Expelled or flunked (redux)

I'm looking forward to seeing this film as one of the few opportunities to hear the other side of the debate. The so-called scientists have had their day. It's time for people of faith to stand up and be counted. I'm glad we're also seeing the argument about the holocaust being put strongly. Evolution has underpinned all kinds of social eugenics programs and has been used to defend abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality. Let's have an open debate about how evolution has destroyed family life and traditional values. Life matters. Evolutionists don't seem to agree.

PTL- You're either too good to be true or a troll. I've suspected the latter before after reading your various contributions, but still am not quite sure. So let's put this to rest: are you for real, or not? If you assure us absolutely that you are for real, then I'll be completely prepared to engage you in discussion. But I don't want to waste my time on a Stirrer of the Pot.

John_Wright I don't understand why you are so surprised that a biblical Christian would express traditional beliefs on a BBC site. Whatever a troll is, you can be assured that I am not an example of that species. You are surprised, I think, by the link between evolution and the Holocaust, abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality. Can I suggest that you check out the Answers in Genesis website on those topics, where you will find amble evidence of the link. I'm not suggesting that evolutionist scientists took part in the holocaust. Only that the philosophy of evolution underpins all those social developments. See here for example: https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

I would like to think that atheists like yourself will be willing to debate ideas on this site without recourse to insulting language, like trolls. I've noticed that secularists on here can be very patronising to traditional believers.

postscript ...

It might be sensible to start this discussion properly with some questions.

Why is the hierarchy of modern science so closed-minded when it comes to darwinism? This is just a theory, yet anyone who challenges it or questions it will be risking their career.

Why can't the concept of an intelligent designer be invoked in a scientific proof of the world? After all Isaac Newton made reference to God in his science. Was he not a scientist?

Why do Darwinists persist in pretending that Creationists are scientifically illiterate. Go to the AiG website and you will find a list of PhDs from across the world who are defenders of Creationism and Intelligent Design. It's just not true to say that they are uneducated or underqualified. One of those PhDs is a minister ad biologist in Northern Ireland called Dr Robin Greer, who is a leading speaker with Answers in Genesis. Dr Greer actually possesses THREE doctors degrees (PhD, D.Th., D.Litt.), so it is difficult to describe him as under-qualified.

This film is really about those questions. It's about the willingness of science to ask questions. ID theorists are actually doing science a favour by asking the hard questions because that's exactly what science is about (or should be).

Oh dear PTL the canards and dishonesties are flying thick and fast with you!

"just a theory"-oh dear!

You see PTL Biblical creationists are scientifically illiterate!

As for "Dr" Greer well he got his (cough) "doctorates" from the European Theological Seminary which is a degree mill and was exposed as such on this very blog!

https://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/EuropeanTheologicalSeminary

Could I ask you some very simple questions? why if Biblical creationism is "science" does every member come from the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism? I mean if it is based on emiprical/testable evidence then religious convictions should be immaterial. I am glad you raise the point about freedom to question-could you name me the document the the worlds scienentific community have to sign that they *must* agree with another individual? like here https://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Finally science is about producing results-could you tell me the "results" of Biblical creationism? eg., The medical breakthroughs, and could yo affirm that you get your fossil fuels from a company that uses creationist predictions? You know the stuff that you use to run your car, heat your home/church etc. Name me all the multi-trillion companies that use Biblical creationism? if you can't you are going to look rather silly and hypocritical!

ps. things like homosexuality existed before evolution indeed the Bible relates a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan!also abortion existed before and so did holocausts one need only look at the Old Testament!

DD

I wish this repetitive evolution/creation debate could evolve a bit. I'm mostly reading a variation of the same stuff over and over again.

Dylan Dog, I'm interested in your biblical interpretation, 'a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan!'

Could you point me to the literal, categorical, and irrefutable biblical evidence for this? I have no interest in demonising homosexuality, I'm just interested in how you understand the words. I presume you are referring to the accounts in 1 Samuel.

Peter the evolution/debate is stagnant. If only the creationists would find a new tune, instead of giving us the same old canards!

As for David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 17) well the passage is a bit oohh errr! There are plenty of articles on it and no-one knows for sure and to be totally honest with you Peter it is a passage I use against homophobes and Bible believers to simply wind them up!

"a bit oohh errr"

Is that a direct quote from a leading biblical exegete?

G.Da

PTL

"Dr" (lol) Robin Greer was possibly not a great name to drop. 3, count them, 1,2,3, Doctrates from the European Theological Seminary. My, that was a busy Summer he had!

I believe his Th.D was entitled "Evolution: Fact or Fiction". Seems a tad general for a Doctorate. It would be interesting to read his Doctoral Thesis.

By the way, if anyone is interested, I have an entire roll of perforated ETS Doctorates in my bathroom.

Feel free to contact me and I'll tear you off one and pop it in the post.

Please remember to hold onto the envelope at all times. The stamp on it is worth more than its contents.

Could some of the scientific illiterate evolutionary tinkers sorry thinkers who stagnate in their mire of a theory tell me if evolution isn’t just a theory why we still have apes and monkeys? And why are they not an extinct species, when was the last recorded birth of a human in the zoo, let me tell you why they can’t answer this simple difficulty, it is because their science of evolution is based on over 800 supposes, the reason that we still have primates is very simple indeed, for God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind. If the evolutionist wants to think that he came from goo let him stay in his zoo of pseudo science. Suppose suppose supposes suppose suppose suppose suppose suppose, Let them fester in the mire of suppose.

Ok, I'll put it to the people. Who of you also think that The Puritan is the name under which Billy the christian hippy registered after the blog software update?

Comment #11 in this thread was a bit more detailed in its questions than I would have expected from Billy, but the explanation he follows it up with (biblical dogma, though without quoting verses verbatim) sounds much like him. What do others think?

Hey! My post got chewed... Is the new blog software really working? Poor old puritan - there is no helping some people.

Will, my last post mentioned my chagrin that in that SunSeq "debate" you had 2 creationists, and opposing them you had NO scientists - just 2 "historians of science". Unfortunately, philosophers and historians of science rarely have a good grasp of the science under discussion, and in the case of Livingstone and Bowler, while they were interesting, they were dreadfully reticent to attack the nonsensical drivel emanating from Beckett and Nevin.

You also breached trades description by saying that these views "pretty much covered the spectrum" of views regarding origins - they did no such thing. Creationism is just one of a number of fruitcake brainfarts regarding the origins of the world, and you should have had a pastafarian, a Hindu, an ancient Egyptian, a Norseman, a Shinto Buddhist, etc on to give their ideas.

You did redeem yourself spectacularly with "Blueprint", and also getting Norman Nevin to confess that his "Intelligent design" was really young-earth creationism with its lippy on.

Keep up the good work :-)

-H

Puritan,

It was my understanding that we didn't evolve FROM apes, but rather that we share a common ancestor with them.

Primates are our cousins rather than our parents. That might explain why they are still here

.........also, if there were no apes left who would be bothering to blog!?!

Peter #12- The Puritan is patently Billy. No question.

Dylan Dog raises the best question of creationism; that all of its adherents are also adherents to a (usually) evangelical brand of Christianity should make it obvious to anyone that creationism/ID is not based upon good scientific theory suggesting that evolutionary theory is wrong by empirical evidence, but upon religious conviction and interpretation of a religious book, apart from what science says either way. So who is most likely to be correct? And has anyone ever heard a single testable prediction of creationist 'theory', let alone a prediction having been proven correct?

PTL- The word 'troll' is not an insult; it's a way to say that I don't believe that you really believe the things you're posting and that you're just stirring debate. You say that's not the case, and I'm happy to believe you. So, assuming you are indeed for real, I'll say that I find you ignorant to the nth degree. And whether or not the prevalence of agreeing with the theory of evolution leads to social nasties has no bearing WHATSOEVER on whether or not the theory is true. Or are you suggesting that finding out the truth is not as important as maintaining good social morals? Finally, I'll add that I'm not an atheist as you suggest: I like to think that atheists don't have a monopoly upon good science. :-)

The Puritan didn’t register after the new blog software was updated, as I have been registered with the BBC for some time now as the hyperlinked “userid” suggests going back as far as September 2006. I am sure William can verify this.

