Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Estrid]

No, people understood at their level at the time.

That's pretty much the same as saying
they made it up, isn't it?

 

[kiwimac]

That's pretty much the same as saying
they made it up, isn't it?

No, not at all. God is the source of truth which is communicated to humans via the Holy Spirit. God neither turns the recipient into a human tape recorder nor uses concepts foreign to the person or their milieu. So no talk of evolution or deep time in scripture, no mention of quantum mechanics either. God is merciful and tailors information to the understanding of the recipient.

 

[Estrid]

No, not at all. God is the source of truth which is communicated to humans via the Holy Spirit. God neither turns the recipient into a human tape recorder nor uses concepts foreign to the person or their milieu. So no talk of evolution or deep time in scripture, no mention of quantum mechanics either. God is merciful and tailors information to the understanding of the recipient.

How do you know that?
To a non Christian it has an ad hoc
ring to it.
God didn't have to give wrong info in place
of something strange but true.

He could have said "life took a
long time" instead of setting people
up to stake their faith on evolution
being the devils lie.
Maybe, if there is inspiration its on a whole lot more subtle level than science fact n fiction.

 

[kiwimac]

How do you know that?
To a non Christian it has an ad hoc
ring to it.
God didn't have to give wrong info in place
of something strange but true.

He could have said "life took a
long time" instead of setting people
up to stake their faith on evolution
being the devils lie.
Maybe, if there is inspiration its on a whole lot more subtle level than science fact n fiction.

That is the chance God took and seems to have found acceptable in providing information to people with imaginations.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is the chance God took

My recollection is that most major versions of Christianity consider that God is omniscient. If so, he wasn't taking any chance at all, as he already knew the outcome. It appears you doubt his omniscience.

 

[kiwimac]

My recollection is that most major versions of Christianity consider that God is omniscient. If so, he wasn't taking any chance at all, as he already knew the outcome. It appears you doubt his omniscience.

Nope, just quite aware of the human propensity to hear what we want to hear and our own darkness and weakness.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nope, just quite aware of the human propensity to hear what we want to hear and our own darkness and weakness.

That doesn't explain why you said God took a chance. Did you mean that he took a chance? If so how do you reconcile it with his omiscience?If you did not mean it why did you say it?
I ask this because in seeking to understand your thoughts as shared on this forum I see this ambiguity and would appreciate your help in removing it.

 

[kiwimac]

That doesn't explain why you said God took a chance. Did you mean that he took a chance? If so how do you reconcile it with his omiscience?If you did not mean it why did you say it?
I ask this because in seeking to understand your thoughts as shared on this forum I see this ambiguity and would appreciate your help in removing it.

I think omniscience is above my pay-grade. I don't know if God can be startled but I'd kind of like it to be possible.

 

[Mountainmike]

Nice try. Reframing belief in scientific theory to philosophical context of theory doesn't cut it. Would you jettison your Christian belief if someone supplied superior evidence of the Hindu gods?


Reframing doesn't cut it. My claim dealt miraculous cures not created life.

Nice word salad.

You are entitled to your belief.

If you serious about discussions with scientists and other experts you can do so on Peaceful Science. Hope to see you there.

See synonyms for agnostic

Now go back. Slow down. Read what is actually written!
Analyze logically. Discuss it & Spare us the sophistry
I struggle talking to nonn scientists who hop about illogically.

What I said in the first post and subsequent is true.

1/ IFF ( logical shorthand for” if and only if“) creation is possible , a consequence is that the world could have been created “with a history” ( like dinosaur bones) , which can apparently predate the creation date.
I’ve already said I ,like you am not YEC, we agree on that!! but The possibility exists that IFF creation happened at all . It is belief that dismisses YEC , and philosophical rationalisation like Occam’s razor that opposes it , not science.

