton C. Fisher. Reformed Episcopal Theological Seminary. Reformed Episcopal.
21. Lewis A. Foster. Cincinnati Bible Seminary. No church affiliation given.
22. Francis Foulkes. Bible College of New Zealand. Church of England.
23. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Westminster Theological Seminary. Orthodox Presbyterian.
24. Wesley L. Gerig. Fort Wayne Bible College. No church affiliation given.
25. Donald R. Glenn. Dallas Theological Seminary. Independent.
26. Burton L. Goddard. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Orthodox Presbyterian.
27. Louis Goldberg. Moody Bible Institute. Baptist.
28. David Gooding. The Queens College, Belfast, Ireland. No church affiliation given.
29. J. Kenneth Grider. Nazarene Theological Seminary. Nazarene.
30. Clarence B. Hale. Wheaton College. No church affiliation given.
31. Murray J. Harris. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Open Brethren.
32. R. Laird Harris. Covenant Theological Seminary. Reformed Presbyterian.
33. Everett F. Harrison. Fuller Theological Seminary. United Presbyterian.
34. Roland K. Harrison. Wycliffe College, Toronto. No church affiliation given.
35. Gerald F. Hawthorne. Wheaton College. Plymouth Brethren.
36. Roy E. Hayden. Oral Roberts University. United Methodist.
37. William Hendriksen. Boca Raton, Florida. Christian Reformed.
38. D. Edmond Hiebert. Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary. Mennonite Brethren.
39. Mark E. Hillmer. Northwestern Lutheran Theological Seminary. Lutheran, Missouri Synod.
40. F. B. Huey. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Southern Baptist.
41. John C. Jeske. Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. Lutheran, Wisconsin Evangelical Synod.
42. S. Lewis Johnson. Dallas, Texas. Independent.
43. Walter C. Kaiser. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Evangelical Free.
44. Earl S. Kalland. Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary. Conservative Baptist.
45. Kenneth S. Kantzer. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Evangelical Free.
46. Homer A. Kent. Grace Theological Seminary. Grace Brethren.
47. F. Derek Kidner. Tyndale House, Cambridge, England. Church of England.
48. Y. R. Kindberg. International Bible Society. Christian and Missionary Alliance.
49. Simon Kistemaker. Reformed Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
50. Meredith G. Kline. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
51. Fred C. Kuehner. Reformed Episcopal Seminary. Reformed Episcopal.
52. William L. Lane. Western Kentucky University. No church affiliation given.
53. G. Irvin Lehman. Eastern Mennonite College. Mennonite.
54. Paul E. Leonard. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Brethren.
55. Arthur H. Lewis. Bethel College. Baptist.
56. Jack P. Lewis. Harding Graduate School of Religion. Church of Christ.
57. Walter L. Liefeld. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Plymouth Brethren.
58. G. Herbert Livingston. Asbury Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
59. Richard N. Longenecker. Wycliffe College, University of Toronto. Baptist.
60. Allan A. MacRae. Biblical School of Theology. Bible Presbyterian.
61. Donald H. Madvig. Bethel Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
62. W. Harold Mare. Covenant Theological Seminary. Presbyterian.
63. William J. Martin. Regent College, Vancouver. Christian Brethren.
64. Thomas E. McComiskey. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Evangelical Free.
65. J. Ramsey Michaels. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
66. Alan R. Millard. University of Liverpool, England. Christian Brethren.
67. Leon Morris. Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia. No church affiliation given.
68. Robert Mounce. Western Kentucky University. No church affiliation given.
69. Roger Nicole. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. American Baptist.
70. John N. Oswalt. Asbury Theological Seminary. United Methodist.
71. Stephen W. Paine. Houghton College. Wesleyan Methodist.
72. Edwin H. Palmer. Executive Secretary, NIV Committee on Bible Translation. Christian Reformed.
73. J. Burton Payne. Covenant Theological Seminary. Presbyterian.
74. Charles F. Pfeiffer. Central Michigan University. Reformed Presbyterian.
75. Robert D. Preus. Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne. Lutheran, Missouri Synod.
76. Stephen M. Reynolds. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Orthodox Presbyterian.
77. Robert P. Roth. Northwestern Lutheran Seminary. Lutheran.
78. Charles C. Ryrie. Dallas Theological Seminary. Baptist.
79. Jack B. Scott. Reformed Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
80. Elmer B. Smick. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
81. Francis Steele. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. No church affiliation given.
82. John H. Stek. Calvin Theological Seminary. Christian Reformed. [2]
83. Harold C. Stigers. Covenant Theological Seminary. Presbyterian.
84. Marvin E. Tate. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Southern Baptist.
85. G. Aiken Taylor. Ashville, North Carolina. No church affiliation given.
86. Merrill C. Tenney. Wheaton College. No church affiliation given.
87. Gerard Van Gronigen. Reformed Theological Seminary. Christian Reformed.
88. Larry L. Walker. Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. Southern Baptist.
89. Wilber B. Wallis. Covenant Theological Seminary. Presbyterian.
90. Bruce K. Waltke. Regent College, Vancouver. Baptist.
91. Rowland Ward. Ulvestone, Australia. No church affiliation given.
92. G. Henry Waterman. Wheaton College. Christian and Missionary Alliance.
93. J. C. Wenger. Goshen Biblical Seminary. Mennonite.
94. John R. Werner. International Linuistics Center. Reformed Presbyterian.
95. Walter W. Wessel. Bethel Theological Seminary, West Campus. Baptist.
96. David John Williams. Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia. Church of England.
97. William C. Williams. Southern California College. No church affiliation given.
98. Marvin R. Wilson. Gordon College. Conservative Baptist.
99. Donald J. Wiseman. University of London, England. No church affiliation given.
100. Herbert M. Wolf. Wheaton College Graduate School. Independent.
101. Leon J. Wood. Grand Rapids Baptist Bible Seminary. Baptist.
102. Marten H. Woudstra. Calvin Theological Seminary. Christian Reformed.
103. Ronald Youngblood. Bethel Theological Seminary, West Campus. Baptist. [3]
104. John M. Zinkand. Dordt College. No church affiliation given.
Literary Critics and Other Consultants
1. Edward M. Blaiklock. University of Auckland, New Zealand. No church affiliation given.
2. Frank E. Gaebelein. Headmaster Emeritus, The Stony Brook School. Reformed Episcopal.
3. Charles E. Hummel. Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. Baptist.
4. Elisabeth Elliot Leitch. Writer. Episcopal.
5. Calvin Linton. The George Washington University. No church affiliation given.
6. Kathryn R. Ludwigson. Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College. No church affiliation given.
7. Alvin Martin. Fuller Theological Seminary. Christian and Missionary Alliance.
8. Virginia Mollenkott. William Paterson College. No church affiliation given.
9. Margaret Nicholson. Author-Editor. No church affiliation given.
10. W. T. Purkiser. Kansas City, Missouri. No church affiliation given.
11. Walter R. Roehrs. Concordia Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.
12. Samuel J. Schultz. Wheaton College. Baptist.
13. John T. Timmerman. Calvin College. No church affiliation given.
14. Richard F. Wevers. Calvin College. Christian Reformed.


