Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

Creationists – The Keystone Cops of science

Creationists – The Keystone Cops of science

… Actually, we have modern science to show for it. We have some of the worlds greatest universities....art....music...hospitals, etc.

I agree that we have modern science, and great universities. The great universities are recognized as “great” because they have a proven record of graduates who turn out to be the great scientists. But a point that I have not seen you very willing to directly address before – do the great universities teach the science that you like?

Great universities in the field of geology include: Caltech, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Columbia, Pennsylvania State, University of Arizona, Harvard, University of Michigan, U Texas Austin, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Oxford (UK), Cambridge (UK), University of Washington.

Since you appreciate great universities, which of the great universities in the field of geology teach that there was a world-wide flood a few thousand years before Christ?
Which of them teach their students that the earth is young?
Which of them tell their students that plate tectonics over millions of years is a fallacious concept?

Great universities in the field of biology include: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, UC San Francisco, Yale, Princeton, Scripps Research, Cambridge (UK), Oxford (UK), National University of Singapore, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Imperial College London (UK)

Since you appreciate great universities, which of the great universities in the field of biology teach that all humans descended from a unique set of parents a few thousand years ago?
Which of them teach that Darwin was wrong in his idea that all species seemed to diverge from an ancestral source?

Great universities in the field of physics include: MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Cornell, University of Chicago, University of Illinois, UC Santa Barbara, Cambridge (UK), Oxford (UK), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Imperial College London (UK), UCLA.

Since you appreciate great universities, which of the great universities in physics teach that the universe is only a few thousand years old?
Which of them teach that radiometric dating is notoriously unreliable, and that to practice it may mean you need to jettison honesty when the radiocarbon dates aren’t what you expected?
Which of them teach that all supernova actually occurred within the last 7,000 years?

 

[DavisBJ]

Yorzhik is Hubbling Deep in the Field

Yorzhik is Hubbling Deep in the Field

Yorzhik and I are in a spin-off conversation that originated when I referenced a long-ago debate as an example of why debating is a lousy way to establish what is true. I am not sure about Yorzhik’s motives – whether he wants to ultimately show that the debate I mentioned was one in which truth was effectively presented and defended, or whether he really thinks scientists are hiding or misrepresenting the Hubble Deep Field (HDF).

For us laymen with regular monitors, the HDF picture is broken up into a number of smaller pictures.

I understand. Rather than admit to a silly error – blame it on your monitor. Those creationist monitors will do that to you.

I’ve got several monitors, from an old one before the VGA days, to some hi-res ones. And I can display the HDF on them all. In one picture.

In his recent complaint about the HDF image, Yorz said:

There are about 3000 objects in those HDF pictures, and it would not be hard to label them. But you cannot find the information that labels each object.

I asked what information he felt was lacking:

What do you mean “label” them? … Be a bit more specific in what you think is lacking.

His reply:

Distance.

Why didn’t you say that in plain English, instead of complaining about nebulous “information that labels each object” that you expect to see?

So, as I understand it, you feel the science community should publish the HDF with text near each distinct object telling how far away it is from the earth?

Anyway, I wondered:

Have you actually looked to see what information is available?

Yorz replied:

I have.

Was it the distance to each object you failed to find, or did you find the distances, but it was not superimposed on the HDF image?

I'm sure you understand the argument, but playing stupid is far better for your argument than having an honest conversation.

I see snide put-downs often enough that I don’t get very excited. Kinda interesting that when I point out that you use “common descent” in a way I have never seen, and then I am at fault me for asking what it even means in that context. Are you one of those guys who beats up his wife, and then says “It was her fault”?

Anyway, here is what you said that you accuse me of playing stupid over:

… any awkward information for the common descentists is glossed over. Don't believe me? Just find the link that labels everything in those pictures in laymen's terms instead of raw data.

I am going to translate “common descentists” as simply meaning those who believe in an old universe.

I have to chuckle at the evidence you offer for showing that awkward information is being glossed over. Your evidence of “glossing over” – no picture with distance labels beside the objects. That’s it. Wow.

The claim of “glossing over awkward information” is pretty much a generic slap against the integrity of scientists that creationists levy regularly. Tell you what, Yorzhik, occasionally over the past few years I have been in contact with some of those scientists that ran the HDF project. If I put you in personal contact with those scientists, will you agree to be as direct in telling them that they are “glossing over awkward information” in deference to billions of years timelines, and will you be willing to back your claim with specific evidence (something more substantial than a picture that you want to see) in place of assertion?