As an aside - in quantum reality terms that is not as crazy as it sounds. In philosophical interpretation of wave function collapse observation defines a history that was not only undefined , but did not exist , pre observation. Observation “ creates” the history,

2/ actual forensic evidence of eucharistic miracles indicates “ compelling evidence” of creation of heart tissue that did not come from evolution. Study it.

3/ so if 2/ is true , Darwin’s own statements disprove his theorem using the test he himself set
.His theory wrecked by his own words not mine.

All logical consequence of presumption of (1) and evidence of (2) creation.

4/ the simplest cell we know is hideously complex, there is only conjecture on how that came to be.
so you putting evolution against creation , as an answer to life is a false dichotomy .
There is far more scientific evidence for creation of life (2) than there is for an evolutionary pathway to the first cell ( precisely none except conjecture). And conciousness has no explanation.

This is a thread about creationism.
So your belief in shamanic cures has no context here.

 

[Frank Robert]

Now go back. Slow down. Read what is actually written!
Analyze logically. Discuss it & Spare us the sophistry
I struggle talking to nonn scientists who hop about illogically.

What I said in the first post and subsequent is true.

1/ IFF ( logical shorthand for” if and only if“) creation is possible , a consequence is that the world could have been created “with a history” ( like dinosaur bones) , which can apparently predate the creation date.
I’ve already said I ,like you am not YEC, we agree on that!! but The possibility exists that IFF creation happened at all . It is belief that dismisses YEC , and philosophical rationalisation like Occam’s razor that opposes it , not science.

As an aside - in quantum reality terms that is not as crazy as it sounds. In philosophical interpretation of wave function collapse observation defines a history that was not only undefined , but did not exist , pre observation. Observation “ creates” the history,

2/ actual forensic evidence of eucharistic miracles indicates “ compelling evidence” of creation of heart tissue that did not come from evolution. Study it.

3/ so if 2/ is true , Darwin’s own statements disprove his theorem using the test he himself set
.His theory wrecked by his own words not mine.

All logical consequence of presumption of (1) and evidence of (2) creation.

4/ the simplest cell we know is hideously complex, there is only conjecture on how that came to be.
so you putting evolution against creation , as an answer to life is a false dichotomy .
There is far more scientific evidence for creation of life (2) than there is for an evolutionary pathway to the first cell ( precisely none except conjecture). And conciousness has no explanation.

This is a thread about creationism.
So your belief in shamanic cures has no context here.

Nice word salad to argue against my claim that Christianity is not unique when it comes to miraculous cures.

I don't argue against creationist nonsense because it is nonsensical to argue against a persons religious belief.

 

[Mountainmike]

Nice word salad to argue against my claim that Christianity is not unique when it comes to miraculous cures.

I don't argue against creationist nonsense because it is nonsensical to argue against a persons religious belief.

Except your claim on cures is irrelevant on a thread about creation.

And you say "nonsense" on creation.

What I wrote was simply logic. Plus I noted actual real forensic evidence of creation.
And what Darwin said about his theory.

On the "YEC" argument we are actually on the same side. But as I point out, in both our cases that is belief.

 

[Frank Robert]

Except your claim on cures is irrelevant on a thread about creation.

If it were irrelevant then why didn't you just type "irrelevant" instead of going into a song dance about philosophy.

And you say "nonsense" on creation.

Yes, that is my opinion.

What I wrote was simply logic. Plus I noted actual real forensic evidence of creation.
And what Darwin said about his theory.

You have come to what you believe is a logical conclusion based on your beliefs. The only people I know who are claiming that there is evidence for creation are apologists at websites like AIG.

If you want to examine what experts from both sides say/claim, there have been many discussions that you can view at Peaceful Science re evidence for creation. There is presently a lively discussion at PS on the Challenge to Origin of Life.

On the "YEC" argument we are actually on the same side. But as I point out, in both our cases that is belief.

And everyone is entitled to their beliefs which is why I refuse to argue beliefs.

Awhile back I tried to make a point about philosophy, which the person was unable to understand, the point was simply "that philosophers disagree on just about everything."