1. As given by John H. Stek, in "The New International Version: How It Came to Be," chapter 10 in The Challenge of Bible Translation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003). Stek lists the original members on page 245, and in following pages describes changes of the membership. In 1967 "the committee had a vacancy to fill due to the resignation of Robert Mounce," so "at the invitation of the CBT, and further to strengthen the bonds between the two bodies and to assure free communication between them, Youngve Kindberg [of the New York Bible Society] became a member of the Committee on Bible Translation." (p. 248) "In 1968 two changes of long-term significance occurred in the membership of the CBT: Robert Preus of Concordia Theological Seminary replaced Edmund Clowney, who had resigned due to heavy responsibilities at Westminster Seminary, and Larry Walker of Southwestern Baptist Seminary replaced Leslie Carlson, who had died the previous year." (p. 251) In 1969 "Francis Steele and Kenneth Kantzer both resigned due to heavy responsibilities elsewhere. Richard Longenecker replaced Kantzer, while the Steele vacancy was left open to be filled at a later date." (p. 252) In 1971 "William J. Martin of Regent College, Vancouver, was invited to join the CBT to fill the Steele vacancy." (p. 253) In 1974 "Kenneth L. Barker of Dallas Seminary had been invited to sit with the CBT during its editing work. Shortly thereafter he was appointed a full member of the CBT to replace the long-inactive Charles Pfeiffer." (p. 256) In 1976 the CBT "invited four Old Testament scholars (Elmer Smick of Gordon-Conwell Seminary, Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary, Herbert Wolf of Wheaton College Graduate School, and Ronald Youngblood of Bethel Theological Seminary) ... to assist it in the final editorial review" of the first edition of the Old Testament. (p. 256) In 1977 Gleason Archer and Roy Hayden were also "invited to assist" in an "expansion of the CBT for editing purposes." (p. 256) In 1983 the CBT met to revise the whole NIV, and by that time "the CBT's membership had changed somewhat since 1978. Charles Ryrie had resigned in 1977, and Ronald Youngblood (Bethel Seminary, San Diego) was added in 1979. In the spring of 1980 Bill Martin died and was replaced that same year by Bruce Waltke of Regent College, Vancouver. At the CBT's meeting in 1983, Youngve Kindberg resigned and his place was taken by Donald Wiseman of the University of London. Wiseman had for many years chaired the committee that Anglicized the text of the NIV for the Commonwealth edition published by Hodder & Stoughton, and he was present for part of the CBT's review of the NIV in 1983." (p. 261)
2. John H. Stek is currently (2001) the Chairman of the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation.
3. Ronald Youngblood is currently (2001) the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the International Bible Society, which owns the NIV copright and is the employer of the Committee on Bible Translation. He was the executive editor of the New International Reader's Version (NIrV), a simplified and gender-neutral revision of the NIV marketed for children, and is currently a member of the CBT.

78. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #43027 by devolved on May 20, 2007 at 9:47 am

Someone who can't tell the difference between a fundamentalist web site and the "Journal of Evolutionary Biology" or "Physics Letters" probably thinks that 'The God Delusion' is a really profound and clever book.

Of course I know what a fundamentilst website is -I'm posting this comment on it right now.

79. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42995 by devolved on May 20, 2007 at 8:49 am

Ryan, Billy's theology is even more biased than his science but that's hardly a surprise. He claims "…there are problems in the order of creation. Gen 1 animals then people. Gen 2 adam, animals, eve (because god failed (sic) to provide a suitable animal companion. There are other problems. (Such as???)

Here's a Christian response to Billy's 'problem':
"Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) 'out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air'. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb 'formed' in Genesis 2:19 to mean 'had formed' or 'having formed'. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation does) [NIV the world's best selling translation], 'Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …', the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just 'another' account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God's perspective; it is 'the big picture', an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man's perspective."

So come on Billy where's your SCIENTIFIC response to this
http://trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Ryan you say, "There is no contradiction between Catholicism and evolution." You may well be right but that's not the point. The Catholic Church made an horrendous error by aligning itself with the geocentric hypothesis of Claudius Ptolemaeus. The Church repeated the mistake by embracing the evolutionary hypothesis of Darwin.

I make the point again to all of you. There are highly qualified scientists in the major areas of science who do not accept your presuppositionl biases. They believe that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports a young earth (and universe) and creation of life by God with several thousand kinds created with all the genetic information for natural selection to create several million species over a few thousand years.

Who are they? Well you can start by looking at a book called 'in six days' edited by J Ashton, ISBN 978 0890 513415

If you're not prepared even to read their scientific papers what does it say about you other than that your minds are closed to the possibility that they may be right and you wrong.

If and when you refute their science I'll stop posting on this website. Until you do I shall continue to challenge.

80. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42925 by devolved on May 20, 2007 at 5:46 am

Billy huffs and puffs but where does it get him?
"Shoul (sic) I examine my alledged presuppositions on this? BTW genesis 1 and 2 conteadict each other - 'nuff said!"

Some interesting examples of mutations here Billy. Do they add to the information content of the sentences or corrupt them?

So Billy, just for a change, let's have some intelligent (i.e. non-abusive) views on the attached link:
http://trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Genesis chapter 2 is a further illumination of day 6 of the creation account in chapter 1. There is no contradiction.

Somehow I suspect that you are not willing to be proven wrong Billy. You prove to me that Jesus did not rise from the dead and I will give up Christianity.

81. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42904 by devolved on May 20, 2007 at 4:55 am

John Phillips, epeeist and BaronOchs

1. epeeist I tried to follow your link but it doesn't seem to go anywhere. What do you want me to read? Please post a specific link. You may be assured that I have read everything you have written.

2. None of you seems able to understand the concept of presuppositional bias and unless you do our dialogue will founder.

CARM is a Christian website (But not creationist as far as I know. Correct me if I am wrong). The following link is an excellent basis for studying presuppositional bias:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/debate1_3c.htm

3. John Phillips you throw a lot of mud at creationontheweb but provide nothing by way of evidence. If you want to be taken seriously stop mud slinging and be specific. Until you can substantiate your claims I will continue to post articles written by scientists. What I suspect you want me to do is the equivalent of player poker with marked cards.

4. BaronOchs:

a. "devolved may i ask you precisely what your creationism consists of?"
Yes you may. It is based on a belief in an uncreated God who made everything as he described it in the Bible.

b. Obviously you don't believe the genesis account
Yes I do.

c. "which has night and day preceeding the existence of the sun"
That's correct.

d. "(what the earth orbitted in those first few days I know not)"
A frank and sensible admission. Well done.

e. ". 99.9999... percent of the universe created as an afterthought (he made the stars also)"
Created after yes, but not as an afterthought (that's careless and prejudicial use of language)

f. "and the first woman created"
Correct, not evolved.

g. "out of one of the first mans ribs."
Wrong on two counts. Made from the first man's rib.


Which bring me back to why I no longer (I'm a backslidden atheist) buy into your evolutionary hypothesis.
1. Your inadequate explanation for the origin of the universe.
2. You cannot explain how life got started except by invoking luck and impossible odds.
3. You cannot explain how inert chemicals acquired the abiliy to originate, transmit or receive information.
4. You cannot explain how information becomes more complex over time.

Richard Dawkins had a go at the last and if you are interested here is a thoroughly well argued rebuttal:
http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

Richard Dawkins wants us to climb mount improbable and again here's a critique by a world class scientist:
http://trueorigin.org/dawkrev2.asp

I do pray you'll read the links before we continue the debate.

82. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42846 by devolved on May 20, 2007 at 1:12 am

epeeist

History is full of injustice, prejudice and violence. You only need to read the Bible to see that.

Just look at the words of Jesus "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander."

I'm not on this site to defend the indefensible but to point out that you are.

83. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42845 by devolved on May 20, 2007 at 1:07 am

"Either Jesus lied or the bible is NOT inerrant. One or the other. It can't be both."

Jesus said, "If you ask [me] anything in my name, I will do it."
(The Bible, ESV John 14:14) [Not all manuscripts have 'me']

It is claimed that: a) Jesus is a liar or b) the Bible is untrue or c) that Jesus is a liar and the Bible is untrue, because some prayers are not answered.

Jesus did NOT say, "If you ask [me] anything I will do it."

The phrase 'ask me anything' is qualified by the phrase 'in my name'. Some argue that God should perform like an ATM or slot machine, prayer in, answer out. That God chooses not to behave like and ATM or slot machine is clear from scripture.

How do we understand Jesus' statement? One rule of scripture is that scripture is interpreted in the light of scripture. In other words if the meaning is unclear or difficult to grasp read it in conjunction with other parts of the Bible. What do we have to make John 14:14 more explicable?

On the night before Jesus was crucified he prayed to his father, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup (death by crucifixion) pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39 ESV).

Praying 'in the name' of Jesus is to pray in the name of God ("…the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever." Romans 9:5b ESV). So we have an example of God the Son praying to God the Father (a paradox, not a contradiction) for 1) an alternative to crucifixion, and (nevertheless) 2) "not as I will, but as you will."

Followers of Jesus are given the same pattern for prayer. Do we fully understand the mind, will or glory of God? Of course not! This anonymous poem best answers the question.

My life is but a weaving
Between my Lord and me;
I cannot choose the colours
He weaves so steadily.

Often He weaves in sorrow
But I in foolish pride
Forget He sees the upper
And I, the lower side.

But the dark threads are as needful
In the weaver's skilful hand
As the threads of gold and silver
In the pattern He has planned.