I suspect you will not, since the HDF data (both raw and pre-processed) has been publically available for many years. The creationist community is as welcome to it as the secular scientists are, and I would be surprised if you guys don’t already have it. Here is a quote from a Cornell University website from nearly 20 years ago, speaking about the HDF data:

The observations were made from 18 to 30 December 1995, and both raw and reduced data have been put in the public domain as a community service.​

I don’t know how to “gloss over” data that is freely available to the public.

Now that there have been so many examples of good people being drummed out of their positions because they dare question the common descent dogma that your platitude is even more unimpressive.

Maybe that was done because you guys really need some martyrs. Or maybe you are just exaggerating once again. I have worked with a lot of scientists. And a lot of good Christians, some of whom made their beliefs well known. None of them got canned. Not a single one that I know of in any group that I ever interacted with got canned for their beliefs that I know of. Maybe I lead a charmed life, but I am only aware of a few scientists anywhere that got kicked out for not buying into an old earth. And in those cases it was for how they chose to practice science, or for personal issues, not for their beliefs.

 

[6days]

What matters is what the original Bible said.

We agree on that. Translations sometimes get it wrong.
As Galileo said "Scripture cannot err".

 

[6days]

I agree that we have modern science, and great universities. The great universities are recognized as “great” because they have a proven record of graduates who turn out to be the great scientists. But a point that I have not seen you very willing to directly address before – do the great universities teach the science that you like?

The question was something about what a belief in creation has done for our world. My answer was that a belief in the Biblical Creator has given us modern science, as well as great universities, art, music, hospitals etc.

"Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.” From Australasian Science "The Bible and the rise of science" Prof. Harrison.

"Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.” From book "For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery" Rodney Stark.

Or from Wiki "Christianity had a significant impact on education and science and medicine as the church created the bases of the Western system of education, and was the sponsor of founding universities in the Western world as the university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting."

 

[DavisBJ]

6days opts against the major English Bibles.

6days opts against the major English Bibles.

We agree on that. Translations sometimes get it wrong.
As Galileo said "Scripture cannot err".

96% if the translations got it wrong, and just 4% got it right (as measured by your standards)? I really wonder then, do you rely primarily on either “The Message” translation or the “Douay-Rheims” translations?

 

[DavisBJ]

6days hasn’t reached I Cor 13:11 yet.

6days hasn’t reached I Cor 13:11 yet.

The question was something about what a belief in creation has done for our world. My answer was that a belief in the Biblical Creator has given us modern science, as well as great universities, art, music, hospitals etc.

"Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.” From Australasian Science "The Bible and the rise of science" Prof. Harrison.

"Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.” From book "For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery" Rodney Stark.

Or from Wiki "Christianity had a significant impact on education and science and medicine as the church created the bases of the Western system of education, and was the sponsor of founding universities in the Western world as the university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting."

I won’t dispute that at all. Just as childhood - with its belief in the reality of Santa Claus and Princesses that need shining knights in armor to rescue them - is preparation for being an adult in which dreams have to give way for dealing with the real world. Science likewise had an infancy, often nurtured under the comforting umbrella of religion. But when it became apparent that science started to show that Adam and Eve were as real as Snow White, some refuse to follow, opting instead for the familiar comforts of scientific childhood instead of facing a harsher Mother Nature.

And, once again, you dodge directly speaking to the question of what the great universities teach in the three specific scientific fields I itemized. No surprise.

 

[6days]

96% if the translations got it wrong, and just 4% got it right (as measured by your standards)? I really wonder then, do you rely primarily on either “The Message” translation or the “Douay-Rheims” translations?

I would say 96%got it correct. Early commentators had no problem understanding that the circle of the earth referred to a sphere in space. I would disagree with the translation that used the word 'disc'.*

"Scripture cannot err" - Galileo

 

[DavisBJ]

I would say 96% got it correct. Early commentators had no problem understanding that the circle of the earth referred to a sphere in space.

Then why would they not use the most accurate word in English - "sphere"? Why opt for the less accurate word - "circle"?