 

[Ophiolite]

I think omniscience is above my pay-grade. I don't know if God can be startled but I'd kind of like it to be possible.

Well, it's a refreshingly different reply, so thank you for that.

 

[Diamond7]

The rules are laid out in the Bible?

This is what they teach in Bible college. AS a child you learn the literal Bible. Then when we become an adult you learn the symbolic or allegory. The Hebrew letters actually have a symbolic value. I think students should not be qualified to enter into the first grade util they know their alphabet.

Education is serious and they do not play games. In my school district they are going to start to allow 6th graders to take college classes if they want. When my son was in high school he was taking classes from four differnt colleges that were pretty much geared for high school students.

He wanted a 3D printer class and there was a conflict in his schedule because of marching band. So I talked to his counciler and they added the class the next semester. He was in the first class so they had to set the printer up. But he learned a lot from doing that.

 

[Mountainmike]

If it were irrelevant then why didn't you just type "irrelevant" instead of going into a song dance about philosophy.

Yes, that is my opinion.

You have come to what you believe is a logical conclusion based on your beliefs. The only people I know who are claiming that there is evidence for creation are apologists at websites like AIG.

If you want to examine what experts from both sides say/claim, there have been many discussions that you can view at Peaceful Science re evidence for creation. There is presently a lively discussion at PS on the Challenge to Origin of Life.

And everyone is entitled to their beliefs which is why I refuse to argue beliefs.

Awhile back I tried to make a point about philosophy, which the person was unable to understand, the point was simply "that philosophers disagree on just about everything."

I Am arguing evidence.
you are arguing your beliefs eg you declare “ creationism” “ nonsense”,

-in the case of evolution as explanation for life, the lack of any evidence before the simplest known cells,or process to them which are hideously complex.

- in the case of creation presently I win. There is actual forensic evidence of cells that did not come from evolutionary path. They appeared one day, so were in some sense created,

-It might surprise you to know how many scientists are not yet convinced about origin of life , the nature of consciousness or Darwinian evolutin as the sole process shaping diversity,

Philosophy is essential. It defines what science based on patterned observation , can and cannot tell you.
that is the biggest hole in our education system at present. The scientific model is now given status it certainly does not deserve, by many who have an agenda beyond truth.

 

[Frank Robert]

I Am arguing evidence.
you are arguing your beliefs eg you declare “ creationism” “ nonsense”,

Yes I believe that creationism is nonsense because there is zero scientific evidence for it.

Please provide the scientific evidence you claim exists.

-in the case of evolution as explanation for life, the lack of any evidence before the simplest known cells,or process to them which are hideously complex.

That argument has been put to rest a long time ago. There is zero scientific for ID.

- in the case of creation presently I win. There is actual forensic evidence of cells that did not come from evolutionary path. They appeared one day, so were in some sense created,

DNA is both scientific and forensic. Please back up your claims with evidence that is both scientific and forensic, i.e, has the predictability similar to that of DNA

-It might surprise you to know how many scientists are not yet convinced about origin of life , the nature of consciousness or Darwinian evolutin as the sole process shaping diversity,

Why should I be surprised?

Philosophy is essential. It defines what science based on patterned observation , can and cannot tell you.
that is the biggest hole in our education system at present.

That philosophy is essential to science is not the same as philosophy = scientific evidence.

The scientific model is now given status it certainly does not deserve, by many who have an agenda beyond truth.

You are entitled to your opinion.

If you would like to share and discuss your beliefs and opinions with scientists and philosophers you can do so at Peaceful Science where you will find active and retired scientists, creationists, theologians and philosophers. Hope to see you there.

 

[Mountainmike]

If it were irrelevant then why didn't you just type "irrelevant" instead of going into a song dance about philosophy.

Yes, that is my opinion.

You have come to what you believe is a logical conclusion based on your beliefs. The only people I know who are claiming that there is evidence for creation are apologists at websites like AIG.

