Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

6days sans evidence

6days sans evidence

Their science may be fine.... but their beliefs about the past are wrong.

As to the geological science that is taught at the “great universities”, to say their science is fine but their beliefs about the past are in error is ludicrous. A huge amount of geological understanding depends specifically on an ancient earth. Please do us all a favor and actually take a university course in geology.

Both evolutionists and Biblical creationists use the same scientific method..... and all have the same set of data to examine. It is two opposing beliefs about our history.

Except that real scientists follow the evidence, even if it leads to ages of millions of years. You don’t have that option, so you pervert the science to fit your pre-conceived answers.

And, please, in place of just regurgitating these nonsensical claims, how about even a smidgeon of actual evidence we can look at, pretty please?????

The explanation that best fits the science is that in the beginning, God created.

But I am talking about geological evidence, most of which comes after the earth came into existence. If the best you can do is mindlessly babble “God created” over and over again, then you are not even pretending that you are talking about geological evidence.

 

[alwight]

But Yorzhik the protein is transcribed directly from the information (DNA/RNA) by means of a direct mechanical/chemical transcription process. It is not about information being transferred/transmitted from one place to another with hopefully high fidelity, so trying to apply Shannon theory is imo nonsense. If the transcription system happened to be rubbish then the resulting protein would also be rubbish, so would it help to claim that Shannon could be applied to rubbish?
Iow, in practice the protein is constructed/transcribed accurately according to the associated information, but the protein and the information are nevertheless two very different things. On a transmission system however if the information at the distant end matched the original information then than we could call it the "same" and possibly Shannon theory may have had something to do with it.

With Shannon, it doesn't matter if the data is compressed or not as part of transmission. Shannon dictates that noise is bad and that the amount of information in the sent message cannot exceed the amount of information in the received message.

I really don't care what you think Shannon dictates Yorzhik, in reality the occasional mistake and error within the genetic transcription process isn't noise, it remains only occasional errors durimg a transcription process and not a transmission system however much you'd like to spin it otherwise.

If you knew anything about Shannon, you'd know it doesn't matter.


If you knew anything about Shannon, you'd know it doesn't matter.

Shannon calls it noise, so it's not up to you.

Yorzhik tries hard to spin a transcription process into some kind of universal law of "noise" to be apply anywhere that he thinks obfuscation is deemed necessary, meanwhile my eyes glaze over once again.

Since Shannon applies to genetic transcription, it's up to you to show us how common descent overcomes Shannon theory.

Show me how Shannon applies to genetic transcription in any meaningful and practical way first, since that is only your assertion so far, despite what you say below.

Mistakes aren't noise? That's so wrong on so many levels. Mistakes are obviously noise by any information measure.

Mistakes/errors are simply changes from the original, noise however would be an inherent feature within any transmission system which may or may not cause mistakes to the original message, but trying to apply the same to a transcription system just begs the question why you'd even want to do that or call it noise?

I'll stick with science. It says there are a host of messages in a cell. You can stick with your blind faith.

Call them what you like but I'm still not seeing any transmission system or go-between process.

OK then demonstrate how it usefully applies to genetic transcription.

Already done. You answered that DNA is not protein.

A bit typically cryptic, just more smoke and mirrors Yorzhik? :idunno:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Raptureists seem to be looking for "signs", they want there to be "signs" because they desperately want Armageddon to happen and almost anything could be a "sign" for them.
What exactly is a "sign" rather than just normal earthly activity?
Why would you pin all your hopes on Armageddon happening rather than living this life and deal with the real problems of this life, rather than an imaginary one? :idunno:

Dear alwight,

It is written that "you shall hear wars and rumors of wars; see that you not be troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places. All of these are the beginning of sorrows. {See Matt. 24:6-8KJV}. 'Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken; And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven; and then shall all of the tribes of the Earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to another.' {see Matt. 24:29-31KJV}. "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." {see Matt. 24:33KJV}. There is more and if need be, I will quote it for you. It is VERY Illuminating. It says that mother shall rise up against daughter, and son against father, and that one's enemies shall be of the same household. It says sin shall run rampant. {Sin = theft/ auto theft/ petty theft, murder (even abortionists}, lying, fornication {having sex without marriage}, adultery, prostitution, gluttony, manipulation, alcohol and drug abuse, forgery, etc.

