The elephant in the room.

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:19 pm

I was wondering where on earth to make this posting - but then discovered a thread about 'elephants'.

I've today received an email from CMI - forwarded to Mark Edon - publicising a Creation magazine interview with John MacArthur on the 'authority of scripture'.

Along with this magazine article (not read), the email also highlights THIS past CMI website article (not read) from 1996: http://creation.com/lost-world-animals-found

The email states: "Mammoths went extinct at the end of the Ice Age, several thousand years ago—but in remote areas of Nepal, there have been stories of elephants with distinctly mammoth-like features. The scientific community buzzed with excitement when two of these elephant bulls were found. These ‘throwbacks’ present an evolutionary challenge—what are features that supposedly died out 10,000 years ago doing in living, modern-day elephants?"

Have any living mammoths (presumably first created 6,000 years' ago so they SHOULD still be around) been discovered since 1996? What do you think?

I think CMI are shysters.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:00 pm

I have joined an expedition in the jungle of Nepal with Colonel John Blashford-Snell’s Scientific Exploration Society (SES). We are on the trail of the infamous Raja Gaj, a hulking animal once considered to be more mammoth than elephant, but later discovered to be the largest specimen of Asiatic tusker ever recorded.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8059707/In-search-of-the-Beast-of-Bardia.html
No doubt it has very large tripes, too.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:18 pm

From the 2010 Telegraph article:
"Blashford-Snell listened to tales about the elephant’s massive domed head and tusks and heard claims that it was a direct descendant of the extinct woolly mammoth, one of an aggressive sub-species that had genetically evolved in the Nepalese jungle."
"Big though Rajim is (more than 9ft at the shoulder), he will not outgrow his father, according to Professor Adrian Lister of the Natural History Museum in London, who had been on previous SES expeditions to Bardia. It was Lister who had discovered in 1994 that the DNA of the Bardia tuskers matched that of the smaller Asian elephants, although their domed heads are reminiscent of their ancient Asiatic ancestor, the woolly mammoth".

Have CMI updated their 1996 article? Of course they have not.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:11 am

I've now looked at THAT MacArthur interview:

http://creation.com/john-macarthur-interview
"I am persuaded that the biblical account of creation is irreconcilable with macroevolutionary hypotheses."
I'd go further. I'm persuaded that the biblical account of origins is irreconciliable with modern science in general.

"Because I have based my stand on what the text of Scripture says, any Christians who want to challenge my stance would need to make their arguments from the text of Scripture—and that is impossible." How convenient.

"It’s a sinful tendency of the fallen human heart to crave worldly respect...". WORSE, clearly, than being dishonest about what you really think - which is 'how can a 2,000 year old pre-scientific and unscientific religious book know the age of the Earth' - and abandoning ALL free and rational thought about time and origins. In fact the latter isn't a sin at all!!

And see the FULL context here:
Question: "You have said that those who advocate an ‘old earth’ interpretation of Genesis have done so on an inconsistent and faulty reading of Scripture. Why are so many Christians going this way?"

MacArthur Answer: "It’s a sinful tendency of the fallen human heart to crave worldly respect, and secular culture has been highly successful in making people think creation is unsophisticated, unscientific, and superstitious. In reality, nothing could be more absurd and superstitious than the belief that everything evolved out of nothing with no intelligent plan." NOTE the false dichotomy. If you think geology is correct you also think that Christian creationism is absurd - and you are an atheist!

I'll bet the man has never studied science but has decided that it is an 'enemy of the gospel' and thus to be opposed and denied.
http://www.gracechurch.org/john_macarthur/

And yes - just read - "they are susceptible to the worldly lie that science and human reason are better judges of truth-claims than the Bible is".

To be Biblical is to be - when required - a REALITY DENIER. About science - the study of natural things, things uncreated by Man.

Ergo God is a Liar.

An email goes to Grace Community Church.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:20 am

Or it would if they didn't HIDE their email address. Sent to CMI instead.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:02 am

I also included THIS in the email to CMI:

"Just seen this. http://creation.com/common-atheistic-arguments
Sarfati is misrepresenting the history of science (which is not that relevant anyway). AGAIN.
YECs do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.
And I note that CMI - on other occasions - have been keen, like our Dr MacArthur, to label their opponents as 'atheists' even when that is unlikely to be the case. Are they aware that Ken Ham thinks all atheists are just 'pretend atheists'?
On the Carter response: "My colleagues and I feel like we have a very strong case and that our case is getting stronger over time." Regrettably, apart from a couple of non peer-reviewed links, Robert provided nothing substantive in HIS message.
There is evidence that MAY suggest theism and intelligence behind the universe. However, there is no evidence at all supporting Biblical/Genesis/Young Earth Creationism. (Not even from the RATE project.)"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby marcsurtees » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:35 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:YECs do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.


Surely this must be a typo!