Anyone who would think they could get an informed presentation of any argument about anything from a work of fiction like Expelled or a badly flawed work of non fiction like An Inconvenient Truth would be shortchanging themselves. If there is any basis for Creative Design and I certainly haven't found any, it won't be found in this or any other self serving Hollywood movie and if you were to take An Inconvenient Truth as your source for the argument about global warming, you'd disbelieve it as soon as you became aware of the movies many falsities and errors.

I think the best direct evidence for the evolution of man from other species was given in the lecture by Dr. Miller that William Crawley offered a link to in one of the debates a year or two ago. The fusion of the chromosome pair differentiating homo sapiens from simians is definitive. The multiplication of functions of evolved molecules in more advanced species as Dr. Miller explained in his example is just the icing on the cake and exactly what you'd expect in evolution. Why do real biological scientists reject all other explanations and only accept the theory of evolution as valid? Because every bit of real testable evidence points to it. If and when their is real evidence for a testable alternative that can stand up to the rigors of the scientific method of verification of a theory, they will consider it but not before. Andrew McIntosh can prattle on all he likes about 747s assembling themselves but when it comes to science in general and thermodynamics in particular, he should stick to Carnot engines and refrigerators and stay away from chemistry and biochemistry, two topics he clearly knows little about as it relates to thermodynamics.

How does one explain that Newton and other scientists said they believed in god? When they stopped talking about scientific theory and started talking about the supernatural, they stopped being scientists and reverted to frightened primitives who were parylized by fear of eternal death and the meaninglessness of life. To accept it would have made all of their efforts and achievements and everyone else's futile. And in the end it seems to me that it is.

Marcus #18 says, "I think the best direct evidence for the evolution of man from other species was .... the fusion of the chromosome pair differentiating homo sapiens from simians..."

I couldn't agree more, and I'm perplexed as to why the evidence of evolution in human chromosome #2 hasn't been more widely used against creationists in debate. I've used it for over a year and haven't heard a single decent argument (or, arguably, any argument at all) in return.

John, the entire genome is stuffed with rock solid evidence confirming the very close relatedness of humans and other apes (we never stopped being apes, of course). Personally I find it the most persuasive evidence of all (and also the largest actual *corpus* of such evidence).

In fact, it's as close as we can get in any branch of science to a mathematical *proof* of relatedness. You can look the genomes up at www.ensembl.org (and elsewhere). It is very easy to show how a genetic sequence from (say) a dog is related to that of a human (very often they're virtually identical anyway).

There is no sequence in either organism that prevents you getting from one to the other by the processes of mutation / duplication / deletion that we know happen all the time in the human population, for example.

It's beautiful, and it works. Creationist gangs like "Truth in Science" and "Answers in Genesis" therefore have to resort to lies and distortions to get their toxic little frauds into people's brains.

We have evolved; a literal idolatrous interpretation of Genesis is untenable. Get over it, people!

John,

I have had my suspicions about (jovial) PTL for awhile-his posts are a just a tad too fundamentalist-indeed his post about time in the Greenwich thread was a classic! I think he is a W.U.M. but you never know!

"I like to think that atheists don't have a monopoly upon good science. :-)"

Exactly John! I have tried without success to point various people(ok I mean PB!) over the past 2 years to scientists like Francis Collins, Ken Miller etc and *still* get accussed of promoting "atheist" science!?!?

Dr Robin Greer is one of the best qualified people you could meet in NI. He has degrees in science from the University of Ulster (B.Sc.) and a theology degree from Aberdeen University (B.D.) and a masters too (M.Phil.) and then THREE doctors degrees. Evolutionists may not like where he got those doctors degrees from, because his college is biblically based, and I don't know much more about his college, but if he did the work and got the degrees its hard to argue with the certificate.

The point is PTL it is nothing to do with "evolutionists" not liking where he got Greer got his "doctorates", it's to do with anyone with a bit of wit!

Even so the place where he got his "doctorates" *is* a degree mill and was exposed as such on this very blog.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/05/exposed_the_college_offering_p.html

And as has been pointed out "Phd's" from the Eoropean Thelogical Seminary have about as much value as toilet paper. Indeed it speaks volumes about Mr Greer character that he would choose to call himself "dr" after receiving them from a degree mill. Indeed this is a common thread amongst Bible Believers-one need only look at Ian Paisley, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson for more egs of this duplicitous behaviour.

In any case it is immaterial how many "phd's" Mr Greer has, it's the argument that counts and on that matter he fails dismally.

Incidentally if you are interested in arguments from authority why not try these...

https://www.livescience.com/strangenews/_ap_050916_id_opponents.html

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-scientists-unite-to-attack-creationism-404985.html

Regards

DD

PTL, Mr Robin Greer is astonishingly unqualified and ignorant. It is not hard at all to argue with his "doctorates", because they simply are not valid. You could grant yourself "doctorates" that are of equal value. Just call your toilet the "PTL Theological Academy" and away you go. Don't expect anyone else to pay attention though.

I think an awful lot of people don't understand where PTL and the other creationists are coming from. It's the very thing the Catholic Church feared most when it threatened Galileo with torture if he didn't recant his theories. Man's intellect had brought him to realize his own mortality a long time ago. Science has now established that man evolved from lower orders of species and is hardly much different from many of them except superficially. Science has good reason to believe life initially came into existance spontaneously from inert matter under just the right conditions which took over a billion years to occur on earth and there is no reason why similar circumstances couldn't happen on countless other worlds. One day that will be demonstrated in a laboratory too. This presents most of the human species with an unacceptable dilemma, the meaninglessness and futility of life with no ultimate rewards or penalties for the consequences of whatever one does or doesn't do. The response is entirely emotional, the invention of tapestries of fantasies people will cling to at any and all cost no matter what the evidence to the contrary. They will look for any loophole in what real knowledge presents to them and invent their own irrational alternative science to prove the merit of their chosen tapestry. And many are prepeared to fight not only scientists but more often each other to the death if necessary to assure themselves that their particular fantasy is the only right one. Perhaps it's all that keeps a lot of them as sane as they can get.

When the inevitable day comes where some scientist fuses ape chromosomes in a laboratory and creates a human like foetus which becomes a viable living organism, it will likely send an earthquake through the ethicists and moralists view of the world. How will they deal with that? How will religion respond to that development. And what will happen when the process of aging is not only understood but can be reversed and death held off indeifinitly? What will happen when our biomolecular engineering skils are so great we are forced to see man as god even re-engineering our own DNA to evolve faster and farther than would occur in nature over millenia? Mary Shelly barely scratched the surface exploring that notion, she had no idea how much further things could go.

Ah, I hadn't realised yet that MarcusAureliusII is Mark. :)

As you say Mark, science won't let up and will present ever greater problems to religion. A very impressive recent feat in that direction was Craig Venters creation of a chromosome from lifeless chemicals. A science buff like you might enjoy reading it if you haven't already:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange

Like all Young Earth Creationists joviaPTL seems to think this is a battle between Christianity on the one hand (YECism) and Atheism (science) on the other. This is nonsense and an affront to Christians like myself. Evolutionary (mainstream) science has been peer reviewed and tested time and time again and not been found wanting. Discoveries such as DNA have only confirmed Darwin's theories, not proved them wrong. Despite fraudulent claims by YECs regarding the age of the Earth, modern dating methods (from a variety of disciplins) have all confirmed an ancient age for the Earth and an even older one for the Universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted from the as far back as the 1930's but wasn't detected util 1965. This again confirmed the big bang to be correct and Fred Hoyle's theories to be wrong. YECism is not an alternative to mainstream science I'm afraid. Check out Marc Isaacs excellent index to creationists claims PTL:
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Antisemitism was also around long before Hitler and practiced by many Christians. Martin Luther in particular was one of it's advocates.

As for Rev. Robin Greer, he may very well be highly qualified in Chemistry but that doesn't give him the right to make fraudulent YEC claims . Just becuase he's highly qualified in Chemistry or biochemistry doesn't mean he knows anything at all about geology or astronomy stc. (I'm better qualified than he is on either of these subjects). His PhD is from the European Theological Seminary, a degree mill operating out of Greenisland. It's been investigated at length by Sunday sequence and like many organisations associated with YECism, found to be a con.