For now, hopefully this will do.

Many Blessings, alwight!!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Rotfl indeed to that last bit.

I'm sorry 6days, but no matter how many times you say it, science has never and won't ever confirm Genesis "as truth." As we've discussed before, the entire field of professional geology started out with a common belief in a Genesis creation and a great flood that laid down all of the rock on Earth. Just ask A. B. Werner.
Then over the decades data was gathered that suggested the Biblical creation and flood stories weren't accurate in terms of Earth's geology, and that Earth was obviously far older than 6000 years.

If YEC is correct as a "theory" of creation and if the flood actually happened, then why did every single person in geology used to believe just as you do, but as a result of evidence being gathered the entire field has since abandoned YEC beliefs? Why did they all just suddenly abandon the correct theory (according to you :chuckle?

Dear Greg,

Even Jesus spoke about the Flood. "For as in the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days that were before the Flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark. And they knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. {See Matt. 24:37-39KJV}

I believe Jesus instead of you.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

No. Shannon applies to all messages where information is transmitted. Quite simply because if information could be transmitted that that could ignore Shannon, then we'd use that system instead.

It applies to when transmitting a message perfectly/unaltered is desirable. It does not apply to when all information, information storage or information creation.

That's not true. Any human would want more information received than what was sent. It would be free information. Every human would want that.

I'm going to presume this was more of a knee jerk response because you just assume I'm wrong. I'm not sure how else you couldn't have thought through something that is so clearly wrong based on even your day to day experiences.

Why is it so obviously wrong? Because even when you can guarantee that all the "free information" is both intelligible and even potentially interesting people NEVER want it, you never want it either and for good reason. Case in point - when you turn on the television do you turn on EVERY channel at the same time or just one? When you make a phone call to your relative do you want a dozen documentaries to play at the same time? I'm going to assume that you are a normal person who would answer "no" but then how would you reconcile that with the the fact you would then be rejecting "free" information? If the station on a radio is being interfered with by another distant station on the same frequency do you call that interference noise? Isn't it also more "free information"?

You are correct. I was wrong to get ahead of myself. You can count those times where a mutational error was *corrected* as evidence for your side that it happens normally with noise. Good catch.

I'm not actually sure I understand your wording here. But does this mean that a mutation reversing a mutation from several generations prior is an increase in information or is that still noise to you and thus a decrease in information?

It certainly could be! Please present your evidence that natural selection is the same as the evaluation function of a genetic algorithm and creates all the diversity of life we see on earth today.

Nice strawman but I never said they were exactly the same. I said that your description of genetic algorithms (and your excuse for why you didn't have to apply your "Shannon prevent new information" rule) could be applied to mutation/natural selection just as easily. So are you arguments about genetic algorithms wrong or is there something specific about mutation/natural selection which exempts it from your arguments applying?

It's not a stupid question if Shannon actually applies to messages in a cell, in the same way it applies to messages in all the rest of reality. I'm not asking you to assume that I'm right, but that Shannon applies to all messages.

No regardless of who is right about Shannon information and DNA that particular question was dumb as answering it necessitated I assume you were right about the very thing we were debating.

 

[Tyrathca]

Tyrathca,

I guess the only way we'll find out is if I can display the copy of the New York Post article on March 4, 1978 {the snow happened on the 3rd} somewhere here or provide a link to it somehow. I don't see how I could post it on this TOL site. We'll see.

The only way we'll find out? We already have good evidence from a reliable source about the amount of snow that day, more reliable than the New York Post too, the only problem is that it doesn't agree the the story you have convinced yourself of.

