Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[lesliedellow]

It should be taught because it is science. It uses the scientific method to make the claims it does.

Rubbish. It might be science if Behe & Co could make good on their claims, but so far they haven’t.

 

[Astrid]

Here is some information that may help:

There is yet another remarkable piece of scientifically validatable evidence of Jesus’ resurrection – the image on the Shroud of Turin. Though the 1988 carbon dating suggested that the Shroud originated in the 15th century, the sample for that dating has been shown by six scientific tests to have come from fabric that was not part of the original linen cloth. Seven other dating tests indicate that the Shroud comes from the 1st century in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the image on the Shroud was very likely produced by an intense burst of light radiation (with a magnitude of 6 to 8 billion watts lasting only one-forty-billionth of a second) emanating from every 3-dimensional part inside and on the surface of a mechanically transparent (spiritual) body. This suggests strongly that the dead body inside the Shroud of Turin was transformed spiritually and luninescently through a supernatural cause – a remarkable confirmation of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ transformed appearance. This is discussed in detail in “Science and the Shroud of Turin” (see Science and the Shroud of Turin).

Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus (a Jewish historian writing a history of the Jewish people for a Roman audience in approximately 93 AD) provides the most impressive and detailed evidence for the historical Jesus outside Christian scripture. Many historians and exegetes have written extensively on Josephus’ testimony about Jesus because there were obvious Christian edits and interpolations of this text. Luke Timothy Johnson,8Raymond Brown, and John P. Meierhave a very balanced (and somewhat minimalistic) approach to the critical passage. All three scholars believe that the beginning part of the passage from Josephus’ Antiquities has not been significantly changed or edited, though later parts clearly were. The passage (sometimes called the Testimonium Flavianum) appears directly below. The italicized portions represent those which many scholars believe are part of the original text of Josephus. The unitalicized parts are either probably or definitely Christian additions or interpolations.Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.9Johnson provides a mainstream-minimalistic view of the matter: Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus’ writing.10“Wonder-worker” in the above passage refers to Jesus’ miracles, and it is one of the most explicit references to miracle-working in Josephus’ works. Meier explains it as follows:7Kirby 20148See Johnson 1991, pp. 113-114. 9 See Brown 1994(a), pp.373-376. 10 See Meier 1994, pp.592-593.9Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.10Johnson 1991, pp. 113-114.CCBB - Volume 3 - Evidence for the History and Divinity of Jesus Christ13

https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P4/7E-BB3.pdf#[{"num":58,"gen":0},{"name":"FitR"},0,83,556,730]

One discursive off-topic after another, a serial gish.

 

[AV1611VET]

One discursive off-topic after another, a serial gish.

We ain't serial killers.

 

[Speedwell]

And, there’s also the ‘History of Science’… wonder why it never gave the Bible at least partial credit for general answers to some scientific problems, and that long before scientists ever made them scientific?

Because the Bible doesn't deserve the credit. Pre-scientific phenomenological observations which can be deduced from the text and which turn out to be correct should be credited to those ancients who made the observations.

 

[Speedwell]

Here is some information that may help:

There is yet another remarkable piece of scientifically validatable evidence of Jesus’ resurrection – the image on the Shroud of Turin. Though the 1988 carbon dating suggested that the Shroud originated in the 15th century, the sample for that dating has been shown by six scientific tests to have come from fabric that was not part of the original linen cloth. Seven other dating tests indicate that the Shroud comes from the 1st century in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the image on the Shroud was very likely produced by an intense burst of light radiation (with a magnitude of 6 to 8 billion watts lasting only one-forty-billionth of a second) emanating from every 3-dimensional part inside and on the surface of a mechanically transparent (spiritual) body. This suggests strongly that the dead body inside the Shroud of Turin was transformed spiritually and luninescently through a supernatural cause – a remarkable confirmation of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ transformed appearance. This is discussed in detail in “Science and the Shroud of Turin” (see Science and the Shroud of Turin).

Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus (a Jewish historian writing a history of the Jewish people for a Roman audience in approximately 93 AD) provides the most impressive and detailed evidence for the historical Jesus outside Christian scripture. Many historians and exegetes have written extensively on Josephus’ testimony about Jesus because there were obvious Christian edits and interpolations of this text. Luke Timothy Johnson,8Raymond Brown, and John P. Meierhave a very balanced (and somewhat minimalistic) approach to the critical passage. All three scholars believe that the beginning part of the passage from Josephus’ Antiquities has not been significantly changed or edited, though later parts clearly were. The passage (sometimes called the Testimonium Flavianum) appears directly below. The italicized portions represent those which many scholars believe are part of the original text of Josephus. The unitalicized parts are either probably or definitely Christian additions or interpolations.Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.9Johnson provides a mainstream-minimalistic view of the matter: Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus’ writing.10“Wonder-worker” in the above passage refers to Jesus’ miracles, and it is one of the most explicit references to miracle-working in Josephus’ works. Meier explains it as follows:7Kirby 20148See Johnson 1991, pp. 113-114. 9 See Brown 1994(a), pp.373-376. 10 See Meier 1994, pp.592-593.9Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.10Johnson 1991, pp. 113-114.CCBB - Volume 3 - Evidence for the History and Divinity of Jesus Christ13

https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P4/7E-BB3.pdf#[{"num":58,"gen":0},{"name":"FitR"},0,83,556,730]

What does the Shroud of Turin have to do with the creation/evolution debate? You are a veritable fountain of irrelevancies.

