Standard Creationism Thread

Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Doug » Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:13 pm

Image
"We have consistently surpassed our own forecasts for attendance," said Mark Looy, a co-founder of the museum and spokesman for the center. Last month (August), the Creation Museum counted more than 1.2 million guests since it opened in 2007, he added.

While [Ken] Ham and Looy expected attendance to be high for the first year because of the curiosity factor -- there were about 500,000 guests in the museum's first year -- no one predicted the continuing growth in attendance.

Ham, who was instrumental in the startup of the museum's sponsoring organization, Answers in Genesis, said that despite the economic recession, families, individuals, church groups and even bus tours continue to pour into the Creation Museum, often spending a couple of days in the region to sample other attractions in the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky market.

See here.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Doug
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby kwlyon » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:37 pm

I'm in the wrong damn business...
User avatar
kwlyon
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Dardedar » Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:02 am

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." --H.L. Mencken
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Fayetteville

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby youngearther » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:19 pm

youngearther 5 days ago in reply to Darrel Henschell

A scientist who believes in evolution can be brilliant and exceptional.
But in order to be a good scientist he or she must borrow from the
Biblical worldview. Qualities like honesty and integrity necessary for
good research do not make sense in a evolution worldview.

"Moral Relativism is a worldview. To determine for yourself
which position to hold where morality is concerned, you must
first determine what you believe about the origin of life.
Do you believe life evolved or do you believe life was created?
Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches
that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore,
anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't
If you believe we are created, however, moral relativism cannot work.
Creation implies a Creator. All things created are subject to a set
of laws, whether natural or divine."
from able2know
youngearther
 

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Doug » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:11 pm

youngearther wrote: youngearther 5 days ago in reply to Darrel Henschell

A scientist who believes in evolution can be brilliant and exceptional. But in order to be a good scientist he or she must borrow from the Biblical worldview. Qualities like honesty and integrity necessary for good research do not make sense in a evolution worldview.


DOUG writes:
Please explain. Why should we think that qualities like honesty and integrity do not make sense in a evolution worldview? It certainly appears that honesty and integrity would have evolutionary value, since these qualities would help make a society run more smoothly, and societies do better than individual, rogue persons trying to make it in the world apart from a society.

youngearther wrote:"Moral Relativism is a worldview. To determine for yourself which position to hold where morality is concerned, you must first determine what you believe about the origin of life. Do you believe life evolved or do you believe life was created? Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't If you believe we are created, however, moral relativism cannot work. Creation implies a Creator. All things created are subject to a set of laws, whether natural or divine." from able2know


DOUG
You are making a number of errors in your reasoning here. I'll only highlight a couple of them below.

First of all, ethics does not follow from one's origin. There is no logical connection between where one is from, how one is "made," etc. and one's ethics. Even IF it were the case that a creator made us and wants us to conform to his set of rules, it does not follow from the fact that he is the creator of humanity that we are compelled to follow such rules. A child is not compelled to follow a parent's rules except by upbringing, social norms, and force. A parent who is a pedophile or criminal and wants to teach this activity to his or her child is not teaching the right thing to do regardless of the fact that he or she created that child. The same applies to any alleged creator of humanity. Morality is not force, and it is not authority. To think otherwise is to have a simplistic, child-like view of morality.

Second, you said that "evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose." This is false, for two reasons:

i) Even if there is no god it does not follow that moral relativism is true. There are many ethical theories in which morality is definite, non-subjective, and inviolable, yet ethics is not the product of divine mandate. For example, Immanuel Kant held such a view. In fact, MOST theories of ethics one would find in a typical ethics class (I've taught ethics classes, so I know this for a fact) are theories in which ethics is not subjective AND ethics is not based on the will of a divine being.

ii) People create meaning in their lives. Meaning in life is not something that is "given" by a divine being. In fact, the notion that a magic being can make your life meaningful is utter nonsense. Obeying a divine being may make you a slave, but it does not ipso facto make your life meaningful.