Not till the loom is silent
And the bobbins cease to fly,
Shall He unroll the canvas
And explain the reason why.

84. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42828 by devolved on May 19, 2007 at 11:41 pm

Oldskeptic writes:
"The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms Then Einstein came along with mass-energy equivalence; formally know as E= mc2. Which states that energy and mass are the same things in different forms.

It appears from these two laws that neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed, which would make it eternal. So talking about matter creating itself is silly, talking about matter being created by anything out of anything is absurd, since it never could be created."

I'm glad you the words 'It appears'. So how do we have apparently eternal laws without a law giver? How do you explain the origins of matter? You are entitled to hold the belief that matter is eternal and I respect that. I believe that it was created as too were the laws that govern the universe. We both hold our beliefs by faith and your belief is no more rational or valid than mine.

We are both 'biased'. The real question is (and I quote a creationist) 'which bias is it best to be biased with'.

John Phillips I am not on this site to defend the Christian church through past centuries. I would be insane to try to do so. All institutions are in the hands of human beings and our history is a record of their achievements and failures. I do not deny the influence of men and women of science through the ages.

You might be interested in the activities of the 'International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)'. See this link:
http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/article.php?ID_news_items=283


BaronOchs writes
"A divine creator, if there is one, is beyond scientific observation, so postulating one cannot aid any scientific theory."

Evolution (as opposed to natural selection) is beyond scientific observation. You fail to distinguish between operational science which is valid and historical science which is not.

I do not need to postulate a divine creator. I can rely on the God who reveals himself through what I can see including the evidence of science which far better fits a creationist framework than an evolutionary one. If you are interested to know why follow this link:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891

85. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42794 by devolved on May 19, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Jesus said: "If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." (John 14:14)

Had Jesus said:"If ye shall ask anything I will do it." Dower's question would be much more difficult to respond to.

If your question is serious then you might want to look at this link:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/ebe12.html

Can anyone fully answer you? Deuteronomy 29:29 is worth looking at. I don't pretend to have an easy answer to your question and as I write I have a close friend in hospital close to death.

To some extent our understanding is made worse by poor understanding of the issues of death and suffering and I would strongly urge you to look at the following article:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3774/

Do I fully understand why some prayer goes unanswered? No. Does that make Jesus a liar? No.

86. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42785 by devolved on May 19, 2007 at 3:03 pm

For the history of science. Follow this scholarly link epeeist

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/

87. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42776 by devolved on May 19, 2007 at 1:42 pm

"…but to say order implies intelligence is a fallacy, pure and simple." WHY?

"Evolution has had around 3 billion years to work its magic, I would be very suprised if we will see any massive leaps in a single generation."

So you believe in magic as well as luck! Give me God any day! And wasn't it an evolutionist who added hopeful monsters to luck and magic?

As for sickle cell anaemia read this link and tell me how it supports evolution. I'm blowed if I can see how it provide any support at all.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/901

Maybe it's not me who's in denial here. Perhaps your ability to see the case is obscured by your prior commitment to atheism and naturalism, and yes Billy I have been there.

88. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42769 by devolved on May 19, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Logicel writes, "It is ironic that science probably was directly responsible for the invention faith."

Funny you should say that as it was exactly the other way round. The study of science grew directly out of the Christian belief in an orderly universe governed by observed laws. (I can give you web links). And of course the obvious question arises 'who made the laws'?

Why the God of the Bible and no other? Because no other explanation of creation apart from Genesis 1 is plausible. It best fits the scientific evidence and shows the implausibility of the science of the gaps of Darwinian evolution.

And the belief that design is not manifest in all we see is the best example of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' I've ever come across.

89. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42749 by devolved on May 19, 2007 at 10:39 am

Billy Sands writes: "I have provided evidence...
remember the Alx-4 ass kicking that i gave your misrepersentations?[sic; mutation leads to loss of information]or bithorax? or all the other mechanisms? You even responded saying that you knew nothing about converted and processed pseudogenes, but i was wrong - you are a sad fundie. I wish you no ill, but you really are deluded and i hope you sort that out one day - atheism has been good to me (unlike xianity) i hope you lose your repressive delusion and start living an intellectually and emotionally fulfilled life in a genuine pursuit of truth"

"remember the Alx-4 ass kicking that i gave" No it seems to feature large in your imagination though. It's just another failed example Billy. Follow this up:

"Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. [SA 82]
Once again, there is no new information! Rather, a mutation in the hox gene (see next section) results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place.1 The hox gene merely moved legs to the wrong place; it did not produce any of the information that actually constructs the legs, which in ants and bees include a wondrously complex mechanical and hydraulic mechanism that enables these insects to stick to surfaces."