 

[Astrid]

What does the Shroud of Turin have to do with the creation/evolution debate? You are a veritable fountain of irrelevancies.

It seems the creationist is always a person who wants to avoid
specifics, narrow focus on a single topic. The reasons are obvious.

Ask for one fact contrary to ToE and see if you get one.

Ask for one contrary to the flood of or day poof, and no prob.

Not being omni, the creationist cannot create facts.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Here is some information that may help:

There is yet another remarkable piece of scientifically validatable evidence of Jesus’ resurrection – the image on the Shroud of Turin. Though the 1988 carbon dating suggested that the Shroud originated in the 15th century, the sample for that dating has been shown by six scientific tests to have come from fabric that was not part of the original linen cloth. Seven other dating tests indicate that the Shroud comes from the 1st century in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the image on the Shroud was very likely produced by an intense burst of light radiation (with a magnitude of 6 to 8 billion watts lasting only one-forty-billionth of a second) emanating from every 3-dimensional part inside and on the surface of a mechanically transparent (spiritual) body. This suggests strongly that the dead body inside the Shroud of Turin was transformed spiritually and luninescently through a supernatural cause – a remarkable confirmation of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ transformed appearance. This is discussed in detail in “Science and the Shroud of Turin” (see Science and the Shroud of Turin).

Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus (a Jewish historian writing a history of the Jewish people for a Roman audience in approximately 93 AD) provides the most impressive and detailed evidence for the historical Jesus outside Christian scripture. Many historians and exegetes have written extensively on Josephus’ testimony about Jesus because there were obvious Christian edits and interpolations of this text. Luke Timothy Johnson,8Raymond Brown, and John P. Meierhave a very balanced (and somewhat minimalistic) approach to the critical passage. All three scholars believe that the beginning part of the passage from Josephus’ Antiquities has not been significantly changed or edited, though later parts clearly were. The passage (sometimes called the Testimonium Flavianum) appears directly below. The italicized portions represent those which many scholars believe are part of the original text of Josephus. The unitalicized parts are either probably or definitely Christian additions or interpolations.Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.9Johnson provides a mainstream-minimalistic view of the matter: Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus’ writing.10“Wonder-worker” in the above passage refers to Jesus’ miracles, and it is one of the most explicit references to miracle-working in Josephus’ works. Meier explains it as follows:7Kirby 20148See Johnson 1991, pp. 113-114. 9 See Brown 1994(a), pp.373-376. 10 See Meier 1994, pp.592-593.9Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.10Johnson 1991, pp. 113-114.CCBB - Volume 3 - Evidence for the History and Divinity of Jesus Christ13

https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P4/7E-BB3.pdf#[{"num":58,"gen":0},{"name":"FitR"},0,83,556,730]

Ok.... So how does this help?
Its not as though you are presenting a new claim. And the claims you ARE presenting are both long refuted.
The second by reading the actual text of Josephus. Rather than the abridged and edited version YOU are relying upon.

 

[lesliedellow]

Ok.... So how does this help?
Its not as though you are presenting a new claim. And the claims you ARE presenting are both long refuted.
The second by reading the actual text of Josephus. Rather than the abridged and edited version YOU are relying upon.

That “abridged and edited version,” is typical of the reconstructions to be had from scholars such as Geza Vermes or Paula Fredriksen. Neither of them are Christians.

 

[renniks]

So what's the difference between the 'natural' process of evolution - which IDers accept, and an example of creationism? God is involved in each. But a 'creation' event is required because the 'natural' process didn't end up with what God wanted. Is that a position you want to take for an omnipotent deity?

You are still making the same false claims. That's not what I said at all.

 

[Speedwell]

You are still making the same false claims. That's not what I said at all.

We're not trying to make false claims about what you said, we are just trying to understand it--sometimes by paraphrasing. If our paraphrasing is not accurate, then correct us. Maybe we're just dumb and you'll have to try harder to make your point. You might even begin again, as some of the initial confusion which resulted from your using terms like creationist, ID, etc. in unfamiliar ways has died down. The other thing is, that you seem to be obscuring your point by making too big a deal about the theism v. atheism aspect. You may have your reasons, but our experience is that most often it is nothing but a YEC red herring.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the Bible doesn't deserve the credit. Pre-scientific phenomenological observations which can be deduced from the text and which turn out to be correct should be credited to those ancients who made the observations.