If you want to examine what experts from both sides say/claim, there have been many discussions that you can view at Peaceful Science re evidence for creation. There is presently a lively discussion at PS on the Challenge to Origin of Life.

And everyone is entitled to their beliefs which is why I refuse to argue beliefs.

Awhile back I tried to make a point about philosophy, which the person was unable to understand, the point was simply "that philosophers disagree on just about everything."

In general it is time you took a scientific , not atheist view of evolution and what is actually known.
which is not a lot for certain, and there is almost nothing before our simplest cells which are hideously complex already.

Dawkins is a professional atheist who abuses biology to further his belief. A great many professional scientists are expressing concern at Darwinian evolution. Leading to such as the third way Project,
I could cite a great many. I am as you know widely read.

But take a professional palaeontologist - Colin Patterson - from national history museum who started to challenge many of the accepted paradigms . He was no creationist , but increasingly a critic of established Darwinian ideas,
This sums up an example of his concerns on cladistics :

“ To me, one of the most astonishing consequences of the furor over cladistics is the realization that the current account of tetrapod evolution, shown in a thousand diagrams and everywhere acknowledged as the centerpiece of historical biology, is a will-o'-the-wisp. For nowhere can one find a clear statement of how and why the Recent groups are interrelated, and the textbook stories are replete with phantoms--extinct, uncharacterizable groups giving rise one to another”

It led to a famous challenge in a conference he made: “ can anyone tell me a certain fact about evolution? “
the room was silent.
Only professional atheists think it is done and dusted. science does not.

For sure. Evolutionary processes exist. Also People have intelligent designed other species from crops to horses and working dogs. But viewed as the complete pathway to life? A big unknown .


That leads to the paradox on the epistemology of evolution.
The human mind according to Darwin evolution leads to thoughts based on survival Not truth, of which Darwinism is therefore one such example

I think it an utter disgrace that origin of life and evolution are taught with such certainty to school kids rammed home by atheist materialist media.

 

[Frank Robert]

In general it is time you took a scientific , not atheist view of evolution and what is actually known.
which is not a lot for certain, and there is almost nothing before our simplest cells which are hideously complex already.

If you are saying that scientists don't know all the answers re: complex cells, I agree.

Dawkins is a professional atheist who abuses biology to further his belief. A great many professional scientists are expressing concern at Darwinian evolution. Leading to such as the third way Project,
I could cite a great many. I am as you know widely read.

Isn't it wonderful that scientists don't necessarily agree with each other. If they did then what would be left to investigate scientifically?

But take a professional palaeontologist - Colin Patterson - from national history museum who started to challenge many of the accepted paradigms . He was no creationist , but increasingly a critic of established Darwinian ideas,
This sums up an example of his concerns on cladistics :

“ To me, one of the most astonishing consequences of the furor over cladistics is the realization that the current account of tetrapod evolution, shown in a thousand diagrams and everywhere acknowledged as the centerpiece of historical biology, is a will-o'-the-wisp. For nowhere can one find a clear statement of how and why the Recent groups are interrelated, and the textbook stories are replete with phantoms--extinct, uncharacterizable groups giving rise one to another”

It led to a famous challenge in a conference he made: “ can anyone tell me a certain fact about evolution? “
the room was silent.

I don't know much about Colin Patterson but from his Wiki page I think he is what all scientists should aspire to be.

Because he challenges evolution does mean he is indifferent to evolution. From the wiki page:

Patterson was one of the architects of the cladistic revolution in the British Museum of Natural History in the 1970s. In addition to his many works on classification of fossil fishes, he authored a general textbook on evolution, Evolution,[4] in 1978 (and a revised 2nd edition in 1999), and edited Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? (1987),[5] a book on the use of molecular and morphological evidence for inferring phylogenies. He also wrote two classic papers on homology.[6][7]​

​

Patterson did not support creationism, but his work has been cited by creationists with claims that it provides evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[8][9] In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context:​

Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[10]​

Only professional atheists think it is done and dusted. science does not.
For sure. Evolutionary processes exist. Also People have intelligent designed other species from crops to horses and working dogs. But viewed as the complete pathway to life? A big unknown .