The philosopher Robert Nozick has this thought experiment:

Robert Nozick asks us to suppose that God reveals to us one day that he created us to serve as food for some more advanced creatures from outer space. They are on their way to Earth and God wants us to serve ourselves as food to these aliens. Would it make our lives meaningful to be eaten by those creatures? It is part of a divine plan, so if being part of a divine plan were a sufficient condition to make life meaningful, then if the divine plan consisted of having human beings get eaten by space aliens, this should make our lives meaningful. But few people would hold that such a life would be meaningful. (On one occasion, however, a pastor I met in Maryland stated that he would rub catsup on himself and serve himself to the aliens if God so ordered.) To the extent that someone might hold that a life lived to become nothing more than an alien entrée would not be meaningful, Nozick's thought experiment about God's plan suggests that doing what God wants will not necessarily make our lives meaningful. So it is not a sufficient condition for a meaningful life that it is part of a divine plan.

Philosophers of the existentialist school of thought argue that life can be meaningful without reference to a divine plan. According to the philosophical school called existentialism, “existence precedes essence.” This means that humans exist prior to and independently of any notion of who they are or what they should do. Humans define themselves and create their own meaning by making choices. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) believed that "...Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism." If Sartre is right that human beings can create their own meaning in life, then the claim that a divine plan is a necessary condition for having a meaningful life is false.

It is not immediately obvious why a divine plan would be required for life to be meaningful. Is it that God is an authority figure? We don't typically assent to the view that an authority can dictate what we must do with our lives in order to make our lives meaningful. It used to be much different in Western culture. It used to be the case that most of society accepted that an authority figure could dictate what someone under that authority could do with his or her life. A father who was a cobbler could dictate that his son would follow in his footsteps and also become a cobbler. In some circumstances a daughter could be betrothed to marry someone she may have never met. Women were often denied an education on the grounds that since they were not allowed to seek employment they would not have to know much. It is different in our society now. We do not typically accept that parents, for example, can dictate what a son or daughter will do with his or her life. The meaning of life argument seems to be appealing to intuitions that were prevalent in our society in times past. Since in our society it is no longer simply accepted that authorities can dictate one's life, argumentation would be needed to show that this applies in the case of a divine being.

A proponent of the claim that a divine plan is a necessary condition for having a meaningful life would have to show that there is some relevant factor about a divine plan that makes life meaningful that is missing when a human being creates a meaningful life. It is not clear what that element is supposed to be.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Doug
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Dardedar » Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:35 pm

youngearther wrote:youngearther 5 days ago in reply to Darrel Henschell


DAR
A week ago or so I challenged a younger earther on thinkprogress to post some of the creationist stuff they were posting there, on our forum. I guess they've wandered by. We get treated to three original sentences and a cut and paste (they have pasted all over) from the [idiotic] moral relativism entry [full of creationist pap] on Philo Wiki.

YE
A scientist who believes in evolution can be brilliant and exceptional. But in order to be a good scientist he or she must borrow from the Biblical worldview.


DAR
Youngearther provides neither an example, argument or even an explanation of this claim. Doug already gave a good explanation, I'll give some examples regarding the "biblical worldview." To be a good scientist a person needs to borrow from a worldview that is so uninformed and so inaccurate it teaches the earth is flat?. A worldview that is so uninformed and inaccurate it teaches the earth is young?. To be a "good scientist" one needs to borrow from a worldview that teaches the reality of witches (Exod. 22:18), talking animals (Num 22:27), demon possessed people and pigs (Luke 8:26-39) and even a pack of zombies who rise from their tombs and walk around town? (Matt 27:52-53)

To be "a good scientist" one needs to borrow from a worldview that claims putting a drop of goats blood on your right big toe cures leprosy (Leviticus 14), and that laying sticks in front of a pregnant animal can change the color of its offspring (Genesis 30:37), and that sticks can turn into snakes and vice versa (Exod. 4:2-4), and that the Sun can go backward in the sky (Isaiah 38:8)? This is what you are claiming?

I think you have a different understanding of what being a "good scientist" entails Mr. YoungEarther.

Qualities like honesty and integrity necessary for good research do not make sense in a evolution worldview.


DAR
Explain why. Make your case.

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Fayetteville

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby youngearther » Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:26 am

The claims of the Bible.

Psalm 14:7 "Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back
the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad."

The first time the Jews were taken into captivity to Babylon and then returned to their land. Jesus came
to suffer, die and rise again. Then the Jews were carried away and dispersed among the nations for over 1800 years.
In 1948 they became a nation again.

The next time you think to yourself Jesus is never coming back ask yourself. Is Israel a nation?