But hey if you don't trust NOAA how about the New York Times?

It seems you are mistaken Michael, you may have predicted exactly 7 inches of snow but it seems like your prophecy never occurred.

You don't realize how successful I've been as a prophet or not. I've done pretty well, except for a couple mistakes. I'm only human, remember. I have been more successful than you know.

How many do you roughly estimate you've convinced? dozens, hundreds, thousand, more? What have you actually achieved for your god?

No, I don't think that devil gave me my calling to be a witness/ prophet. Only by God, and of that I am positive.

Given that you've already been fooled by the devil at least once (according to you) how can you possibly be sure? If he's done it once how do you know he's not doing it more than that?

My message certainly isn't known worldwide, but it is written that Jesus will return as 'a thief in the night.' If everyone was convinced of my story, then He wouldn't come as a thief in the night, because the world would expect Him.

So what exactly is the point of you as a prophet? You're trying to convince everyone yet it seems like you are not meant to convince everyone (or else the prophecy fails). Is that the point of you? To fail to convince everyone so god can come back as a surprise thus fulfilling prophecy and able to say "oh but I 'tried' to warn you..."

Seems like you're existence is fairly superfluous to biblical prophecy really.

And I will not prophecy when it will happen. It could be less than a decade, or more. No man knows, not even Jesus, except God the Father, when that time shall be.

Yet you keep pretending you do know.

 

[gcthomas]

Sure, because:

Shannon, who taught at MIT from 1956 until his retirement in 1978, showed that any communications channel — a telephone line, a radio band, a fiber-optic cable — could be characterized by two factors: bandwidth and noise. Bandwidth is the range of electronic, optical or electromagnetic frequencies that can be used to transmit a signal; noise is anything that can disturb that signal.

But, yeah, maybe they don't understand Shannon at MIT.

So you think that "noise is anything that can disturb that signal" means that "noise is always undesirable". Are you for real?

OF COURSE mutations "disturb" the "signal" in the sense that they cause change. But since they cause variation in the population genotype then they provide the raw material for evolution to work. Natural selection provides the mechanism for information from the environment to work its way back to the DNA of the gene-pool.

That you continue to claim that mutations are always harmful shows you have no understanding of what natural selection does.

And I've just noticed in the other post that you accept that mutations are reversible processes, and that since a mutation can reverse a previous mutation then mutations can increase the information of the genome. Great - we're getting somewhere.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg,

Even Jesus spoke about the Flood. "For as in the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days that were before the Flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark. And they knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. {See Matt. 24:37-39KJV}

I believe Jesus instead of you.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

Michael, when Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest seed, was he using a metaphor or was he wrong?

 

[6days]

Michael, when Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest seed, was he using a metaphor or was he wrong?

Several possibilities..... perhaps the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown by farmers there?
What Jesus said was "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds"

 

[Interplanner]

Michael, when Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest seed, was he using a metaphor or was he wrong?

Anyway, the record of the flood is not in the same category of literature, and then there are the 500-odd accounts all over the world of the same thing with incomplete but intriguing detail that matches up.

As far as that goes, the comparison about the mustard seed is not in the same category as the comments about the flood, which are spoken as events in space and time, as they should be.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Anyway, the record of the flood is not in the same category of literature, and then there are the 500-odd accounts all over the world of the same thing with incomplete but intriguing detail that matches up.

As far as that goes, the comparison about the mustard seed is not in the same category as the comments about the flood, which are spoken as events in space and time, as they should be.

I agree with you that the flood story is an account of a real event in time and space. It was just on a smaller scale with local animals instead of literally all animals.

Here is a link about an Iraqi tablet that predates both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh that tells a flood myth about a guy who gets warned by God and escapes a large flood with his family and animals in an oversized version of the round river vessel endemic to the people of the region:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrikytpdm0g

Sounds familiar, no?

 

[6days]

I agree with you that the flood story is an account of a real event in time and space. It was just on a smaller scale with local animals instead of literally all animals.