That leads to the paradox on the epistemology of evolution.
The human mind according to Darwin evolution leads to thoughts based on survival Not truth, of which Darwinism is therefore one such example

Not all atheists fit your model, you need to get out into world.

I think it an utter disgrace that origin of life and evolution are taught with such certainty to school kids rammed home by atheist materialist media.

You are incorrect regarding "taught with such certainty...."

Kenneth Miller who has written most of the biology texts used HS and colleges is a devout Christian so I hardly doubt that he is stuffing his books with "atheist materialist media."

BTW, Ken Miller is one of the scientists that comments on Peaceful Science.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you are saying that scientists don't know all the answers re: complex cells, I agree.

Isn't it wonderful that scientists don't necessarily agree with each other. If they did then what would be left to investigate scientifically?

I don't know much about Colin Patterson but from his Wiki page I think he is what all scientists should aspire to be.

Because he challenges evolution does mean he is indifferent to evolution. From the wiki page:

Patterson was one of the architects of the cladistic revolution in the British Museum of Natural History in the 1970s. In addition to his many works on classification of fossil fishes, he authored a general textbook on evolution, Evolution,[4] in 1978 (and a revised 2nd edition in 1999), and edited Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? (1987),[5] a book on the use of molecular and morphological evidence for inferring phylogenies. He also wrote two classic papers on homology.[6][7]​

​

Patterson did not support creationism, but his work has been cited by creationists with claims that it provides evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[8][9] In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context:​

Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[10]​

Not all atheists fit your model, you need to get out into world.

You are incorrect regarding "taught with such certainty...."

Kenneth Miller who has written most of the biology texts used HS and colleges is a devout Christian so I hardly doubt that he is stuffing his books with "atheist materialist media."

BTW, Ken Miller is one of the scientists that comments on Peaceful Science.

Which leads us back where we began.

Creationism and evolution are not alternatives, it is a false dichotomy..
Evolutionary processes clearly occur. Man uses those patterns for intelligent design of species.

The question is whether they account for life, which is a big UNKNOWN.
Your support for evolutionary basis for life is belief alone.

YEC creationists I suspect are minority, but for all that IFF you accept creation can happen at all, you cannot rule out YEC creation complete with apparent history. therefore YEC. Neither of us actually believe it. but that is belief.

There is far more forensic evidence for creation of life, than there is for evolution accounting for the simplest known living things today.
That is Because there actually IS forensic evidence for creation of life.

And even if evolution suggests a pathway to physical life to fill the present void, it has no account for consciousness and it can never explain evidence for consciousness separate from body.

I did not restrict to patterson other than noting he thought assumptions ran way ahead of evidence.. I just cited him as one in a cachophony of voices that said darwinian evolution falls way short of explanation of life for many reasons...
Your faith in evolution as basis for life runs way ahead of the evidence.

My suggestion is you do not use WIKI as a reference source. It is hopelessly inaccurate, and often deliberately made as such by vested interests in some point of view.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which leads us back where we began.

Creationism and evolution are not alternatives, it is a false dichotomy..
Evolutionary processes clearly occur. Man uses those patterns for intelligent design of species.

The question is whether they account for life, which is a big UNKNOWN.
Your support for evolutionary basis for life is belief alone.

YEC creationists I suspect are minority, but for all that IFF you accept creation can happen at all, you cannot rule out YEC creation complete with apparent history. therefore YEC. Neither of us actually believe it. but that is belief.

There is far more forensic evidence for creation of life, than there is for evolution accounting for the simplest known living things today.
That is Because there actually IS forensic evidence for creation of life.