Full link for those interested in science rather than Billy's bluffs:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3268

90. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42589 by devolved on May 18, 2007 at 1:48 pm

I get bombarded with questions and selectively answer as time permits. That's not running away.

1 "I may be a pedant, but I try to cite my sources and not discombobulate people. I think you may have a charge to answer." Answer:
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

2 God's existence is not dependent upon what we think or believe. The demand for proof is like asking science to prove right from wrong, or for science tell us whether football is better than ballet. Science is a fantastically useful set of disciplines but is limited in what it is capable of doing.

3 bacterial plasmids support a creationist interpretation; follow this link

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5067


4 Who created God so that he could create man so that they could create computers?
God is in a class of his own. Uncreated.

When you remove the presuppositional bias in favour of naturalism (not required by science but demanded by atheists) you'll discover that the evidence we all look at supports creation over evolution (or to put it another way devolution not evolution). Check this out:

http://trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp


5 And so to the indefatigable Billy with his "single pint mutation!" Nice example of a mutation leading to a loss of information.

The quote again, ""Ok, but just like in the case of penicillin resistant bacteria, you have a degenerative mutation that just so happens to be conducive to survival in that environment. If you take a closer look however, you will find that the mutation that results in penicillin resistant bacteria actually destroys a gene coding for a regulating enzyme that limits the amount of pennicilinase produced by the bacterium. Therefore, the mutation actually destroyed genetic information, although it happened to benefit the organism in that environment."

So there's an information increase here? Where? I can find a something being lost 'the mutation actually destroyed genetic information' and accept that created a benefit. That would be like a beetle on an island in the middle of an ocean losing the ability to fly. It would be an advantage granted through a mutation resulting from a loss of information. That's Natural Selection not goo-to-you evolution Billy.

91. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42529 by devolved on May 18, 2007 at 10:40 am

"Ok, but just like in the case of penicillin resistant bacteria, you have a degenerative mutation that just so happens to be conducive to survival in that environment. If you take a closer look however, you will find that the mutation that results in penicillin resistant bacteria actually destroys a gene coding for a regulating enzyme that limits the amount of pennicilinase produced by the bacterium. Therefore, the mutation actually destroyed genetic information, although it happened to benefit the organism in that environment. Sickle-cell anemia works on the exact same concept."

A good example of a loss of information. That's natural selection at work but provides no support for evolution.

"Natural selection involves merely the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information, whereas evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc."

Billy Sands came up with some supposed examples of information increase but they all failed too.

92. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42207 by devolved on May 17, 2007 at 11:08 pm

"So a supreme being more powerful than anything in human understanding was able to create itself?"

NO! God is uncreated. He has always existed as the one uncreated being. He created time, matter, space and you and me.

An uncreated, Creator explains a very great deal. Let me paint a picture for you.

Computer shops are fascinating. Not only can you buy gleaming new black and silver boxes of amazing variety but they come with an astonishing amount of software too (far more than I've got on this pc). Just think about it, I can buy a computer fully charged up with word processing skills, spreadsheets to assist my maths, speech recognition, internet access, and so much more. There's seems to be almost no limit to human ingenuity and the ability to design more and more applications for a computer.

It's a great analogy isn't it! God speaking into existence a fully formed, completely programmed, biologically perfect, morally virus free, walking, talking, thinking computer and calling him 'Adam'. (Mac's 'Apple' is pretty basic when you compare it with God's 'Adam').

93. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42191 by devolved on May 17, 2007 at 9:09 pm

RELIGION: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith.
(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

FAITH: "…faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
(The Bible, Hebrews 11:1 NIV)

RICHARD DAWKINS says, "I believe, but cannot prove that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."
[Dawkins, R., quoted in: Roger Highfield, Science's scourge of believers declares his faith in Darwin, Daily Telegraph, 5 January, 2005, p.10.]