So..... Its a real story about some people spending 100 years building a huge ship to escape a local flood that even killed every bird that wasn't on the ship?

Of all the various 'arguments', atheists and others use to reject the flood account..... You have picked the most illogical.

Here is a link about an Iraqi tablet that predates both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh that tells a flood myth about a guy who gets warned by God and escapes a large flood with his family and animals in an oversized version of the round river vessel endemic to the people of the region:
Sounds familiar, no?

Over 100 years ago, an unsinkable huge luxury ship set sail for North America with thousands of passengers. The ship hit an iceberg and hundreds perished in the frigid April Atlantic waters. Unfortunately because the ship was deemed unsinkable, it did not have enough life rafts.

The name of the ship was the TITAN..... Not the Titanic. The Titan was in a novel written a number of years before the tragic sinking of the Titanic. You see..... its often easy to pick out similarities between two events if we ignore the many differences. Just because the novel had some similarities, only fools would say that the real event must not have happened.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, when Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest seed, was he using a metaphor or was he wrong?

Dear Greg,

I believe that Jesus was using it metaphorically. I know some seeds that are just specks. But maybe they didn't have the seeds that I know back when Jesus was explaining it all. What does it matter? Believe Jesus, and the rest of your eternity will be blissful and joyful. It is just that easy. Tell Jesus you want Him to come into your heart. That is how you do it. Do it on your knees, as a prayer. I'm doing my best to advise you in the right direction, Buddy!! My concern for you is your happiness and your soul. And whether you'll be up there with us to chat with and visit.

God's Best 4 U!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :guitar: :singer: :singer:

 

[MichaelCadry]

The only way we'll find out? We already have good evidence from a reliable source about the amount of snow that day, more reliable than the New York Post too, the only problem is that it doesn't agree the the story you have convinced yourself of.

But hey if you don't trust NOAA how about the New York Times?

It seems you are mistaken Michael, you may have predicted exactly 7 inches of snow but it seems like your prophecy never occurred.

Dear Tyrathca,

You are ridiculous with your childishness. Who cares so much about the dang snow? I told you that I will see if my printer will work now with this new Windows 10. I can't check it right now because the printer is in another bedroom and they are asleep there. I always forget to do it until I get on here, which is pretty late at night. I will do my best to scan a copy and make a .pdf and get everything to you. But I will need your help with it. You've been here longer, so you must know how to do it. I see you haven't posted much on this website. But I will post a copy of the letter I wrote on ABC-TV Stationery and also a copy of the Post's article about the snow. Seven inches of snow fell on the Daily News Building {where the reporter worked}. According to your New York Times link, it says there was snow on March 3rd, 1978. It says 5 to 8 inches fell. Well, my New York Post article will tell you that 7 inches of snow fell on the reporter's office building. Still, now you know there was snow that day. Just type in Manhattan Snowfall March 3, 1978 or Central Park Snowfall March 3, 1978. You will find what you need. You also need to know that the snowfall will fluctuate according to location where measured.

How many do you roughly estimate you've convinced? dozens, hundreds, thousand, more? What have you actually achieved for your god?

I figure well over a thousand. The story gets more airtime once the author dies. Same as a painting. A lot of people will read my book after the fact.

Given that you've already been fooled by the devil at least once (according to you) how can you possibly be sure? If he's done it once how do you know he's not doing it more than that? So what exactly is the point of you as a prophet? You're trying to convince everyone yet it seems like you are not meant to convince everyone (or else the prophecy fails). Is that the point of you? To fail to convince everyone so god can come back as a surprise thus fulfilling prophecy and able to say "oh but I 'tried' to warn you..."

Seems like you're existence is fairly superfluous to biblical prophecy really.
Yet you keep pretending you do know.