Hello peterJhenderson,

Sounds like you would make an excellent addition to the Will and Testament bloggers dinner. :)

Hi Peter. Yes, I'd love to go along even though I've only been blogging here for a short time.

I'm not sure where the restaurent is and what type of food it serves (I assume the Mourne sea food reastaurrant is mainly fish, chips etc. ????). If it is then it's my kind of food (I'm not keen on Indian, Chinese etc.) !

I don't know the restaurant yet, it's Dylan Dogs recommendation. Please send an email to t.p.c.klaver@qub.ac.uk to be kept up to date on details.

Yes, PeterH, you would be very welcome :-) One slight correction - Mr Robin Greer is not "highly qualified" in chemistry - AFAIK he only has an MPhil.

Hi Peter,

I couldn't agree more that you would be a very welcome addition to the dinner!

The Mourne seafood restaurant does do fish and chips but it does do more! if seafood is your thing then this is your place! (I have been going on about this place for ages to Peter and Helio and I hope Mourne saefood do not let me down!) they pride themselves on freshly cooked product cooked simply with great service! The location is Bank street(besides Kelly's Cellars or at the back of Castlecourt).

The website is here...

https://www.mourneseafood.com/index.php

and you can look at a sample menu(though in my experience there are *far* more fishy stuff for the main courses than indicated on the sample menu).

Hope to see you there Peter!

Regards

DD

I'm amazed not only that so many people deny evolution but that so many evolutionists waste so much time arguing against a position they think has no merit. Next week: "is the world flat or round: discuss."

Yawn

G.Da (previously incarnated as Stephen G)

Hi G. Da,

Personally speaking the reason I "waste so much time" arguing against a position that has no merit (and it is a waste of time to debate a creationist) is for those people in the middle, the undecided's, the not sure who on seeing a creationist argument and may think it has a bit of merit. Further creationists think that they can get away with posting any old crap and not have to provide any evidence to back up their statements.

Also it is fun as creationists do not like it up them!

Geordie_Da #33

In the US, Creationists tried to jam their theology down the throats of American children under the banner of "Intelligent Design" and have waged a relentless war against science. The battle came to a head in Dover Pennsylvania (not all that far from where I live) when it wound up in court. The court ruled that Intelligent Design was religion in disguise and therefore could not be taught as an alternative scientific theory to evolution in science classes in public schools because it would be a violation of the Constitution's separation of church and state in the bill of rights. (The ID people were so stupid they published their manifesto advocating their position identically word for word with the one on Creationism except for changing that word for the phrase "intelligent design" evidently using a text editing program, that's how lazy and arrogant they were. It was a fact the court couldn't overlook.) In private schools they can teach anything they like. Despite the fact that America is the most technologically advanced society on earth, the state of science education is now in a deplorable condition in many of our primary and secondary schools (not in colleges and universities though.) This has caused great alarm to scientists and government officials who see it as a threat to the future of national security and the continued technical, economic, and scientific dominance of the United States. In the 1950s, the launching of Sputnik caused America to sit up and take notice realizing that it was militarily vulnerable. (We now know it was a deliberate policy of the Eisenhower administration for the US not to be the first to put a satellite into earth orbit.) If the Soviets could put a satellite in orbit, they could launch rockets carrying nuclear warheads at the US. It provoked a radical change in both the importance placed on science and engineering education and a change to the popular culture and so the space race was on. America needs another wake-up call before it's too late. This is why the debate against the anti-science Creationists is so important here.

Hi Georgie_Da,

"Next week: "is the world flat or round: discuss."

Care to discuss over dinner at Mourne Seafood?

Hi DD/Peter.

I've a rough idea where Mourne seafood is located. I'll send Peter an e-mail at some stage today with my details etc. I'm quite keen on fish so I'm sure there will be something that I'll like.

Marcus: The YEC position in NI is very similar to that in the US. Ham's event at the Waterfront is likely to attract several thousand people again and he's is going to have stories such as "a young man who was a Christian and who believed in millions of years and evolution came up to me and said ....etc.etc.etc."

However, our school system is run by the Department of Education (not councils or local school boards) and abides by a national cirriculum so the chances of creationists having this or ID taught is very slim indeed if not imposible. Councils can pass as many motions as they like, creationism is not going to succeed in NI. The main problem is how widespread it is in churches here, even in our largest denomination. I would expect Expelled to make it to many "midweek sevices" once it becomes available on DVD where it will be received enthusiastically no doubt. I'm surprised some of the more moderate ministers, who are in the public eye over here, haven't spoken out against it (i.e. YECism). How to convince ordinary worshipers, that have no background in science, that YECism is making us a laughing stock is beyond me. What really annoys me is the fact that YEC speakers with legitimate science qualifications actually earned their degrees by learning about evolutionary (mainstream) science. Because of this Christians who are not scientifically literate give them a certain degree of trust and respect, while at the same time not realising why YEC claims are rubbish.

Mervyn Storey has called for a debate on the subject, obviously confidently thinking the YECs will win. i know scientists say that you shouldn't debate creationists but sometimes I feel that they(the scientists) should call their (the YECs) bluff. I'm confident science will come out on top, providing the participants are familiar with YEC claims. Look how Prof. Andy McIntosh was so easily embarrassed on the "creation wars" episode of Sunday Sequence for example.

The Panda's thumb reports that Expelled hasn't done well at the box office on it's first weekend of general release in the US. I can't see it remaing in cinamas over there for long.

Geordie Da- (Bout ye, fellow blogger!) Um. I think the reason these here fellas debate these here Kreationists is because it is their sport. Some play football, some play golf, these here specimens play 'Creationist Badminton.'

As regards to whether the earth is flat or round, my answer is that nobody knows for sure. And that is the truth.

It's creationist bingo John!

https://skeptico.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/23/id_bingo_card_2.jpg

Heretical POST # 14:

If your cousins are primates I would hate to meet your aunts and uncles.

Puritan, *you* are a primate; we are *all* primates. We never stopped being primates. Not even Robin Eames when he stepped down.

Pass the bananas.

OK, fair enough...I can accept that: doing it for the sheer sport of it. But, it's immensely frustrating nonetheless, not to mention a bit old.

G.Da

John Wright doesnt know for sure if the world is round or flat?? Im amazed. I can say with some confidence that the world is round and I say that on the basis of the bible, which held to a spherical earth view long before the scientists of the world caught up with it.

IMHO the evolution vs ID/creationist debate is really a front for the athiest vs believer debate.


Anyway, please forgive me but I didn't get to answer Guthrie back over on...


https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/03/northern_ireland_will_never_lo_1.html


So I just wanted to get back to him here.

I had said...(slightly amended below)

...up until the enlightenment formally took hold ie about 100 years ago, the rule of thumb was that ALL science studied "the uniformity of natural causes in an open system (read; supernatual world)".

This included the Greeks, Babylonians, Indians, Arabs etc etc

The scientific method was developed long before evolution and old earth geology came on the scene as theories.

In fact it was two Christians who played the formative roles in creating the method, ie Bacon and Newton.

[I should have said that the entire scientific revolution was primarily inspired by Christian faith. This appears to be beyond any serious doubt from several serious authors I have read recently; look at Bacon, Boyle, Pascal, Kepler, Newton etc etc.]

Newton was strongly against his work being used to argue against the existence of God BTW, despite being considered a leading light of the Enlightenment.

The greeks were natural philosophers but did not use the scientific method as we know it today.


Then guthrie wrote:
PB- the enlightenment took hold over 200 years ago.
Where did you get your definition of science? And what do you nderstand by the word "natural"?

What has anyones religion got to do with the science? Nothing! You keep acting as if it does, yet he vast majority of scientists who made discoveries throughout the 18th and 19th centuries were believers of some sort. YET THEY STILL CAME UP WITH THE OLD EARTH AND EVOLUTION!

Yes, thats right, by following the scientific method, they came up with answers you don't like. Well, tough.

Perhaps you need to go and read what Bacon actually wrote? Or indeed go back further, to Grosseteste.
/////////////////////////////


PB's response to Guthrie;-

Nice try Guthrie, but anyway that is a complete red herring because old earth evolution does not actually even begin to disprove God or the supernatural.
Both are perfectly compatible with teleology.

