The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[ironduck]

Remember folks this thread should be about science, not theology

(I really got to regain control of this thread least it be "Perfection goes for a ride while other people converse about creationism")

A whu? Isn't this thread about the validity of creationism? It's hard to talk about the points creationism is trying to make if you cannot talk about, well, creationism.

 

[Perfection]

A whu? Isn't this thread about the validity of creationism? It's hard to talk about the points creationism is trying to make if you cannot talk about, well, creationism.

I don't care about arguing about whether or not something is a symbol or not, that's a theological question not a scientific one. This is about discussing evidence not which theological account is best supported by the bible.

 

[ironduck]

Ok, ok. I wasn't going on about the symbol thing though, I said the way I - and others - interpreted the rainbow was that there may not have been any before the flood. So I asked the creationists whether there was rain or rainbows before the flood. I haven't gotten any answer to that.

 

[ybbor]

I didn't realize you were a creationist.. you have AiG colleagues? What kind of colleagues, you mean people you share opinions with or staff writers or something?

didn't realize I was a creationist? are you joking? IIRC, we got into some heated arguments in the last thread. (as if the uber-nationalistic avatar didn't clue you in ). For the record I would prefer ID advocate, but whatever.

okay, I'll admit, colleagues was the wrong word. I was looking for something that would imply I'm on the same side, although not necessarily one-in-the same (I'm a OEC, while AiG is YEC. this is an amazing article which I highly recommend you read. A perfect alignment of astronomy and Genesis)

@Perf: well you brought this on yourself when you titled the thread with creationism and not ID But I'm sure the connotation is much more important than the actual purpose of the thread

as for the theological issue at hand: I have indeed heard from my youth pastor that it probably didn't rain before the flood. I can't see much evidence of it in the Bible, and it's not exactly a pivotal issue (if you don't believe that it never rained, you are no better than Satan ), and really feel that it's a waste of time talking about it. I don't know why you are the one who requested to move the talk to black rain and theology, rather than radioactive dating, but I still contend that it's sole usage after the flood doesn't demand its sole absence before the flood. After all, another covenant was made in the arc of the covenant IIRC, and that used things like gold IIRC. Does that mean that gold had no meaning before the arc was built?

EDIT: double x-post

 

[ironduck]

ybbor, I don't remember being in a heated debate with you.. you may confuse me with someone else?

I have read that article earlier, but it's basically a theological article, not really about science. I found it uninteresting and very much reaching in its argumentation.

What's that about being no better than Satan? Anyway, I brought up the black rain because no creationist here has replied regarding the rain and rainbows and I'd like to know. Creationists always have these hard and fast answers to everything 'because the bible says so' (until they come up with something different, of course).

I'm seriously sick of the radioactive isotope dating methods because we've been over it so many times and it's the same old tired lack of arguments from the creationists every damn time that they copypaste from AiG.

The black rain, however..

 

[classical_hero]

Has anyone heard of Radiohalos?

 

[Sidhe]

Does anyone ever get the impression it would save a hell of alot of time if creationists just agreed with other biblical scholars that not everything in the bible was meant to be taken literally and moved on, even the most staunch creationist must be doubting themselves sometimes, feed that doubt, ditch this dead end and go use your talents creatively instead of destructively.

For clarity black rain isn't black as such it's just cant refract water so it appears to be black, when in fact it's rain coloured, up untill the time god turns up then it's back to normal, sounds more rational than their being no rain, life can't exist without water and if their is water of any kind on the planet in anyquatity then the water cycle causes it to rain,basically for their to be enough water to support a sustained water cycle and to modle the water content of the Earth today it must have rained before mans ascent to sentience. even if the first rains was sulphurous rain poisonous to life their must of been early rain, life depends on it. To me anyway, the the whole creationism thing sounds like a pile to me, so none of it's ideas are rational to me and I've yet to see one counter argument that hasn't been destroyed ten fold times. Or at least something that makes me go hmmmm interesting.

 

[ironduck]

Has anyone heard of Radiohalos?

You just refuse to answer the rain and rainbow question, eh?

 

[classical_hero]

Do I really need to answer that becuse it should be obvious from the Bible what the answer is.

 

[ironduck]

Do I really need to answer that becuse it should be obvious from the Bible what the answer is.

You mean obvious like the ice comets and the water canopy?

 

[Perfection]

Has anyone heard of Radiohalos?

Not me!

Do I really need to answer that becuse it should be obvious from the Bible what the answer is.

If it's so obvious then you should be able to tell us.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Do I really need to answer that becuse it should be obvious from the Bible what the answer is.

Yes you do. I believe the Bible to a fairly large degree and I don't even have a clue what you are trying to say.

 

[carlosMM]

ybbor,

quick Q for you:

Michael Behe himself admitted under oath in Harrisburg that ID is religious speculation and not backed by science in any way. What's your comment on that?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Radiohalos are treated at length at the talk.origins archives:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

 

[ybbor]

ybbor,

quick Q for you:

Michael Behe himself admitted under oath in Harrisburg that ID is religious speculation and not backed by science in any way. What's your comment on that?

I certainly disagree that it's not backed by science, but I don't necessarily dispute that ID isn't all that separate from creationism, but talking about ID allows us to talk about the biology of life and not have to answer theological questions such as stuff about rainbows and 6-day creationism, as this thread is often bogged down in doing. ID is creationism without the theology. I would contend that the theory of macro-evolution is Atheism without their theology.

 

[The Last Conformist]

What, pray tell, would atheist theology be?

 

[skadistic]

What, pray tell, would atheist theology be?

We don't have one thats why we are called atheists. "A" meaning none like amorale (often linked with atheists).

 

[ybbor]

I used theology for lack of a better word. Essentially the belief that God doesn't exist.

 

[ironduck]

I certainly disagree that it's not backed by science

You're in the right thread then!

Please give one example of ID bringing up scientific evidence that refutes evolution.

 

[ybbor]

how about the Cambrian explosion? all of a sudden the fossil record shows a large increase in fossil forms, much more diverse and complex than before. All of a sudden the fossil record goes from a fairly small, and comparativly stagnant period of mostly single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms that have complex body structures. Of the 20 metazoan phyla with extensive fossil records, at least 11 first appeared in the Cambrian. Of the remainder, 1 is known to Precambrian and the other 8 first appear more recently. we go from one major body type to 11. All at once and on a scale never seen before or since. Since it was beneficial for an organism to become multi-cellular before the explosion, why did such diversification all suddenly occur at once?