Well, aren't you the fountain of negativity!! If God wanted me to reach most of the world, it would be so. He does not want that. And I rarely get deceived by the devil, and the deception never lasts long at all, so no big whoop. I am a witness who shares what has happened to me {my testimony, as I've seen and heard it}. Look up Rev. 11:3KJV. Maybe that will help you. Do something to channel all of the errant efforts you make and do. What does it matter if I convince one person {you}. Who are you? Why should I expend efforts and work to accommodate you? I mean, I will. But I will do it for others who post here also. It will help them out too!!

Ok, Ty, you try to have a nice day there!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I agree with you that the flood story is an account of a real event in time and space. It was just on a smaller scale with local animals instead of literally all animals.

It was literally ALL Animals. The Lord said that everything that hath the breath in it shall be destroyed.

Here is a link about an Iraqi tablet that predates both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh that tells a flood myth about a guy who gets warned by God and escapes a large flood with his family and animals in an over-sized version of the round river vessel endemic to the people of the region:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrikytpdm0g

Sounds familiar, no?

 

[Tyrathca]

You are ridiculous with your childishness. Who cares so much about the dang snow?

Ummmm.... you? You wouldn't stop talking about how important and great your prediction even when we mocked it. Weren't you the one to say that if the New York Daily News had published it's article about you governments would fall and all manner of other chaos would erupt as a result?

I see you haven't posted much on this website.

I had several thousand posts but many of them got deleted (when many old threads got deleted) some years ago in server glitch/reset whatever. I've been much less active in more recent years.

According to your New York Times link, it says there was snow on March 3rd, 1978. It says 5 to 8 inches fell.

Michael you should read more carefully. It says:

The fourth big storm of the winter cloaked the New York metropolitan area in five to six inches of new snow yesterday, snarling highway traffic and delaying thousands of homebound commuters and other travelers despite early office closings and reshuffled bus and rail schedules.

That's 5 to 6 not 5 to 8.

Still, now you know there was snow that day.

I never really doubted that. It snows a lot in New York that time of year, I even mocked you for making such an unimpressive feat of predicting snow in a place it snows regularly.

Just type in Manhattan Snowfall March 3, 1978 or Central Park Snowfall March 3, 1978. You will find what you need. You also need to know that the snowfall will fluctuate according to location where measured.

Yes I already did that and I've shown you the results, you just don't believe them because they don't agree with you. And if we are going to get into the nitty gritty of location altering snow fall depth then why are you relying on a story from a newspaper other than the one whom you claimed got snowed on? How do you know exactly 7 inches fell on the Daily News building when you are relying on a story from the New York Post? Did you go to the building and measure it yourself?

I figure well over a thousand. The story gets more airtime once the author dies. Same as a painting. A lot of people will read my book after the fact.

A thousand isn't that impressive, there are kids on youtube with more followers than you.

And does this mean you think you will die "extremely soon" (or sooner?). Since if you die after the apocalypse begins you've kind of missed the boat.

Well, aren't you the fountain of negativity!! If God wanted me to reach most of the world, it would be so. He does not want that.

Which begs the question I already asked. What is the point of you as a prophet? What is the point of your prophecy? Clearly you trying to convince people (and god sending snowstorms for you!) is folly given god doesn't want you to convince people or succeed. Why does god supposedly help you to try and convince people of your prophecy if he doesn't want you to convince people of your prophecy?

And I rarely get deceived by the devil, and the deception never lasts long at all, so no big whoop.

But how do you know that isn't a deception in and of itself? Maybe the greatest trick the devil pulled was making you think the devil couldn't fool you long?

As you have already said the devil can fool you and at the time you can't tell it's not from god. Is it so hard to believe that sometimes you NEVER realise it's not god? You can't say you "just know" because you didn't "just know" when you got fooled the last time, until it blew up in your face that is. How long did you get fooled that you knew the rough date the apocalypse would come? Was it a month, a year, more? Sounds like it lasted a fairly long time. In the face of that why still so much confidence?

What does it matter if I convince one person {you}. Who are you? Why should I expend efforts and work to accommodate you?