My point in listing members of the scientific revolution is to knock suggestions that faith has nothing to do with science.

BTW when I said the Enlightenment only formally took old about 100 years ago what I meant was that it did not really claim the last part of science, biology, until Darwinism was widely accepted ie about 100 years ago.

Even SJ Gould said half his biologist colleagues were theistic evolutionists, which he resspected; but this is a complete contradiction of the true Enlightenment position for these scientists as they cannot prove their theism, and neither could Gould.


Point is, scientists who denied the existence of the supernatural are in a very very small minority of scientists throughout history ie only the very hardline secularist scientists which have existed since the Enlightenment, but excluding those of the scientific revolution who built the foundations of modern science or the theistic evolutionists of today.

Guthrie, people like Kepler and Kelvin etc saw their science as an intrinsic part of their faith. Didnt you know that Kelvin based TSLOT on the bible for example? Or that Kepler saw his work as worship?

There seems to be a consensus that Christians saw the methodical exploration of the natural world as worship and thus was born the scientific revolution;- their faith had EVERYTHING to do with laying the foundations of the science you use today.



Old earth evolution is a moot point and a red herring. it doesnt disprove teleology.



I havent a definition of science or natural as such, but I reckon the secularists find a definition of "supernatural" impossible.


which reminds me;-.. can anyway explain which is supernatural and which is not;-

the 9-10 dimensions of string theory or the spiritual dimension of the Christian faith?

nice chatting

later
PB

PB- Welcome back, glad you made it through registration!

PTL- You say: "John Wright doesnt know for sure if the world is round or flat?? Im amazed. I can say with some confidence that the world is round and I say that on the basis of the bible, which held to a spherical earth view long before the scientists of the world caught up with it."

So long as you're using the bible to educate you about science, could you consult its pages and tell me whether or not the earth is the centre of the universe? This was believed to be the case by your Christian ancestors up until about 400 years ago, and they also believed it "on the basis of the bible." (Offering theories to the contrary got Galileo into so much trouble; Christians said it was unbiblical to claim that the earth was not the centre of the universe, in much the same manner that you today deny the fact of human evolution.) Sounds like history repeating itself to me.

There's nothing new under the sun, PTL, and... I say that on the basis of the bible.

I think it's really sweet that jovialPTL is maintaining his faith in Robin Greer.

Absolutely he has 3 REAL degrees - BSc, MPhill, and BD - all from recognised and properly accredited Colleges and Universities. Unfortunately the 3 "doctorates" are NOT form recognised or properly accredited Colleges or Universities. He recived them from ETS which is based out of someone's living room in Greenisland. How many Colleges or Universities do you know that operate from similar premises?

Robin Greer may well find things a little 'tricky' when the next Presbyterian Directory is published, as The Presbyterian Church in Ireland no longer recognises ETS (and other similar diploma mills). Consequently Robin's three doctorates will no longer be listed. I wonder if he will continue to bill himself as "Dr Robin Greer" or will he drop the title afforded to him by his unrecognised doctorates?

Another thing jovialPTL said was that AiG lists people with PhDs on their website (I realise that many have doctorates in unrelated subjects, but that is by the by). Robin Greer worked for AiG under a year. Why did he leave? There are two possibilities (of course there may be many more than the two that I am merely suggesting). 1) He didn't like AiG. 2) AiG realised the source of his doctorates and didn't like him. I'm not saying that either of these are true statements, as both may be incorrect. All I'm doing is asking why someone who was headhunted as an AiG speaker stays for only 10 months. Maybe someone can provide me with an accurate answer?

heretical:Re. Robin Greer.

Rev. Greer is now the minister at Richview Presbyterian church (Donegal Road in Belfast). Check their website for details/photos of his inauguration. I can give details of why he left aiG but not here, other than to say that reason (1) is closer (but not correct).

Rev. Greer is now associated (I'm not sure if he's a paid speaker or not) with Creation Ministries International (the other half of AiG after the split last year). He had Philip Bell (ex. AiG and now CMI's Europe/UK CEO) speaking at his church at the end of February. Both he and Bell also spoke at Dunluce Christian Fellowship as well. You may already know that this is the church behind the Causeway Creation Committee and the Giant's causeway nonsense. Stephen Moore (one of the church's pastors along with Mervyn Storey appear to be largely responsible for that situation. Also, Don't forget that Dr. Carl Weiland visits Richview Presbyterian Church on 6th June:

"Friday 6 June, 7.30pm, public meeting, Richview Presbyterian Church, 272 Donegal Road, Belfast, NI, BT12 6FW. (Dr Carl Wieland) Enquiries phone: (0289) 070 4668

7.30pm World by Design
9.00pm Dinosaurs! + your questions answered"

Weilend is the founder of Creation Magazine. He's a qualified GP so his PhD is Legitimate. He was also one of the leading members of the original AiG. This is a good oppurtunity to hear one of the worlds leading YECs. If you want to hear CMI's speakers in action then check out Revelation TV (Sky digital channel 765) and Revelation TV (Sky Digital 772). Both stations are run by Howard Condor (ex drummer with the Baron Knights) and are putting out several hours of YEC material daily (both AiG and CMI) although the CMI talks look like re-badged AiG videos (smae misic, same stage sets etc.)

Finally, on the Godtube videos that Greer did with Michael Reid, Reid describes Greer as a chartered chemist. I'm not sure what a chartered chemist actually is (I worked in chemistry for over thirty years) but he must surely have some qualification in the subject in order to be one.

Rev. Robin Greer is not to be confused with Robin Greer of NIE by the way. Two entirely different people.

Thanks Peter for providing some clarification on that. I too saw the GodTube videos with Greer and Michael Reid - before all things Michael Reid were removed from the Internet. I was led to believe he was a bio-chemist (I may be wrong). A chartered chemist suggests that he's entitled to give old people flu jabs lol.

Whatever the reasons for leaving AiG, Robin Greer will still not have his ETS "doctorates" listed in the Presbyterian's 'Blue Book'. I wonder if he will amend how he titles himself in light of it? Seems to me like a matter of integrity. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving myself a title that I knew was not up to standard, and which could be viewed as misleading. But hey, that's just me!

Signing off now.

Prof. Dr Heretical, EADGBE, D.Tox, TCP, OMD, GBH

Hi John. i have to say it is great to have a genuine welcome here from an opponent in debate! thanks :-)








correction to Guthrie;-

ref post 44.

You agree the vast majority of scientists in the scientific revolution (which formed the foundations of modern science) were believers ie men of faith.

But you say THEY still came up with old earth geology and evolution.

This is not true at all, Lyell and Darwin (and friends) came up with this and they had completely opposite worldviews to the men of faith, ie not biblical.


There is no suggestion that earlier giants in science who were men of faith supported their views. This is complete revisionism. Kelvin certainly opposed both views for example.


The other "correction" is when you say that old earth geology and evolution were discovered with the scientific method.


But good old Karl Popper appears to disagree; he rejected historical model building such as evolution saying that while they had scientific character, they did not qualify as scientific theories exactly because they could not be subjected to the scientific method ie could not be replicated and observed.


I just want to take you back to the key point that even if we dont challenge evolution and old earth geology, accepting them does not even begin to disprove God or his design in creation.


It is a very recent enlightenment assumption that God requires to be proved. The fathers of modern science whom we agree were men of faith took God as a given.

Who is right, Newton, Kepler, Kelvin, Pascal and Boyle or today's secularists?


I would also like to confirm that I have never said old earth geology is wrong as I have never seen convincing evidence to disprove it.


PB

DD

Doesnt Francis Collins undermine your argument?


He believes in God and in intelligent design through evolution.


So there is a world class scientist who believes in the irrational supernatural and you see no problem with that?


BTW which is supernatural and which is not - the 9-10 dimensions of string theory or the spritual realm of the bible?


cheers
PB

PB, in many ways it doesn't actually matter how we got here - no-one is arguing with the fact that many of the scientists who leveraged the enlightenment were "people of faith".

However, that in itself does not *justify* their faith. The assertion that there is a god is still one that needs evidence - even if it was at one time a working assumption, it is now no longer tenable as such.

What you are attempting to resurrect is the sad old fallacy of the argument from authority. The universe is billions of years old, regardless of whether there is a god - there is no scientific doubt about that.