 

[alwight]

"Scripture cannot err" - Galileo

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." Galileo

 

[6days]

The question was something about what a belief in creation has done for our world. My answer was that a belief in the Biblical Creator has given us modern science, as well as great universities, art, music, hospitals etc.

"Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum,*the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.” From Australasian Science "The Bible and the rise of science" Prof. Harrison.

"Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.”From book "For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery" Rodney Stark.

Or from Wiki "Christianity had a significant impact on education and science and medicine as the church created the bases of the Western system of education, and was the sponsor of founding universities in the Western world as the university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting."

I won’t dispute that at all.

Ok.

Science likewise had an infancy, often nurtured under the comforting umbrella of religion.

Not religion... as evolutionist Loren Eisley explained that science "owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption"

Or to put it another way it wasn't religion, but acceptance of God's Word that was the basis of modern science. *As Peter Harrison, former prof of history in Austrailia said "Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science"

And, once again, you dodge directly speaking to the question of what the great universities teach in the three specific scientific fields I itemized. No surprise.

Not dodged...it was off topic. We were discussing contributions to our world that have resulted from a belief in the biblical Creator.*I don't necessarily agree with all decisions that are made in modern hospitals. I don't necessarily agree with all that is taught in modern universities.*

 

[TheDuke]

I agree that we have modern science, and great universities.

So glad my Alma Mater made it onto your list :thumb:

 

[TheDuke]

the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.

 

[TheDuke]

atheists don't have to and usually don't believe when they don't know the facts.

Sooooooo NOT TRUE.

Yes, projecting your own weakness onto those who won't share it, how christian of you. In reality outside of your hallucination, we both know - that's precisely how it is.

Anaximander: "life originated from the moisture that covered the earth before it was dried up by the sun. Originally, men were generated from fishes and were fed in the manner of a viviparous shark.

"Evolutionism in one form or another has existed for thousands of years."

I'm not sure, do we speak the same language, or is it possible that in spite of being on this forum for so long, your grasp of evolutionary theory is on the level of Kent Hovind et al.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says “The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early.
...
[some lame post-hoc rationalizations here]

So instead of presenting a single piece of evidence that early christians actually accepted astronomy or dealing with the straightforward contents of your book you're gonna present sources well into the 19th and 20th centuries. Well done! What's next, the bible was against slavery???

The Galileo story is pertinent in that he stood up for the Bible

Oh no, now you've done it. You've triggered an OCD episode. Beware of misrepresenting great men.

Here's a selection of what GG actually said:


In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage — if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries.

Seems like the great Galileo had to deals with YECs long ago. His wording is astonishingly still so perfectly spot on!

Here's some stuff about the conduct of your fellow clergymen:


"I am certainly interested in a tribunal in which, for having used my reason, I was deemed little less than a heretic. Who knows but men will reduce me from the profession of a philosopher to that of historian of the Inquisition!"
"I was obliged to retract, like a good Catholic, this opinion of mine; and as a punishment my dialogue was prohibited;"
"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle. "

 

[TheDuke]

And the list goes on

And the list goes on

(on biblical literalism)

(on declarations of faith)

(on "christian science")

(on the scientific method)

(just because it's poetic)

(on republicans )

 

[DavisBJ]

Honest disclosure on 6days' part would be a welcome change

Honest disclosure on 6days' part would be a welcome change

Not religion... as evolutionist Loren Eisley explained that science "owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption"

Yes religion. I have often had Fundamentalists declare to me that it was specifically Christianity that provided an expectation that the universe was governed by logical laws, and that is why science matured most dramatically in the western world.

Not dodged...it was off topic. We were discussing contributions to our world that have resulted from a belief in the biblical Creator.

I’m not buying it. You desperately want to claim that modern science and great universities spawned out of a background of Christian belief are still your bosom buddies. You want to be able to bring them up, but when I point out that they have huge disagreements with you on core issues in science, then suddenly you find it convenient to declare that as being off-topic. Instead, it is intellectual cowardice and moral bankruptcy on your part. If you don’t want me to point out that the best science universities think creationist ideas are idiocy, then don’t try and buddy up to them. You remind me of a lecher who says he is just trying to make friends with some pretty teenage girls.

I don't necessarily agree with all decisions that are made in modern hospitals. I don't necessarily agree with all that is taught in modern universities.