I actually wonder the same thing. Why do you continue to try and convince me (and others) of your divine nature and prophecy if as you say god does not want you to convince people? Or does he only want you to reach a few thousand? Which is weird and I have to ask why?

 

[Derf]

Before I admit to any such thing, you're going to have to present some specific examples.



Therefore......?



Depends on the context of the discussion. In general, creationism refers to belief in supernatural creation of organisms and/or their biological features (e.g., genetic sequences, eyes). This encompasses a lot of different religious beliefs, such as young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, intelligent design creationism, Hindu creationism, and even theistic evolution (in some cases).

In more specific discussions with conservative Christians, it refers to the specific belief in supernatural creation by the God of the Bible, typically less than 10,000 years ago (young-earth creationism).

Here's a pretty decent example of your first definition, from The Scientist, talking about a paper in PLOS ONE (read paper here).

Notice that the content of the paper was not a problem--it passed peer review--but there was some offensive wording that mentioned "the Creator" (I counted 3 times). Seemingly, the authors attempted to settle the controversy by suggesting they had misunderstood the word "Creator", and suggesting that "nature" could be used instead:

What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript.

If you read the original paper, I think you would have to admit that if the paper had used the word "nature" instead of "the Creator", no one would ever have found fault with it--it seems well-studied and well-written and cited a number of other studies. But because some keyed in on "Creator", the paper got pulled.

I don't know the real intentions of the authors, if they are creationists that didn't know better, or if they really had some translation issues, but my point is that with a little wording difference, the paper still says the same thing--it's just who gets credit for the "design".

That, my friend, is creationism. Recognizing the superb design of a biological machine and giving credit to its maker. If you insert "nature" where I insert Jehovah, where a Hindu would insert Shiva, where an American Indian would insert "Great Spirit", etc., etc., it doesn't change the nature of the science, just the name of the deity.

The article also shows the strong preference for a particular deity ("nature" or "evolution") by those that edit PLOS ONE, and the ridiculousness of their position.

Commenter “thermalecology” had a more-strongly worded criticism. “Retract this article or I resign as an Editor,” thermalecology wrote. “There is no room in the scientific literature for Intelligent Design. This is more than just a ‘language issue.’”

"Ridiculous how?" you might ask. Ridiculous in rejecting the mention of intelligent design in scientific literature, when we all know full well that scientific literature would be impossible were it not for intelligent design.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here's a pretty decent example of your first definition, from The Scientist, talking about a paper in PLOS ONE (read paper here).

Notice that the content of the paper was not a problem--it passed peer review--but there was some offensive wording that mentioned "the Creator" (I counted 3 times). Seemingly, the authors attempted to settle the controversy by suggesting they had misunderstood the word "Creator", and suggesting that "nature" could be used instead

Yeah, I saw this last week and it's not really that big of a deal. The author of the paper speaks Chinese, and simply misused the term "creator", not being aware of our country's history of creationism. This is what the author said...

"We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator."

I don't know the real intentions of the authors, if they are creationists that didn't know better, or if they really had some translation issues,

As you can see above, it's nothing more than a translation issue.

but my point is that with a little wording difference, the paper still says the same thing--it's just who gets credit for the "design".

Not at all. "Nature" is just a broad term for the various natural processes we observe. "Creator" refers to a supernatural entity. From a scientific POV, those are extremely different things.

That, my friend, is creationism. Recognizing the superb design of a biological machine and giving credit to its maker. If you insert "nature" where I insert Jehovah, where a Hindu would insert Shiva, where an American Indian would insert "Great Spirit", etc., etc., it doesn't change the nature of the science, just the name of the deity.

It most certainly does (see above). Once we allow "God did that" as an explanation for things in science, science ceases to be...unless of course you can do what no other creationist can, i.e., provide a means by which we can investigate and test God.

The article also shows the strong preference for a particular deity ("nature" or "evolution") by those that edit PLOS ONE, and the ridiculousness of their position.