QV please:

What I got from his banana video is that God gave us scientists to hybridize the banana into a human delicacy.

Of course, scientists wouldn't see that because they're too busy celebrating his mistake.

 

[Astrophile]

I find it impossible to believe that life of any kind just happened by blind chance.

Evolution by natural selection is not the same thing as 'blind chance'.

 

[renniks]

We're not trying to make false claims about what you said, we are just trying to understand it--sometimes by paraphrasing. If our paraphrasing is not accurate, then correct us. Maybe we're just dumb and you'll have to try harder to make your point. You might even begin again, as some of the initial confusion which resulted from your using terms like creationist, ID, etc. in unfamiliar ways has died down. The other thing is, that you seem to be obscuring your point by making too big a deal about the theism v. atheism aspect. You may have your reasons, but our experience is that most often it is nothing but a YEC red herring.

If I go into the woods and find an old cut stone channel and a cut stone dam as we did recently, l know I've found a remnant of something humans built. I don't mistake it for a natural formation. If I merely find stones, I might presume they formed by themselves through some natural processes. But I still have to question how the elements got there to allow them to form. If, however, I start studying how my own body functions, I can not decide this just happened by some natural means, because I see complexity far beyond that of humans cutting some stone and building a structure. In fact, I might try to copy the human eye and manage to create a camera. I might copy my joints and use the knowledge gained to create a machine. Obviously, I'm copying the work of a superior intellect. We all know this. Scientists use terms that suggest design all the time, they just claim something evolved to do this function, which in itself suggests intentionality that a natural function can't possess. It's like they dance around the obvious conclusion.

 

[renniks]

Evolution by natural selection is not the same thing as 'blind chance'.

Sure it is. It's the idea that nature can somehow select good mutations by making bad ones enough times. Who is doing the selecting? Darwinism is random in its mutation.

 

[renniks]

Is an electron designed by that definition?

An atom certainly is.

 

[Astrophile]

Sure it is. It's the idea that nature can somehow select good mutations by making bad ones enough times. Who is doing the selecting? Darwinism is random in its mutation.

No, it isn't. Darwinism may be random in its mutation but not in its reproductive success. The selection may be done, for example, by predators or parasites that fail to kill the successful variant, or by potential mates that choose to mate with the successful variant.

 

[VirOptimus]

If I go into the woods and find an old cut stone channel and a cut stone dam as we did recently, l know I've found a remnant of something humans built. I don't mistake it for a natural formation. If I merely find stones, I might presume they formed by themselves through some natural processes. But I still have to question how the elements got there to allow them to form. If, however, I start studying how my own body functions, I can not decide this just happened by some natural means, because I see complexity far beyond that of humans cutting some stone and building a structure. In fact, I might try to copy the human eye and manage to create a camera. I might copy my joints and use the knowledge gained to create a machine. Obviously, I'm copying the work of a superior intellect. We all know this. Scientists use terms that suggest design all the time, they just claim something evolved to do this function, which in itself suggests intentionality that a natural function can't possess. It's like they dance around the obvious conclusion.

You dont understand the basics of biology, or even science.

ID is just religion.

 

[inquiring mind]

Maybe because it knew that trying to use the Bible for science is like trying to use Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual?

Because the Bible doesn't deserve the credit. Pre-scientific phenomenological observations which can be deduced from the text and which turn out to be correct should be credited to those ancients who made the observations.

I’m not arguing that the Bible is a science book. I was just pointing out that The History of Science is usually more about the general advancements in science and the people who were involved (in that context Bill Gates’ diary might be relevant to the story of the advancement of computers). On that note, I think the Bible has related contributions to science. I know that Leviticus has some far-out things, but Moses (and he gave the credit to God, how would he have known anyway) was right up there with Dr. Fauci and the CDC on quarantining, sanitation, keeping your distance and cleanliness (the washing your hands in running water and everything) regarding the spread of disease. On the other hand, History likes to tell us that scientists and doctors figured all that out by the mid-nineteenth century.

 

[Frank Robert]

Sure it is. It's the idea that nature can somehow select good mutations by making bad ones enough times. Who is doing the selecting? Darwinism is random in its mutation.

Let's use you for as an example. What type of mate would you NOT select?

 

[Frank Robert]

No, it isn't. Darwinism may be random in its mutation but not in its reproductive success. The selection may be done, for example, by predators or parasites that fail to kill the successful variant, or by potential mates that choose to mate with the successful variant.

That has been explained to him so many times that at this point it is fair to assume that he remains willfully ignorant.