You are bringing up very similar points to a Peaceful Science post so I am posting a reply by Allen Witmer Miller, Biblical Linguist, Retired Professor & Minister which I believe fits perfectly.

"Frankly, I don’t understand your complaint. Both theists and non-theists agree that there was some point in the past when non-living ingredients (various chemical elements found in our universe) came together to produce the first living organisms. Living organisms from non-living ingredients is known as abiogenesis. The alternative is to claim that living organisms ALWAYS existed—and I don’t know anyone who believes that.​

​

So what is the disagreement? The Bible in Genesis 1:12 (NASB 1995) says, “The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind . . .” Genesis 1:24 says, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind." Thus, the Bible clearly teaches that the earth [i.e., non-living material] produced both plants and animal life. That sure sounds like abiogenesis to me.​

​

If you are objecting because “atheist” scientists (as well as scientists who happen to be agnostic and scientists who happen to be theistic and even Bible-affirming Christians) don’t happen to mention God in science textbooks and peer-reviewed journal articles, then you are simply confusing ultimate and proximate causation.​

​

The chemical elements of the planet (as in soil, water, air, and even “the dust of the ground”) combining at some time in the past to form the first living organisms is simply a summary of the proximate cause. Whether or not God was the ultimate cause is a different philosophical and theological question, not a scientific question. The ultimate cause is not a scientific question because there is no way under the scientific method to subject deities (or anything which is not a part of the matter-energy universe) to scientific testing and verification. So there is no reason for scientists (whatever their personal beliefs or non-beliefs about God) to mention God when publishing their scientific research.​

​

Science is not synonymous with philosophy. (It is a small subset of philosophy which arose as natural philosophy and eventually evolved into what became known as modern science.) I think you are confusing the two.​

​

Speaking for myself, I have no problems believing that God could create a universe where abiogenesis processes produced the first living organisms—just as Genesis 1 describes. So I have no beef with “atheist scientists” or anybody else who is trying to understand those proximate causes which, no doubt, involved the laws of chemistry and physics. Only a weak deity would be incapable of creating a universe which inevitably produced living things through natural processes, aka abiogenesis.​

​

I don’t see any conflict between the abiogenesis described in Genesis 1 and the abiogenesis being investigated by scientists. Why create an argument where none is warranted? I would be delighted if within my lifetime I could read detailed scientific descriptions of how the first living organisms came to be. The discovery of the proximate cause(s) of biological life in no way undermines philosophical/theological claims of the ultimate cause.​

​

Your position reminds me of those chemists in the era before Friedrich Wohler who insisted that scientists would never be able to synthesize a biochemical produced by a living organism. (If you are not familiar with the distinction between organic and inorganic chemistry in those days, please check it out.) They insisted that organic compounds were somehow “magical” in that only God (through the living organisms he had created) could make them. Of course, Wohler proved them wrong.​

​

It will not surprise me in the least if someday a headline reads, “Scientist produce a synthetic organism in the lab.” It certainly poses no threat to my theology—just as the synthesis of urea by Wohler posed no threat."​

And even if evolution suggests a pathway to physical life to fill the present void, it has no account for consciousness and it can never explain evidence for consciousness separate from body.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I did not restrict to patterson other than noting he thought assumptions ran way ahead of evidence.. I just cited him as one in a cachophony of voices that said darwinian evolution falls way short of explanation of life for many reasons...
Your faith in evolution as basis for life runs way ahead of the evidence.

Evolution will always fall short of explanation. Wonderful! Young scientists will always have much to look forward to.

My suggestion is you do not use WIKI as a reference source. It is hopelessly inaccurate, and often deliberately made as such by vested interests in some point of view.

What did I write about Patteson that was inaccurate or was deliberately made by vested interests? Perhaps you like his his quote that creationists often misquote him?

I also reference Kenneth Miller to an wiki article so you could get an an idea of his contributions w/o having to research him for a CF forum discussion.

You appear to have a problem with keeping things simple.