Those who deviate from this position are very few, but is up to these deviants to build and test their model. Beckett and Greer simply cannot do that - they do not *have* a model.

The problem is that scientists *can* work with a model that incorporates a worldwide flood, without any big difficulty at all. You can use the theory to make predictions, then test those predictions against the evidence. The model fails fails fails. The notion of a universe that is a few thousand years old similarly fails. It is not that Big Science is stifling the plaintive whines of the ID-iots - it is the very evidence itself that is doing this. The model has been tested, and has failed.

So we get this interesting psychological defence mechanism from the deviants - the evidence does not support their nutty contentions, but since they cannot rail against the evidence, they rail against the scientists. Shoot the messenger, and ignore the message. It's exactly the same as the Taleban - if you tell a lie over and over and over again, you may get people to *believe* that it is true (and then you can call them "creationists" or "intelligent design theorists"), but it does not *make* it true.

Mr Greer would do well to remember that.

And incidentally, Francis Collins accepts the view that the world is billions of years old, and that we are related to the other great apes. He is an ardent *opponent* of "intelligent design" and creationism.

With reference to #5 Dylan_dog- I see that a distinguished fundamentalist scientist from another tradition has attempted to put his principles to some practical benefit. A Mr Mahmood , a nuclear engineer, investigated in the 1980’s a system for harvesting energy from djinn(fiery koranic creatures). I got this off a web-site so it must be correct!!
Could some of our fundie science PhD’s not get to work and start finding some alternative energy sources from the Judaeo-Christian tradition before any potential market is cornered. Could I suggest for starters the following lines of enquiry
(i) Burning bushes- Exodus 3 v2 “Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it was not consumed” If this process was found to be carbon neutral it could be a winner
(ii) Widow’s barrels of oil -1 Kings 17 v 14 “ and the jug of oil will not run dry” think of all that lovely bio-diesel
I myself am conducting research into the Cana phenomenon but have so far only managed to turn wine into water- the reverse process is proving somewhat more intractable. But think of the potential – in Brazil fleets of Volkswagens run on ethanol. A substantial injection of funds is urgently required to enable this essential (hic) research to continue!

Heliopolitan (post 51)

"What you are attempting to resurrect is the sad old fallacy of the argument from authority"

The argument from authority in your opinion being?

PB is right: modern science has crossed into the realms of the "supernatural". It is very difficult to draw a clear line between the natural and the supernatural in many of the theories now being propounded.

PB,

name change but still as ignorant as ever!

PB my dear my intention was *NEVER*(got that...I'll repeat it...NEVER)to say that science/evolution =atheism. Got that? very simple!

Now you raise Francis Collins, you remember that I raised his name first as a scientist who happens to be a Christian who also has no problem with science/evolution-remember I constantly told you that *intelligent Christians have no problem with science/evolution*-I told you that till I was blue in the face!

I also linked you to websites listing Christians who have no problem with science/evolution, how many times did I give you this link?(I would say at least 5 times!)

https://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

"So there is a world class scientist who believes in the irrational supernatural and you see no problem with that?"

NO! and I repeat NO! and again NO!
I repeat again it is paradoxical and silly to attack me over a position that I and others enlightened you on!!!!PB my dear I have cousins who are scientists, one is a lecturer on micro-biology she also happens to be a Christian(and a very lovely person!) I have NO problem(am I making myself clear? well evidently not as it is only what I have been telling you for the best part of the last 2 bleedin' years!!!!). Do you remember PB I told you on several occasions that the brand of "Christianity" that you practice is light years away from the Christians that I know-my cousin was one of the egs I was talking about.

What you have done is set up a perverted strawman argument that you believe that you can knock down easily-even by your "standards" PB that is pathetic!

As for the rest of your posts they contain the same old fallacies.

"Kelvin certainly opposed both views for example."

Errr PB I know you are wilfully ignorant but even by your "standards" thats a doosy! PB it was the work of Kelvin that kicked literal Biblical creationism into touch!

"Who is right, Newton, Kepler, Kelvin, Pascal and Boyle or today's secularists?"

Oh PB there are soo many fallacies in that ignorant little statement that I wouldn't know where to start! YOu know PB things do move on!

As for Popper-goodness!(now PB this is not for your benefit rather it is for any innocents here who may be corrupted by your views)

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

"BTW which is supernatural and which is not - the 9-10 dimensions of string theory or the spritual realm of the bible?"

Why not the spiritual realm of the Koran or Hinduism etc? after all it all cannot be tested therefore it's all of the same level and what you classify as supernatural is a very narrow Protestant fundamentalist version of it. PB why not give us your thoughts on string theory? like your thoughts on QM like "QM is undermining evolution"-do you remember that lie? any apology? acknowledgement? nah! Not very Christian behaviour!


"I would also like to confirm that I have never said old earth geology is wrong"

Oh but you did PB! there was a time when you gave us nothing but links to AIG (and the 179 fundie dentists) and what was wrong with dating methods eg., you told us on several occasions that "only a few labs do radiometric dating" yet when asked to qualify this stunning statement you...ran away. Indeed there are many very *simple* questions that you ran away from!

Oh well some things never change...like you PB!

"IMHO the evolution vs ID/creationist debate is really a front for the athiest vs believer debate."

Not on these threads!

"Doesnt Francis Collins undermine your argument?"

(apologies for going back to this but I hate to be mis-represented). PB my argument and my only argument is that Biblical creationism and the ID(iot) movement are a lot of useless, dishonest horse manure(for which you supplied countless examples illustrating just how *much* useless, dishonest horse manure these movements are-thank you PB!).

Remember PB(and apologies again for repeating myself) *I* linked you/told you about Christians who have no problem with science/evolution.

The perverted, nasty, mis-representative straw-man argument that you have dragged me into was *NEVER* my argument! have you got that? is that simple enough?

Now if you were in any way decent you would apologise to me-and I will accept your apology and move on and not mention it again. If you do not you are a dishonest hypocrite.

I repeat-I *HATE* being misrepresented!

JovialPTL,

Josef Mengele held two doctorates(earned in genuine universities), therefore he was right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

What is wrong with this statement and why?

Dylan you seem very excitable when it comes to evolution.

JovialPTL

I become "very excitable" when a so-called "Christian" totally misrepresents and sets up a perveted straw man argument about my views. Other than that I am as offensive as a labrador pup!

Oh! and failure to answer the very *simple* questions I posted you in M5 and M58 noted!

Dylan you do yourself and your argument no favours at all by comparing creationists to nazis. I don't understand how you can make that argument and expect to be taken seriously. Difference - bible believing christians aren't killing people in the holocaust. Fact: evolutionists overwhelmingly support abortion, a silent holocaust. The evolutionist hypothesis of social progress led to the nazi political theory of eugenics.

Jovial PTL,

For someone who allegedly gives the Bible as the ultimate authority, you (and PB) seem to forget some very *simple* parts of the 10 commandments eg., thou shalt not lie and thou shalt not bear false witness.

I did not compare creationists to Nazis-lie!

"The evolutionist hypothesis of social progress led to the nazi political theory of eugenics."

Ignorant crap and a lie.

Failure to answer the very *simple* questions I posted in M5 and M58 still noted!

jovialPTL: Re. people who believe in evolution support abortion. Do you have a link or can you produce figures for this claim ?

The population of the ROI voted in favour of strict laws preventing abortion under any circumstances and yet the Catholic church accepts evolutionary science so I would imagine the majority of people down south accept evolution but reject abortion. In fact (I think I am correct on this) the Protestant churches in Ireland take a more liberal view on abortion. I've heard Prof. Nevin speak on the subject and if I remember correctly he allows abortion under certain circumstances, as do most protestant denominations.

Unless you can produce figures to back up your claim, your argument is mere conjecture.

Also, antisemitiesm, was around long before Darwin and practised by many Christians, including Luther who was one of it's advocates.

The argument from authority is stating that a proposition should be accepted because of the (real or perceived) authority of the person making it. e.g. Theism must be true because Newton was a theist. It's trivially pants.

The bottom line is that we should work with *evidence*. Isaac Newton was very smart, but he didn't know about evolution. Neither did Jesus, and I suspect both of them would have been atheists if they did.