Now let’s restate that in more truthful terms. You strongly disagree with core concepts that are fundamental to what is taught in the best universities. 99.999% of the geological history of the earth never happened according to your belief system. You think that looking for taxonomic similarities in fossils is silliness. You think that there was a worldwide deluge a few thousand years ago. You think genetics shows we all came from a unique set of parents a few thousand years ago. You think that the light from galaxies billions of light years away left those galaxies just a few thousand years ago. You think that radiological dating of things more than a few thousand years ago is a joke.

There is one thing you have made clear that you don’t believe in, and that is being honest and forthright about admitting that your ancient tribal creation myths have severe conflicts with science.

 

[DavisBJ]

So glad my Alma Mater made it onto your list :thumb:

Congrats. I compiled those lists from data supplied from 3 separate agencies that rate the quality of universities in specific fields of study.

 

[6days]

atheists don't have to and usually don't believe when they don't know the facts.

Sooooooo NOT TRUE

.
Yes, projecting your own weakness onto those who won't share it, how christian of you. In reality outside of your hallucination, we both know - that's precisely how it is.

No... your statement was so silly I didn't think it was woth more comment than I gave it. But..... if you wish to defend it, i will create a new thread for you.* We can see what others think.

Evolutionism in one form or another has existed for thousands of years."

I'm not sure, do we speak the same language

I'm quite sure we do... but you like to move the goal posts by changing the words and making strawman arguments.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says “The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. ...

some lame post-hoc rationalizations here...
So instead of presenting a single piece of evidence that early christians actually accepted astronomy or dealing with the straightforward contents of your book

ad hominem...attacking the source instead of their claim. You could have googled to find they continued on to explain that the understanding of a sphere was consistent with other scripture. The claim is consistent with early believers and early secularists.

Duke...Either you are ignorant of history, or you are a history denier.*Jeffrey Burton Russell for the American Scientific Affiliation Conference says "...at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise."

Or......
"The idea that the earth is flat is a modern concoction that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, an American history professor says."Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, “nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

The Galileo story is pertinent in that he stood up for the Bible

Oh no, now you've done it. You've triggered an OCD episode. Beware of misrepresenting great men.
Here's a selection of what GG actually said.....

No problems from me with ltitle Galileo said. Keep in mind his *perspective that God's Word is inerrant.*

 

[6days]

(you showed this quote from me)
the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.

That quote was actually from a history professor. DavisBJ seemed to agree with it. If you want to be a history denier, perhaps argue with those two.*

 

[DavisBJ]

That quote was actually from a history professor. DavisBJ seemed to agree with it. If you want to be a history denier, perhaps argue with those two.

You are misconstruing what I said. Here is what I actually said

I won’t dispute that at all. …

To dispute something is to engage in an argument or debate over it. I am not qualified to dispute lots of things about the interplay between ecclesiastical history and science, any more than you are qualified to dispute things you know little about. I am also aware that even if a different religious tradition had been more productive in nurturing science, the adherents of that religion could have, will equal validity, thumped their chests saying they fostered science. Would that have meant their religion was the “true” one? And (this is a point that you assiduously hide from), as it matured science found much of the Christian creation myth was palatable nonsense. Science “grew up”. Creationists haven’t.

 

[Yorzhik]

Fine, lets say we will just apply Shannon information and ignore our disagreement and see how far we can run with it. By the way this means we will have to start using math at some point (otherwise we can't claim any conclusions form Shannon information)

To be clear we are talking about DNA selected -> transmission -> decoded message (Protein produced) when we are to apply Shannon information?

Yes. We'll find that there is no more information in the Protein than what the DNA provided. And if noise entered the system the Protein will have less information than what the DNA provided.

If I didn't have to keep reminding you when you are talking about mRNA and not DNA I wouldn't feel the need to imply/say outright anything of the sort. And true nothing we've talked about so far or are likely to talk about is more complicated than that, though it confuses me if you understand it why you then the only thing you've mentioned from it is "DNA" and "protein" so far (including this post of yours).

I will in future posts however try to talk to you in terminology which assumes you understood that entire video.

Sure, we could start with the mRNA if you really wanted to. However, The information transmission for a particular protein starts with the portion of DNA selected according to the video, and I've been consistent with that the entire discussion.