The Glacier (aka The Will of God)

The massive glacier moves slowly through the ages,
Carving its will as history writes its pages.

The glacier is silent, the air cold and still. Kaboom!, the sound of dynamite blastin,
How far did the ice mass move from Napoleon to Patton?

The Romans march the Romans conquer...
Dispersed through out the world the "remnant" take their stations.
Ages pass,armies march,empires rise and empires fall,
Splash!, tumult!, amazement!, Israel is reborn a nation!

By youngearther
youngearther
 

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Doug » Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:13 am

youngearther wrote:The claims of the Bible.]

DOUG
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wake me up when you have good evidence for any of this. We've seen it all. And it doesn't hold up to scrutiny...
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Doug
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby youngearther » Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:10 pm

World war two,Adolf Hitler, millions of Jews and others gas,murdered starved. From the ashes of that war, Israel is reborn a nation. The new nation is attacked several times and against all odd triumphs. Yawn.... nothing to see here. Tea time!
youngearther
 

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Dardedar » Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:40 pm

"Hear ye this word which I take up against you, even
a lamentation, O house of Israel. The virgin of Israel
is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon
her land; there is none to raise her up." Amos. 5:1, 2

Hmmm, looks like a prophecy that Israel "shall no more rise." Are you saying the word of the Lord is wrong?

You can find just about everything when you go data mining in the Old Testament. It's got something for everybody. That's why it's worthless.

But if you think you have a single example of supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecy, we have a reward for you. See the details here.

Hit us with your best shot.

And don't miss my specific examples of failed Bible prophecy in this excerpt from my book. Scroll down to the chapter on prophecy.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Fayetteville

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Doug » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:17 am

youngearther wrote:World war two,Adolf Hitler, millions of Jews and others gas,murdered starved. From the ashes of that war, Israel is reborn a nation. The new nation is attacked several times and against all odd triumphs. Yawn.... nothing to see here. Tea time!


So we are supposed to be impressed that the Bible said that Israel would become a nation again?

Such as Jeremiah 31:4:
"I will build you up again and you will be rebuilt, O Virgin Israel. Again you will take up your tambourines and go out to dance with the joyful."

Two major problems:
1. There is no time limit on the "prophecy." So if Israel is ever formed again, it fulfills the prophecy. But this takes no divine guesswork to suppose that at
some point in the future there might be another nation by the same name as Israel.

2. The biggest problem is that the Bible also predicts that Israel will NOT rise again, as Darrel pointed out:

Amos 5:2
"Fallen is Virgin Israel, never to rise again, deserted in her own land, with no one to lift her up."

It hardly takes divine power to predict that "Virgin Israel" will either rise again or not rise again. I can predict with 100% accuracy that the Soviet Union will either rise again or not rise again. Hitler's Third Reich will either rise again or it will not. The Whig Party, a defunct political party, will either come back or it will not. Are these predictions impressive to you?

So what claim of the Bible here is supposed to impress us? I don't see it. Let us know when you have some evidence with a little more substance.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Doug
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby youngearther » Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:22 pm

This prophecy is about the northern kingdom of Israel and must first be kept in context of the book of Amos and then the Bible. The northern kingdom is to be taken captivity to Assyria. The time of the judges and kings is about to end. Israel will never return to the times of the judges and kings.
Amos 9:14
I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
AMOS 9:15
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
This Prophecy for the Northern Kingdom will be fulfilled during the great tribulation when the twelve thousand from every tribe are called.
Revelation 7:1-8
youngearther
 

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby youngearther » Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:42 pm

Why should we think that qualities like honesty and integrity do not make sense in a evolution worldview?

Take a research organic chemist for example, to be good he has to have an absolute standard of honesty. He has to use a moral absolute. I will conduct the experiment and report the results accurately. It does not matter his motivation he is still using a moral absolute. If evolution proves there is no God, Why do moral absolutes exist?
youngearther
 

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby youngearther » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:10 pm

Example #2 The good Scientist

The English speaking organic chemist completes his experiment. He also knows German. He writes his report in a logical fashion in German and sends it to his German colleague. Why if evolution were true would he expect his friend to understand his logic. Why do German, English or Aborigines use the same rules of logic?
youngearther
 

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Dardedar » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:57 pm

youngearther wrote:This Prophecy for the Northern Kingdom will be fulfilled...