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION is a religious belief system based upon what some people believe happened in the past. We cannot conduct science in the past and speculation about the available evidence is necessarily subject to presuppositional biases.

Atheist evolutionists believe by faith that the evidence points to a universe and life created by luck. Christians believe by faith that exactly the same evidence points to a supernatural creator.

Christians look at the world and see evidence of design in all living things. Atheists look at the same living things and deny that they were designed or created by God. Both views are religious (you don't need to believe in the supernatural to have a religion).


QUOTES Michael Ruse [formerly] professor of philosophy and zoology and propagandist for evolution: "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Ruse again "… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."

94. One side can be wrong

Comment #40761 by devolved on May 14, 2007 at 11:11 pm

"Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face…"
Let's start with how life got started.

I quote, "Indeed, the origin of the first self-reproducing system is recognized by many scientists as an unsolved problem for evolution, and thus evidence for a Creator. There is good reason for this: even the simplest self-reproducing organism contains vast quantities of complex, specific information. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living organism with even more genes.

More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare minimum required for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256 genes [Update 14 February 2006: follow-up research led by Hamilton Smith at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville reveals that the minimum genome consists of 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes (Nature 439, 246–247 (19 January 2006) | doi:10.1038/439246a; Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103:425–430, 2006]. But they were doubtful whether such a hypothetical bug could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment."

Of course evolution is built upon the god of luck so we'd best keep that out of the curriculum too. Let's teach natural selection and leave out evolution. Not sure of the difference. Here it is.

Natural selection involves merely the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information, whereas evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced (over time) by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc.

To see the quote in full follow this link:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855

95. The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Comment #40491 by devolved on May 14, 2007 at 10:56 am

My last post on this discussion.

"Here's a wee gem of biblical wisdom for you: Prov 14:15 "only a simpleton believes everything they are told"

And here's one for Billy

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Psalm 53:1

96. The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Comment #40231 by devolved on May 14, 2007 at 12:30 am

Lots of "knee jerk" reactions! So did anyone read the link and critique it? Why bother if you know you are right without looking at the opposing arguments. Too much like hard work isn't it.

Why do I question your beliefs? I don't buy into the 'science of the gaps' idea where the god of luck creates life.

As for tiklaalik it's another evolutionary just so story:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250

97. The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Comment #40177 by devolved on May 13, 2007 at 2:31 pm

" it is almost always possible to conceive of some route by which a feature has evolved"

Yes the human mind is very inventive.

Billy Sands is a sparring partner. He specialises in silly and pointless jibes about wanting to find human and dinosaur fossils together even though there are only just over 2100 dinosaur skeletons worldwide.

The link to limb evolution is a good example of the inventiveness of the human mind.

Come on use you brains! Critique Stuart Burgess article.

98. The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Comment #40064 by devolved on May 13, 2007 at 12:36 am

"In the end, many Americans may still reject evolution, finding the creationist alternative psychologically more comfortable. But emotion should be distinguished from thought, and a "comfort level" should not affect what is taught in the science classroom."

Truth is often suppressed for all sorts of reasons. If an idea doesn't fit a prevailing paradigm people will go to extraordinary lengths to deny its validity.

Stuart Burgess deserves to be read. Here's his contribution:

http://trueorigin.org/knee.asp

99. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39985 by devolved on May 12, 2007 at 1:53 pm

On this occasion, I think I've earned an allowance of "Follow this link.. unless your mind is closed (or some other snide comment)!!"
This TalkOrigins article gives a rundown of the damaging misconceptions that arose from the "recent" news story about preserved blood and tissue in a T-Rex dinosaur bone.

I'm reading the link having printed it out.

Here's the response from Carl Wieland

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/

Glad you mentioned coal Robert. It's one the best pieces of evidence for catastrophe and a young earth
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/328

100. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39971 by devolved on May 12, 2007 at 12:34 pm

"95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish. Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world's museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100. Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there's only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!"

So it's pretty unlikely that human and dinosaur fossils would appear together.

Thanks for the Talk Origins link. I'll read it with interest.

Perhaps if you feel I'm not answering all your very many points you could challenge CMI or AiG directly. After all jaw jaw is preferable to war war.

Meet you all again on another post soon.