Correction for DD: The Bible does not say thou shalt not lie - just thou shalt not bear false witness. In the context of this debate this is interesting, because implicit in this is an obligation to firm up the witness with real evidence, and the "ignorance" excuse is not valid. But then we know that Creationists have a very restricted subset of the remaining 9 commandments. For one thing, they idolise their interpretation of Genesis above whatever god they profess to believe in. Whitewashed sepulchres, baby.

Heliopolitan

Thank you for that clarification.

"Theism must be true because Newton was a theist" is obviously a stupid position to hold.

It would sort of mean that Newton was God and I don't know anyone who believes that.

As for Jesus, I too suspect he was a theist.

Heliopolitan

What do you consider evidence to be?

Is testimony "good evidence"?

Is revelation "good evidence"?

David

I stand corrected Heliopolitan!

Brian McClinton,

Where are you?I have been waiting to hear your response to my second post about three weeks ago?

I just wish you would apply your own system of "truth,logic" to your own dogma?

I am still waiting to be impressed!

David Agnew

David,

Testimony and Revelation are the second shittest and the shittest forms of evidence respectively.

Really.

I want something you can shoot protons at ;-)

-H

Heliopolitan,

"an obligation to firm up the witness with real evidence"

I thought a witness statement was evidence.

Well you need to look at the evidence in my post,rather that read into the evidence as you have just done.

Did you not notice that I used lower case letters.

What you have just said means you do not accept the present judicial system.No protons fired there!

How many protons have you fired at the "laws of logic"?

Why limit yourself to "protons".Once thought to be fundamental.Currently just a ball of "quarks and gluons".Whatever next!

I think Brian McClinton has gone into hiding ever since he defended incest on live radio!

Well if all you have to test the "perceived real world" is the "perceived real world" then you are in real trouble!

That circle only deepens and darkens!

Heliopolitan #64 you said;

"Isaac Newton was very smart, but he didn't know about evolution. Neither did Jesus, and I suspect both of them would have been athesits if they did."

Now how could a man who had a messiah complex, thought he was God's embodiment on Earth be an atheist? Especially after he had sold the audience like no tele-evangilist before or since...except maybe Mohammed.

Don't forget that Isaac Newton was also, first and formost, an alchemeist. Obviously practising this pseudo-science long before the periodic table even existed.

I've also read (or heard) somewhere that he denied the trinity.

If Newton were alive today I have no doubt he would be considered a heretic both in the world of religion and science.

Thanks Heliopolitan

I dont agree that we are talking about an argument from authority.

The first point is that the faith of the scientific revolution was not incidental, it was the cause of the scientific revolution.

These scientists saw it as their worship to scrupulously study the creation of their creator in a methodical way. It has been strongly argued that the revolution would not have happened without the Christian faith. In essence modern science is the legacy of their worship and that holds true for the impact of the invisible church across many other fields too.

It is in controvertible that it was a philsophical change in the climate that supposedly required God to be proven.

I also consider that you have sidestepped Popper's objections to the scientific method and whether it supports historical model building.

While the Dover trial certainly showed dishonesty from some IDers I assert that it is a complete fallacy to suggest that the supernatural is a science stopper, for the reasons in previous sentences. In fact belief in the supernatural was the engine of the scientific revolution and the engine behind scientists of all sorts of spiritual faith today;-

If we look at these groups of scientists they generally concur;

1) Those of the scientific revolution who formed the basis of modern science
2) Those who believe in Intelligent design
3) Old earth creationists
4) Young earth creationists
5) Theistic evolutionists
6) Possibly every generation of natural philsopher before the Enlightenment


You have completely missed the point about F Collins; I am not arguing about the age of the earth, I am arguing that in practice probably over 50 per cent of scientists all over the world reject the key principle of Dover; that the supernatural is a science stopper.

You will notice all these groups of scientists believe;-

1) God is the first cause of the universe
2) God's design is evident in creation
3) Their work in science is worship to God
4) God is and always has been the great unifiying theory of everything
5) The supernatural is real.


For you to argue that the consensus of science currently is that God requires to be proven is not actually a scientific argument, it is a philsophical one and is either publicly or privately scorned by theistic evolutionists and YECers alike and everyone in between.

I therefore argue that the double standards used to accept the nine dimensions of string theory as "fact" but to foam at the mouth at the suggestion of teleology is extreme religious prejudice and completely arbitrary. Can anyone show me the peer reviewed paper which stands up the 9 dimensions of string theory?

That is why I previously made the deliberately provocative assertion that this undermines "science".

ie because such arbitrary double standards DOES undermine the objectivity and integrity of proper science.

I appreciate your time Helio and any fallacy you can find in my argument, which will hopefully leave me better informed.




DD - IMHO you have been a practical athiest for years on this blog who has always found common cause with Amen and Klaver, who openly espouse agressive athiesm. I have never heard you once say anything in favour of anyone acutally having faith, except when it undermines me. You challenege just about everything I say about my faith in a very agressive manner even when it has nothing to do with evolution etc.

Do you ask your cousin for testable objective and credible evidence which justifies her faith?

I will be glad to be corrected on your personal beliefs though, so by all means do tell us whether you believe in an almighty creator God?

Also for the nth time, I am not a fundamentalist. Such people are generally open to only one interpretation of any given passage of the bible and I, for example, have clearly said I am not confident we have the full light on Genesis. I also believe most biblical truths have got two opposite perspectives which must be borne in tension to be true;- that is most certainly not a fundamentalist viewpoint.

The use of the fundamentalist stereotype on this blog is a thinly veiled attempt to marginalise ordinary people of ordinary faith. The FACT of the matter is that the core of the judeo christian faith has ALWAYS consisted of people who affirm a PRIMARILY literal reading of scripture. Now dont take that as meaning that poetry or explicit metaphor in the bible is meant to be literal please and understand what I mean.


PB


PS The invoking of Newton is not undermined by pointing out any supposed unorthoxdies he may have held. The athiests are arguing that God has no place in science and Newton, the father of the Enlightenment, strongly disagreed. That means the athiests are actually historically WRONG in saying that religion has no place in science. This applies to all other men of faith in the scientific revolution too.

It may be an argument from authority in a very broad sense but it is also historical fact.

In fact your could argue that arguments from authority of this scale are also the scientific conensus at any given time for example, that God requires to be proven.

Athiestic scientists are not going to resign from science just because they may have differing viewpoints on some issues with their colleagues, after all.

Would just like to repeat this important point;-

These groups of scientist essentially oppose Dover because they believe the supernatural has a place in science eg as their inspiration and guide (Even Einstein invoked God for his science);-

1) Those of the scientific revolution who formed the basis of modern science
2) Those who believe in Intelligent design
3) Old earth creationists
4) Young earth creationists
5) Theistic evolutionists
6) Possibly every generation of natural philsopher before the Enlightenment



You will notice all these groups of scientists believe;-

1) God is the first cause of the universe
2) God's design is evident in creation
3) Their work in science is worship to God
4) God is and always has been the great unifiying theory of everything
5) The supernatural is real.


PB


PS Anyone found that paper on string theory yet?

It's a pity that PBs new incarnation on the revamped blog hasn't improved the quality of his posts.

Pb, of the groups you say concur, all but the YECs wouldn't want someone with your views anywhere near them. Fundamentalist YECs are the only ones sufficiently dishonest in their ways and willfully dogmatic in their views for you to fit in with them. That should be clear to you from the theistic evolutionists who criticize you on this very blog.
As DD has pointed out to you many times, the more intelligent christians don't have a problem with evolution, an old earth, or other mortal implications that science has for literalists.

And you should get over it by now that the old study of the supernatural lead to it being disproved. The old follies were dropped. That's progress in mankinds thinking. Join us in the 21st century, it's open to all who are not stubborn fundamentalists.

As for string theory, you seem to be taking as long to read what is presented to you about that as articles on transitional fossils (year and a half and counting). Read all about string theory and testable preditions from it (including reference to a peer reviewed journal article on which the web article is based) on
https://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/5/26/4127

Happy reading pb.