It is atheists who do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.

The God hypothesis is "off the table" for atheists
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Dagsannr » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:21 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:YECs do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.


Surely this must be a typo!

It is atheists who do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.

The God hypothesis is "off the table" for atheists


You're confusing 'scientist' with 'atheist'.

Again.

Science would be quite happy to consider a god hypothesis, if it had any testable, observable material qualities to examine. Without that, it can't be science. Your failure to recognise that is why creationism is never taken seriously.

Unless you've been hiding something that's not been seen in thousands of years of theology, god will always be off the science table.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Michael » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:28 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:YECs do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.


Surely this must be a typo!

It is atheists who do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.

The God hypothesis is "off the table" for atheists


What's the God hypothesis? It's not in my bible or the Nicene Creed.

Shouldn't I have learnt about it in Sunday School
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby cathy » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:49 pm

It is atheists who do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.

Well that would be because science, as we are currently able to study it, is the study of the NATURAL world. God belongs in the realms of the SUPERNATURAL. Until you come up with some way of testing the supernatural that remains a problem. You cannot test a hypothesis unless you have come up with a way of doing so, and science can't test for the existence or otherwise of a supernatural being outside of the natural universe. Material evidence supports a material world whether someone believes God created that material world or not.

And don't forget there are believers doing the same material science, formulating God free hypotheses and accepting exactly the same conclusions as the atheist scientists. That is the nature of reality-the evidence currently only supports evolution over billions of years. So believers and atheists study and learn about what happened in exactly the same way with exactly the same hypotheses, tho one group believe via pure faith, that a God beyond their understanding was the originator at some point.

Are you ignoring all the believing scientists who do their science in exactly the same way as the atheist ones??? Evidence leading to conclusion. Are you also ignoring the fact that even if a miracle happened and evidence suddenly appeared for the book of Genesis, creation science could only ever say the Earth was 6000 years old and there was a flood. That would still just give a very different material world, it would not prove or disprove God. Oh and don't bother with the ID argument unless you have come up with some method to test it beyond the crap God of gaps one that has been shredded by some very devout Christians indeed.

The God hypothesis is "off the table" for atheists
Yeah spot on for a change Marc, but we're actually talking about science here not religion. You seem to be confusing the two yet again (a common creationist ploy to frighten the faithful away from too much science).

Science and atheism-two mutually exclusive things. Guess what-you can be an atheist AND a scientist OR a believer AND a scientist, like Michael or Collins or Miller. Or guess what-you can be an atheist and NOT a scientist or a believer and NOT a scientist. And another frightening fact you seem to ignore-science doesn't give a monkeys what you believe it will be exactly the same for the atheist scientist as it is for the believing scientist-and they will agree with each other on that whilst disagreeing with each other on the existence of God.

So unless you think the critical skills required of a scientist disprove God you need to explain what exactly what nonsense you mean here? Cos I suspect Dawkins may agree but Michael won't. The only hypotheses off the table for real scientists is testing things beyond the remit of science, like God, and pre-deciding conclusions based on an ancient religious book. Hence creationism is the only bar to real science. Ashley is spot on, your hands are tied by your inability to accept that if God existed He might actually be beyond YOUR understanding.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:46 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
Surely this must be a typo!

It is atheists who do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.

The God hypothesis is "off the table" for atheists


See your trying to play your tired old scam again - "those that are not creationists are atheists".

Creationism is not the Christian" position. You may think it "should be" but it isn't. Nor do you speak for Christianity or Christians - or Jews, Muslims or anyone else who is religious.

Shakes head at the utter balanity and repetition of Surtees' position.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:40 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:YECs do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.


Surely this must be a typo!

It is atheists who do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.

The God hypothesis is "off the table" for atheists



No - I meant what I said.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby jon_12091 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:28 am

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:YECs do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.


Surely this must be a typo!

It is atheists who do 'science' with their hands tied behind their back. Certain hypotheses are removed from the table WHETHER OR NOT they are supported by material evidence.

The God hypothesis is "off the table" for atheists

Please, please, please, stop trying to make God "scientifically provable - its embarrassing and annoying for the rest of the Christians on the forum (Mark 11:22). The only thing you will manage to do is demonstrate that their is no evidence for God. There is no material evidence for God and indeed can never be.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:47 am

I hesitate to be a cat among pigeons but what about what Romans 1 says? YECs somewhat misuse the chapter to attack evolutionism in general including theistic evolution but it does claim that creation points to God and that it reveals something of what that God is like (a bit simplistic or naive as the chapter never mentions the effect of sin upon the original creation - though Paul does then mention this is issue in chapter 8). So the chapter claims there is 'scientific' evidence for God and that people should not ignore or suppress this 'truth' - though the Bible assumes God rather than trying to prove God.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:50 am

I typed a figure 8, not a smiley face! Honest.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests

cron