"Ridiculous how?" you might ask. Ridiculous in rejecting the mention of intelligent design in scientific literature, when we all know full well that scientific literature would be impossible were it not for intelligent design.

Nice try, but the "intelligent design" that goes into creating scientific journals is nothing more than natural human activity that all occurs within the bounds of methodological naturalism. IOW, this human activity is observable, investigable, and testable. ID creationism OTOH is none of those things and is specifically about the Christian God, which is not observable, investigable, nor testable.

 

[Derf]

Yeah, I saw this last week and it's not really that big of a deal.

I didn't say it was a big deal, but that it is an example of what we were talking about--the very subtle, perhaps non-existent, distinction between evolutionism and creationism (not the conclusions, but how the presuppositions lead to conclusions that are oftentimes less than scientific).

The author of the paper speaks Chinese, and simply misused the term "creator", not being aware of our country's history of creationism. This is what the author said...

"We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator."



As you can see above, it's nothing more than a translation issue.

Perhaps, but that would not be a reason to completely pull the paper, but rather to edit it, as the authors suggested. Somebody at PLOS ONE seems to disagree with you.

Not at all. "Nature" is just a broad term for the various natural processes we observe. "Creator" refers to a supernatural entity. From a scientific POV, those are extremely different things.

Not if "Nature" can do supernatural things. Like creating (sorry, but the word fits) life from non-life.

It most certainly does (see above). Once we allow "God did that" as an explanation for things in science, science ceases to be...unless of course you can do what no other creationist can, i.e., provide a means by which we can investigate and test God.

Science is not harmed by acknowledging WHO did something. Science is harmed when we cease trying to figure out HOW it was done. And if you are just as comfortable saying "Nature/Evolution did that" as I am at saying "God did that", what is the difference, as long as we continue to work at how it was done? OTOH, if you stop trying to figure out how it was done because "Evolution did it", the harm is just as great, don't you think? How adamant are you against that kind of conclusion in research?

Nice try, but the "intelligent design" that goes into creating scientific journals is nothing more than natural human activity that all occurs within the bounds of methodological naturalism. IOW, this human activity is observable, investigable, and testable. ID creationism OTOH is none of those things and is specifically about the Christian God, which is not observable, investigable, nor testable.

But you see the issue--that you have to lump ID and creationism together to get any traction on why an ID concept is bad. Scientists regularly use an "ID evolution" concept (the appearance of design attributed to evolution) and you have no problem with that, despite little corroborating evidence that evolution can intelligently design anything.

 

[Greg Jennings]

So..... Its a real story about some people spending 100 years building a huge ship to escape a local flood that even killed every bird that wasn't on the ship?

Of all the various 'arguments', atheists and others use to reject the flood account..... You have picked the most illogical.

No, 6. Once again you overreach. I mean that it's a story based in reality that has been heavily added to and romanticized in order to send a religious message, and that message changes based upon which god tells the "Noah" character to build an "ark."

The "ark" was a round river craft built in a period of far less than 100 years and that contained one man's family and animals so that they could survive a very large regional flood that occurred in Mesopotamia.

Over 100 years ago, an unsinkable huge luxury ship set sail for North America with thousands of passengers. The ship hit an iceberg and hundreds perished in the frigid April Atlantic waters. Unfortunately because the ship was deemed unsinkable, it did not have enough life rafts.

The name of the ship was the TITAN..... Not the Titanic. The Titan was in a novel written a number of years before the tragic sinking of the Titanic.
You see..... its often easy to pick out similarities between two events if we ignore the many differences. Just because the novel had some similarities, only fools would say that the real event must not have happened.

And if I'm not mistaken, that's one of the most astounding coincidences in history. I remember hearing about that on television at a young age and being awed by it myself. But you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that a flood DID happen, and that all of these flood myths are based on that original flood.

The Bible's flood account is younger than that of the Iraqi tablet and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Are you saying that every one of these accounts, all of which are nearly identical and all of which were created within several hundred years of each other, are describing a different flood events?