Hi David (#68):
Depite those nasty rumours spread by Jovial PTL (#72), I haven't gone away, you know. Hide and seek is a game for deities like J Hovah. There is no hiding place for mere mortals like me.
Refresh me on the exact nature of your inquiry. I seem to remember that it was on a thread where Peter was constantly asking me questions and I was concentrating on responding to himt. The problem with some Christians is that, although they think they have some of the answers, they are reluctant to divulge their secrets but keep trying to catch out agnostics and atheists who  – please get this message into your skulls  – don't have to prove anything.

New name PB but as painfully, wilfully pig ignorant as ever..sigh...

Right PB, yes I am an atheist(congrats you actually get something right!!!!-there's a first!). Now it is not "aggressive" atheism, it is responding to the useless, dishonest horse manure that you have put up on these threads and you are that arrogant, dishonest and smug you expect to get away with it.

I have had great conversations with theists on these threads (see John Wright and Peter Henderson) you see PB, you are a "special" case!

Now PB you started this by saying to me"Doesnt Francis Collins undermine your argument?"


I repeat again and I will try and make it that simple that even you will understand-though I will not hold my breath! When you were dragging your wilfully ignorant knuckles on these threads giving us links to the 179 fundie dentists of AIG (now let me make this clear)*I GAVE YOU THE NAME OF FRANCIS COLLINS* Now it is very, very stupid to give him back to me as a way to back the pathetic, dishonest strawman argument that you have thrown back at me-got that? simple enough? no? yes?

PB one of my most common mantras to you was "don't worry about it, intelligent Christains have no problem with evolution/science" now if my agenda was to equate atheism with science then I have been pretty stupid about it!

Also Amen mentioned Francis Collins to you before, Peter Klaver gave yo the link to Prof Wiens(who you dismissed as being "activist"!!!!???). I repeat you have set up a pathetic strawman which was never the intention of posters on these threads-pathetic and dishonest even by your "standards".

PB the debate is not about atheist/believer-it's about sane, rational people against a lot of fundie nutters whose ultimate goal is to make our children as stupid, ignorant, arrogant and dishonest as they are-thats the bottom line.

"Do you ask your cousin for testable objective and credible evidence which justifies her faith?"

No but we do have talks PB, but she is intelligent so...don't you worry about it PB! she is light years away from you-indeed so are the other Christains that I know!

No I do not believe in an "almighty creator God" I am an atheist, now it would be pretty stupid if I did. Why not invest in a good dictionary(big book, lots of words) may help you grasp simple concepts!

Now any chance of an apology for completely perverting and misrepresenting my opinions? yes? no?or is going to be like every time you have got things wrong on these threads/told lies eg., prevaricate, run away and hope everyone forgets.

PB you are a sad little fundie, you tick all the boxes!(see above)

Now PB I see you are getting all dictatorial demanding answers well sweetie there is quite a long list of *very* simple questions that you haven't answered! you know what they are-I asked you often enough!

Now come on PB give us a laugh-give us your views on string theory(we have a physicist here) will they be the same as your views on QM? remember "QM is undermining evolution" and "QM has little respect for the laws of science" these were blatant lies! did we get an apology? an acknowledgement? nah!! strange you should talk about what the Bible says...it is very clear about telling lies and about being a hypocrite! strange you keep missing these parts...how...hypocritical!

Hi Brian (post 79)

"I don't have to prove anything"

Come to think of it, neither does God.

And that was a statement, not a question.

I've always loved how PB uses language to talk about things he knows nothing about in an attempt to give creationist views credibility; lines like "The invoking of Newton..." or "...most biblical truths have got two opposite perspectives which must be borne in tension to be true..." or "that the supernatural is a science stopper..." strike me as the desperate attempts of willful ignorance. What are the two opposite perspectives in the book of Genesis, PB? Or have I mistaken you?

(By the way, Stephen Graham has elaborated on his frustrations with the creation/evolution debate HERE; some of you may be interested.)

JW

You lost me right after you closed your mind and said I didnt know anything about what I was talking about. Sorry John, its not you its me, isnt it?
;-)

And this from the guy that had to eat his words after claiming that body hair and appendix were vestigal organs in humans; has no idea about how law relates to grace in the OT and NT and is unable to discuss a biblical perspective on sex and sexuality because of lack of knowledge.


DD
A lot of heat there but you completely avoid discussing the issues I raised.


Peter
Nice try. I am well aware there are claims that string theory makes testable predictions. I'm not discussing those claims, as you really know full well.

But read my ACTUAL question again; where is the peer reviewed paper which stands up THE NINE OR TEN DIMENSIONS IN STRING THEORY.

Not the same thing is it Peter? Naughty naughty.

You have not given me such a paper and - come let's be honest Peter - nobody ever has written one which proves the existence of these 9-10 dimensions. Have they?


This is the entry on the webiste you DID quote from and I think in the cold light of day, even this does not make any definitive claims about string theory. In fact, just look at the levels of if buts and uncertainties riddling the article from start to finish;-


https://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/5/26/4127
One of the most frustrating aspects of string theory has been its inability to make predictions that are experimentally verifiable. This hasn't been due to lack of effort on the part of the scientists. It is because the governing equations which work so well at very small scales (and very high energies) become impossible to solve when applied at lower energy or larger scales. Thus theorists must make approximations, which then have another layer of approximation applied before any measurable numbers fall out. At this point everything falls apart because that second layer of approximation is governed by existing experimental results, which means that no new predictions are made. However, this has started to change recently and now we have some real testable predictions from a theory of gravity derived (not in the mathematical sense) from string theory.

Our story starts near the beginning of the universe when it was considerably more dense and a multitude of tiny black holes were formed. If general relativity is correct, these primordial black holes have long since evaporated; however, braneworld theory predicts that these guys haven't evaporated and must form part of the dark matter in the universe. Conservative estimates say that such black holes would make up about 1 percent of all matter and there should be at leat one in the solar system. Unfortunately since they don't emit, we can't directly detect them, which, if that was the whole story, would be the end of this article. Black holes, however, do interact gravitationally so they will bend light that passes nearby, creating a lens in space. Better yet, general relativity and braneworld gravity make different predictions for certain qualities that the lens will possess. In particular the interference pattern produced by gamma rays will differ.

Now this story gets more interesting because one of the lucky few science missions that survived the mission-to-Mars purge happens to be the Gamma-ray Large Area Telescope, which is a multinational collaboration (which would be why it survived) and is due to be launched next year. This telescope should prove to be more than adequate for observing such patterns thus braneworld gravity should be tested very soon. A word of caution should be attached at this point. Braneworld gravity is one of a number of string theory derived candidates, so if braneworld fails don't expect it to take string theory down with it.
ENDS


Anyway guys, if insults, sexual harrassment and fury won intellectual arguments you three would be top of the heap, but that is not how the world works now. Is it?


PB

PS Peter

I dont like doing this, but you did ask for it.

When you ridicule me for taking so long to read papers on transitional fossils, you really need to come clean and admit to the people that you are talking about transitional forms from scales to feathers.

And Pete you also need to come clean and admit that the paper that you put up to undermine me actually confirmed that the entire theory is 99% speculation ie that there is really no evidence scales evolved to feathers.

I understand that mainstream evolutionists are now even beginning to move away from this theory anyway.


While you are at it Pete, perhaps you can advise why you are still arranging meetings on this blog using your QUB email address if you vacated your post as you claimed to have done.

Funny how you are still listed on staff.

And funny how you are still harrassing people on sexual and religious grounds using QUB brand.

What would your personnel dept think?

;-)

PB

John,

mmm not bad article but describing Behe as still being "reputable" is way of the mark! He is still peddling his irreducible complexity at meeting halls even though it was shown to be utter crap by Ken Miller. Behe is a busted flush as no "reputable" scientist would still peddle stuff that was shown to be crap. Also it does not help Behe that he was found to have plagiarised his work at Dover and that he "mis-spoke" and said his work was testable but...he hadn't tested it!?!?

Personally speaking I have *NEVER* equated atheism with evolution that's why it annoys me when a sanctimonious hypocrite perverts my views and use a scientists name against me(in an argument that I never used!)that *I* gave to this person!?!?!? UNBELIEVABLE!

Hi John

I see you are blatantly plugging your web-site again(!), but it was a good read all the same.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"DD
A lot of heat there but you completely avoid discussing the issues I raised."

Errr that's right PB!?!? PB you raised this point...

"Doesnt Francis Collins undermine your argument?"

No, and I repeat NO! because it was NEVER(got that *NEVER*) part of my argument. I gave you Francis Collins for goodness sake(as well as loads other intelligent Christians)!I was giving you them whilst you were dragging your knuckles giving us crap from AIG.

You have completely distorted, perverted and distorted my views and set up a pathetic straw man argument.

So no chance of an apology?

Whilst you are bringing past stuff on other people(which is the usual ignorant stuff from you), you have quite a bit of "previous" yourself!

"qm has little respect for the laws of science" and "Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." and " Catastrophism is now mainstream" and "Without any question, ID was not thrown our of the Dover trial because it was not credible science (the judge carefully said it might be and that he took no position on this)."

I could go on and on and sadly on!

Did we ever get an apology, acknowledgement for these lies and perversions...no!

"just look at the levels of if buts and uncertainties riddling the article from start to finish"

Oh and PB...the way and the language of scientific papers has been explained to you in detail, but as ever wilfully ignored which illustrates perfectly how useless it is to have a debate with you.

Oh PB! if ignorance, lies, prevarication and fury won "intellectual" arguments you would finish top of the heap!but that is not how the real world works...is it?

ps., whilst you are accusing John Wright of things which were answered, I have to say John summed your contributions to these discussions very succinctly eg., "completely inadequate"

Toodle pip PB

DD

XX

PB you are on about this "sexual harassment" thing again! please no there is nothing "sexual" at all-that is just wishful thinking on your part! and personally speaking I do not want to be part of your tawdry fantasies! and please remember the last time you brought this up, you lost it! and how is it "religious discrimination"? very, very odd since we are talking about science!? unless your views have nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion...mmmm...

Anyway PB I promise you that if you apologise or at the very least acknowledge that you twisted and perverted my views re: Francis Collins etc-I will forgive you, move on and forget about it -what do you say?

Hi team,
Sorry for the delay. Re evidence, we are not talking about judicial evidence here - we are talking about science. Testimony and "revelation" are of damn all value because they are wholly unprovenanced. Who would believe Pons and Fleischmann regarding their "testimony" about cold fusion? Who would believe Einstein and his testimony regarding relativity. Or Kékulé about benzene? The difference with the latter two is that after the hypothesis is generated, evidence can be brought to bear. The hypotheses can be *tested*.

Incidentally, hypotheses relating to a 6000 year old universe can also be tested. They have been. They have failed.

That's really all there is to it. When assessing things like biological evolution, geology or whatever, the bible is of precisely NO value. Nor is the "testimony" or "revelation" of any person. Just the empirical data, and that is what you're after.

PB, don't rehash a simplistic notion of Popper here - science often proceeds by testing and refining models - areas where a major hypothetical framework are falsified outright are pretty rare, but among them you can include the flood, creation, static continents, geocentrism, etc. The game is over for these beasties.

PB #83- You say, "And this from the guy that had to eat his words after claiming that body hair and appendix were vestigal organs in humans; has no idea about how law relates to grace in the OT and NT and is unable to discuss a biblical perspective on sex and sexuality because of lack of knowledge."

Where do you get these ideas? Sometimes it seems to me you must be reading an alternate blog in which things were said that actually weren't. I never used the word "vestigal" to describe those parts of human anatomy; you did what you normally do which is to attack a rough representation of what you think I'm saying and respond to that instead. But we won't get into that today.


DD #85- "Personally speaking I have *NEVER* equated atheism with evolution that's why it annoys me when a sanctimonious hypocrite perverts my views and use a scientists name against me(in an argument that I never used!)that *I* gave to this person!?!?!? UNBELIEVABLE!"

I assume you're referring to PB... yes, unfortunate. See above! PB either distorts the positions of others on purpose or does it through neglecting to understand those positions fully in the first place; both, I suspect, are factors to blame.


Peter Morrow #86- "I see you are blatantly plugging your web-site again(!), but it was a good read all the same."

Of course! :-) I don't get much run-off from this site actually (the subject matters appeal to slightly different audiences usually) but it's fun to send people over to things that are on-topic.

Will, since John Wright is allowed to use this site to advertise his own site, is that freedom open to everyone? I understood that advertising links to another site was against the rules; it's certainly a little rude.

PTL #92- Is this how you conduct yourself in discussion, by objecting when people link to content they think the readership will find relevant?

Anyway HERE is the answer to your question. If you still feel I'm falling short of the rules in some way, feel free to say so.

Heliopolitan,

Are you going to answer the points that I raised in post 71?

Maybe you large hadron collider has developed a fault and you have not had enough time to fire anything else at the problem.Maybe I can reveal what is wrong with it?

Oh yes I forgot,silly me, you would prefer to fire some protons at it rather than having anything revealed to you!

David
you'd be better to restate your questions
post 71 says nothing -
what do protons have to do with anything?

Well, yeah - here's post 71 again in full for those of you who haven't got the energy to scroll past more PB nonsense...

Well you need to look at the evidence in my post,rather that read into the evidence as you have just done.

Did you not notice that I used lower case letters.

What you have just said means you do not accept the present judicial system.No protons fired there!

How many protons have you fired at the "laws of logic"?

Why limit yourself to "protons".Once thought to be fundamental.Currently just a ball of "quarks and gluons".Whatever next!

I mean, what am I supposed to do with that? If we are asking a scientific question, e.g. "how did our universe come about?", then "testimony" and "revelation" are, as I mentioned, the two shittest forms of evidence that there are. If I'm asking "who shot JR", and I have the sworn testimony of Sue Ellen, vs videotape of Pammy Ewing (or whoever) doing the dirty deed, I'll go with the video, and screw the testimony. So will any judge. Yes, our judicial system has to deal with evidence that is scientifically substandard. As scientists, I don't think we can be so slack.

And if you're going to make arguments, at least try to make some arguments! :-)

-H

Brian,

Your resurrection is not yet complete.However there is hope!If God comes seeking You:You will truly arise!

Hopefully you will be able to work out what flavour of Christian that I am.

As for the past issues you seemed to have a problem with being questioned by Peter Morrow and me.You were the one making certain premises and if you do that then you are setting yourself up for that.

I had asked about the limitations that
need to be stated when any science measurements are made and also the assumptions underlying any theory.These were not done by the
programme or by most of the comments made in regard to the same.

It sounds that you think we Christians have something to prove.

Any Christian should not want to prove that the God of the Bible exists.That would make God subject to proof theory.We then would all have to worship the proof!

You seem like alot of others on these blogs who only "know" things for which they think they have "proof".

However the very notion of proof is limited!It is possible for statements in mathematics to be true for which no proof exists!

A simple example, "This sentence has no proof."

If you could prove it true,then it is by definition false!

Heliopolitan

I have been following the exchange between yourself and davidjagnew.

Quite interesting actually, possibly more interesting than you seem to think it is.

You say, "if you're going to make arguments, at least try to make some arguments!"

I suggest this as a starting point for an argument.

Is the biblical position of propositional revelation intellectually possible?

I ask it of davidjagnew, and I ask it of you.

Happy arguing!

Lame, David, very lame.

Any Christian should not want to prove that the God of the Bible exists.That would make God subject to proof theory.We then would all have to worship the proof!

However, creationists *do* idolise their interpretation of the bible as superior to the god it allegedly describes. But leaving that aside, you cannot possibly believe what you are writing here, because under your framework, there is no way of distinguishing the god of the bible from the allah of the qur'an or the flying spaghetti monster.

I contend that the only reason that your god is not subject to "proof" is that you can't actually prove it; if you *could*, you would be all over it like ants on a picnic rug (and rightly so). It is not very impressive to trumpet your argument's chief weakness as some sort of "strength". An interesting tactic, if not altogether convincing.

Heliopolitan,

You are flying too close to the sun,your wings are starting to come off!Even the Euro fighter is looking better in flight.

Well when you are in court and possibly found innocent I will be sure to remind you about the sub-standard proof that was used in your defense.

Where are your arguments?I have read some of the science babble that you sent Peter Morrow to read-utter nonsense.There was no proof for any of the statements made on that site.That guy is an mathematician.He probably

Do you know anything about proper proof?Do you know anything about the limitations of proof?