DAR
So it's one of those "maybe will be fulfilled in the future" sort of things.

Your Bible says: "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise:..."

I think that language is pretty clear and straightforward. And if we didn't have this modern day country called "Israel" (which really has no known, direct, discernible lineage to any person in the Bible), this verse would be looked to as a great example of supernaturally fulfilled prophecy. With the Bible prophecy game stacked like this it's always "Heads I win, tails you lose."

And do note that either way (modern Israel or not), this would NOT in any case be a good example of supernaturally fulfilled prophecy. Having a modern day group of people come along and reconstruct a tribe/country/nation based upon an ancient name is about a coin toss. That is, there is nothing extraordinary in it either way.

YOUNG E
"If evolution proves there is no God, Why do moral absolutes exist?"


DAR
Two points:

1) I don't know any who believes or has ever said evolution proves there is no God.

2) If you believe moral absolutes exist, give us a few specific examples please. And don't forget to show your examples are:

a) moral (involve a rule by which humans should interact with each other)

b) are absolute (no exceptions)

Why do German, English or Aborigines use the same rules of logic?


DAR
Because by doing so they are able to provide objectively discernible useful answers that produce real results in the real world. For instance, notice, your computer works. It wasn't designed by a theologian, priest or prophet but rather... a scientist. As Dawkins put it:

"If all the achievements of scientist were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witchdoctors, no transport faster than a horse, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?" --Richard Dawkins

Science and logic give us answers that can be measured, cross checked, tested and shown to be true. Your theologies have never been remotely able to do that.

D.
---------------
"...a theologian is quick to give his answer, "GOD!" To almost everything that science cannot explain right now. But using such "God-of-the-gaps" approach is fundamentally flawed. You WILL retreat sooner or later faced with a convincing evidence that explains a phenomenon and doesn't invoke god. Every question that science CAN answer now has been answered by theologians centuries before. Incorrectly. Less and less is attributed to god. Will we some day attribute nothing? Who knows, lets hope so.”
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Fayetteville

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Doug » Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:18 pm

youngearther wrote:This prophecy is about the northern kingdom of Israel and must first be kept in context of the book of Amos and then the Bible.


DOUG
I still see nothing of interest here. When will you start to present evidence for something prophetic or supernatural from the Bible?
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Doug
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Doug » Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:47 pm

youngearther wrote:Example #2 The good Scientist

The English speaking organic chemist completes his experiment. He also knows German. He writes his report in a logical fashion in German and sends it to his German colleague. Why if evolution were true would he expect his friend to understand his logic. Why do German, English or Aborigines use the same rules of logic?


DOUG
We use the same logic because our brains are hard-wired the same. We all accept the same basic rules of logic because that's how we think. We all evolved that way. There is no mystery about it.

On the other hand, what is your explanation for how we all use the same rules of logic? Magic. A ghost made us accept logic by magic? That is supposed to compete with a scientific explanation? It hardly seems in the same league.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Doug
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Savonarola » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:37 pm

Doug wrote:We use the same logic because our brains are hard-wired the same. We all accept the same basic rules of logic because that's how we think. We all evolved that way. There is no mystery about it.
It's not because the universe works in certain ways, and rules of logic are our explanations of how the universe works? "P and not P" cannot be true regardless of how our brains are wired.
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Doug » Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:32 am

Savonarola wrote:"P and not P" cannot be true regardless of how our brains are wired.


DOUG
Well, there is no "and" in nature. That's a semantic dimension, so "P and not-P" must be true because of how we use definitions, not because the universe works in certain ways. The universe does not work according to logic. Our logic works to help us describe how we use language to describe the universe. But we agree on the use of logic--for the most part--because of how our brains are hard-wired.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Doug
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Postby Savonarola » Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:04 pm

In trying to come up with a rebuttal (and it's never safe to disagree with Doug), I became convinced that Doug is probably right when he says,
Doug wrote:Our logic works to help us describe how we use language to describe the universe.
Oh look, Doug being right about a branch of philosophy. Downright silly of me to think he'd be wrong.

But:
Doug wrote:... so "P and not-P" must be true because of how we use definitions, not because the universe works in certain ways.
Would you agree that we are able to develop these definitions, rules, and laws because the universe -- while perhaps not "work[ing] according to logic" -- works in consistent, understandable ways?
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: NW Arkansas

Next

Return to Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron