Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Jose Fly]

Well, she accepts 'scientists' that agree with her! She isn't *completely* biased against science, right?

Hard to say, since I haven't seen her say anything positive about science, or anything else for that matter. She seems to have a pretty bleak perspective on just about everything.

Kind of a sad way to go through life IMO.

 

[Jose Fly]

What boggles me is this assumption that bias means anything in science. And this goes for both sides. Dismissing a statement in science as 'coming from a biased source' be it CATO institute or APA or [Insert controversial research association] is not a good argument. Scientific studies for peer review are transparent by design, if bias is influencing the study somehow then it's up to the person arguing against the study to show where the methodology is incorrect, or why the conclusions being drawn from the study is not reflective of the methodology.

So if anyone says 'this study is biased,' they should expect nothing less than the reply, 'where is the study's methodology wrong?'

Agreed. But as we've seen, Deeje won't respond to that in any sort of meaningful way. That's because the whole "bias" thing is just an excuse to not have to deal with the conflicts that inconvenient information produces.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Joshua 10, when the Israelites fought a battle against the Amorites at Gibeon, it say:


A number of things is scientifically inaccurate about that quoted passage above, about Earth science and astronomy.

We know today, and know for some times now, that the Sun is really not moving, when get day and night, from sun rise to sun set, because of the Earth revolving on its axis, and the sun will shine on specific part of the Earth's surface for given hours of the day.

And that passage give us every indication that the author (of JOSHUA) believed in the very popular belief, but very inaccurate Geocentric Planetary Motion model.

In the geocentric model, people believed that the earth is the centre of the universe (actually this. "universe" is our solar system, not the actual "universe"), where the sun, all the planets and stars moved across the sky. They were correct about the moon's motion, but wrong just about everything else.

The heliocentric model is the more accurate system, where the sun is the centre of the system, and the planets including the Earth, orbited around the Sun.

As I stated earlier, the Earth rotates on its axes, and only the surface currently facing the sun would have daylight.

The Sun only looks like it is moving across our sky, but it is actually the Earth moving.

For the Sun to remain in one spot in the sky, that would mean stopping the Earth from rotating, not stopping the motion of the Sun.

Second mistake in that passage, is the Sun would only stop moving at Gibeon. Meaning, either the Sun is moving everywhere else, like in Egypt, Babylonia, Greece, but only stationary at one called Gibeon.

I don't see how that's possible in heliocentric model.

Third mistake, that for the Sun seem to be stationary in the sky, God would have to stop the Earth from rotating, wait for some hours, then start the Earth spinning again.

You can't stop and restart Earth's rotation like that, and expect the Earth is spinning at the exactly the same rotational speed AS BEFORE stopping the Earth spinning.

This is why the episode of the battle of Gibeon, about the Sun, is nothing but pure myth, due to its inaccuracies and the author's ignorance about the real world.

You know, gnostic, this is not the first time I've heard this, about Joshua 10.
That's why I asked for "distinct" errors. And Newton, being a heliocentric believer, did not consider this an inaccuracy.

To me, this just magnifies the limitless control that Jehovah God has over His creation. Jehovah made the "laws governing the Heavens" (Job 38:33), and the numerous stars and planets. Should it be any surprise that He can control them?!

If He did, that probably would classify as the most powerful miracle ever performed! I say "if", because maybe Jehovah God made time stop for everyone else. Have you thought of that?!

Furthermore, Joshua was simply asking God (or was he asking the Sun and Moon?) what he wanted: enough daylight to vanquish Israel's enemies. It wasn't inaccurate to say what he did....it's what he wanted. It was somewhat poetic, like he was talking to the Sun and Moon. Look at the context.

You got another one?

(No comment on Job 26:7? No one back then would have thought the Earth was "suspended on nothing"!!)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If He did, that probably would classify as the most powerful miracle ever performed! I say "if", because maybe Jehovah God made time stop for everyone else. Have you thought of that?!

Have you ever pondered why nobody else recorded this event? It seems probable that places as far away as Egypt and China wrote of the effects of an especially powerful volcanic eruption around Greece.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

OK, but you're blending a little non-science into that. Science isn't looking for the purpose for which anything was created, and posits no intelligent designer.

And yes, you are correct: If a Christian wants to do good science, he can. He just needs to learn how to compartmentalize his faith based beliefs and keep them out of his work.

To the extent that such beliefs inform his choices such as his experimental set up, or his interpretation of results, he is not doing science any more. If his work isn't exactly what an atheist might do as well, it's not science. Modern atheists read Newtons work in physics and mathematics, and it still rings true. There is nothing in there that an atheist wouldn't agree with.

Then they look at his alchemy, which is pseudoscience based on faith in nonexistent principles, and reject it all.

This is part of the problem with ID. Instead of examining nature and turning their attention to what they find, the scientists there are looking for a god, which affects what they study and what they see. So, for example, they keep seeing irreducible complexity that isn't there and has never been found in any biological system, a nice example of how when a faith based idea creeps in and affects your work, you're no longer doing science.

I appreciate your civil reply, thanks!

But there are so many evidences of irreducible complexity, found everywhere. Individual parts of a system that have no functionality by themselves, but the system comprising these parts only fulfill their purpose (oops, there's purpose, again!) when operating together. No mechanism based on undirected chance could accomplish it, it would take an intelligence to put them together!

Behe makes a great point!

Look, we're just going to disagree, let's find something we can agree on.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Have you ever pondered why nobody else recorded this event? It seems probable that places as far away as Egypt and China wrote of the effects of an especially powerful volcanic eruption around Greece.

That sort of lends credence to time being affected, and not a stoppage of heavenly bodies.

(If time stopped, those affected -- like the rest of the world -- wouldn't be aware of it.)

 

[Jose Fly]

But there are so many evidences of irreducible complexity, found everywhere. Individual parts of a system that have no functionality by themselves, but the system comprising these parts only fulfill their purpose (oops, there's purpose, again!) when operating together. No mechanism based on undirected chance could accomplish it, it would take an intelligence to put them together!

Behe makes a great point!

You're a little behind in your understanding of Behe's "irreducible complexity". He's changed his definition a few times, with the latest being about the "number of unselected steps" rather than the functionality of components.

The reason for the change is obvious. His original definition was quickly and easily shown to not preclude evolutionary pathways for the examples he gave (bacterial flagella, blood clotting systems).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Shadow Wolf, maybe it had been, but had been destroyed.

I often wonder how much clarifying information was lost with the destruction of the Alexandrian Library. Or the one in Pergamum. Or others of the ancient world.

We don't even know how the Pyramids were built, anymore.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You know, gnostic, this is not the first time I've heard this, about Joshua 10.
That's why I asked for "distinct" errors. And Newton, being a heliocentric believer, did not consider this an inaccuracy.

To me, this just magnifies the limitless control that Jehovah God has over His creation. Jehovah made the "laws governing the Heavens" (Job 38:33), and the numerous stars and planets. Should it be any surprise that He can control them?!

God's don't require physical laws. Godless universes do.

A god needs no law of universal gravitational,for example. He pulls the apples to the earth individually and pushes the planets around according to whim. If he wants to take a break for awhile, he can switch on the laws and go into autopilot mode while the universe runs itself.

Elucidating the scientific laws describing the motion of solid bodies, fluids, electric charge, and the like demonstrated what is called the clockwork universe, and resulted in the rise of deism - the view that a god created the universe, but then departed it and left it to run on its own.

(No comment on Job 26:7? No one back then would have thought the Earth was "suspended on nothing"!!)

And nobody does now. The earth is not suspended.

Were you thinking that that scripture, contradicted by several others indicating an immovable earth firmly affixed to pillars, indicated divine knowledge?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You're a little behind in your understanding of Behe's "irreducible complexity". He's changed his definition a few times, with the latest being about the "number of unselected steps" rather than the functionality of components.

The reason for the change is obvious. His original definition was quickly and easily shown to not preclude evolutionary pathways for the examples he gave (bacterial flagella, blood clotting systems).

That whole page is discussing a 5-part system ("LMNOP"); a bacterial flagellum, if I remember correctly, has 32 parts --(ABCDEFGHIJKLNMOPQUSTUVWXYZ123456)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

God's don't require physical laws. Godless universes do.

A god needs no law of universal gravitational,for example. He pulls the apples to the earth individually and pushes the planets around according to whim. If he wants to take a break for awhile, he can switch on the laws and go into autopilot mode while the universe runs itself.

Elucidating the scientific laws describing the motion of solid bodies, fluids, electric charge, and the like demonstrated what is called the clockwork universe, and resulted in the rise of deism - the view that a god created the universe, but then departed it and left it to run on its own.



And nobody does now. The earth is not suspended.

Were you thinking that that scripture, contradicted by several others indicating an immovable earth firmly affixed to pillars, indicated divine knowledge?

"The earth is not suspended."

And that's what it says! "On Nothing"! Grief! So-long for now.

 

[Jose Fly]

That whole page is discussing a 5-part system ("LMNOP"); a bacterial flagellum, if I remember correctly, has 32 parts --(ABCDEFGHIJKLNMOPQUSTUVWXYZ123456)

You kinda missed the point. I linked to that page to show the shifting definitions of "irreducible complexity" from ID creationists, and that what you posted (needs all its parts to function) was an old definition.

If you want to discuss IC, then maybe we should start with the fact that despite Behe writing about it over 20 years ago, it has had absolutely zero impact on science. The basic outline was that Behe wrote about it, the scientific community quickly shot it down, Behe and Dembski scrambled to come up with a new definition, and now it's largely a forgotten idea that only persists in evolution/creationism forums like this one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I appreciate your civil reply, thanks!

And yours

But there are so many evidences of irreducible complexity, found everywhere. Individual parts of a system that have no functionality by themselves, but the system comprising these parts only fulfill their purpose (oops, there's purpose, again!) when operating together. No mechanism based on undirected chance could accomplish it, it would take an intelligence to put them together!

That's the claim, but it has never been demonstrated. There is no known irreducibly complex biological system.

Worse, if we ever encounter one, we'll have no way to identify it as such. What is the property of an irreducibly complex system that identifies it as irreducibly complex? That we haven't found a path of incremental change that could be selected for by naturalistic evolutionary processes?

Is the following from Wiki meaningful to you:

"In computability theory, the halting problem is a decision problem which can be stated as follows: Given the description of an arbitrary program and a finite input, decide whether the program finishes running or will run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm running on a Turing machine that solves the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs necessarily cannot exist. Hence, the halting problem is undecidable for Turing machines."

There is no algorithm for determining irreducible complexity. A biological system might be irreducibly complex, but there be no way to demonstrate that.

The problem is made even more intractable when one considers that that structures previously present no longer are. Suppose that the evolution looked like this: A --> AB --> ABC --> ABCD --> ABCDE -->
ACDE

ACDE may appear irreducibly complex if ACD, ACE, ADE, and CDE are all impossible intermediate, i.e.,not conferring an adaptive adavantage allowing selection.

Yet evolution found a way to assemble ACDE naturalistically.

Although not a biological system, this may look irreducibly if you conceive of its creation in term only of adding rock. The secret involves removing rock. That is obvious, but might not be so in a biological system like the clotting cascade.

Then there's the matter of repurposing parts, as with the flagellum, which predecessor had a completely different function than biological motor. Move a part of the motor, and it's no longer a motor, but that doesn't mean it wasn't used in a different way that nature could select for: Type three secretion system - Wikipedia

Behe makes a great point!

Behe has been refuted and embarrassed more than once.

Look, we're just going to disagree, let's find something we can agree on.

Aren't we here to discuss our differences? I'm sure there are things that we would agree on, but identifying and discussing them wouldn't be helpful.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That sort of lends credence to time being affected, and not a stoppage of heavenly bodies.

You can't stop time without stopping space.

@Shadow Wolf, maybe it had been, but had been destroyed.

Something that would be so profound, this is not likely.

I often wonder how much clarifying information was lost with the destruction of the Alexandrian Library. Or the one in Pergamum. Or others of the ancient world.

No doubt a great deal. We don't even have everything Plato and Aristotle wrote. But outside of the Bible there is nothing to support the story of the day holding still.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"The earth is not suspended."

And that's what it says! "On Nothing"! Grief! So-long for now.

So you're sticking with the idea that the biblical cosmology is so accurate, so internally consistent, and with so many surprising and accurate characterizations of celestial mechanics that only a god could have been the source of it?

 

[gnostic]

You know, gnostic, this is not the first time I've heard this, about Joshua 10.
That's why I asked for "distinct" errors. And Newton, being a heliocentric believer, did not consider this an inaccuracy.

I have admired Newton for his discoveries and achievements, but the heliocentric was still very new, beginning with Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler.

And even Newton was limited to his time, and did understand that gravity operate different to his theory. Einstein's theory on General Relativity changed the way we hink about gravity.

Did you that even with the telescopes being used in Newton's time, he didn't know that the universe was a lot larger than what he could see?

It was not until development of far larger and more telescopes in early 20th centuries, that Andromeda wasn't just another nebula within the Milky Way, but it was another galaxy that was even larger than our Milky Way. It was Edwin Hubble who discovered this and that the universe far more galaxies, including ones previously not seen before Hubble's time.

It was not long after Hubble's discovery, that two physicists - Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) independently formulated the hypotheses on the expanding universe model, which would later be called the Big Bang cosmology model (named coined in 1948).

My point is that Newton didn't know everything about the earth and sun, and that even he could mistake, like him being a big believer in alchemy.

Anyway getting back to your claim about Newton and book of Joshua.

I am not aware that Newton has ever mentioned Joshua 10 being accurate or inaccurate.

Sources, please... Can you show us where Newton saying anything about this battle in Joshua 10 being accurate?

Because if he did, then Newton is wrong about the Joshua 10 as well as he was wrong about alchemy.

To me, this just magnifies the limitless control that Jehovah God has over His creation. Jehovah made the "laws governing the Heavens" (Job 38:33), and the numerous stars and planets. Should it be any surprise that He can control them?!

Ok, now that's a claim that you have no way of proving to be true.

Also if god is all-powerful and all-knowing, then why bother with natural law since god can do everything.

And since you mentioned it, everything in Job 38 to 41 is filled with more myths, more superstitions and more inaccurate descriptions about nature.

Stars don't sing. (Job 38:7)

7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the divine beings shouted for joy?

There were ancient belief (among Christians and Jews) that the stars they could see in the night sky were in fact "angels". Since the discovery of telescopes, stars are clearly not angels or any other beings. And with the discovery of radio telescopes, no singing or no shouting in joy were heard from the stars, or from the Sun.

There are no storehouses or vaults to store dew, hail and snow. (Job 38:22)

None of these are science, just the superstitious ranting of its author, who put incorrect descriptions of nature that depict a silly boastful and very ignorant deity.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Something that would be so profound, this is not likely.

Remember, it didn't last very long; less than a day. If it had lasted a week or more, I would agree. Although.....

(Most people are just not aware of the magnitude of influence that the Bible indicates the forces working against Jehovah God, exert on society [Revelation 12:9]! Evidence that existed, that supported the Exodus, etc., would be a target for destruction by God's Archenemy. Anything that gives validity to the Bible's supernatural events, thereby reinforcing its Divine Authorship, is earmarked for attack. The present popular worldview is evidence of this influence, even tho the Bible has timeless counsel that benefits ourselves and our relationships with others, when it's applied. Even Mahatma Ghandi recognized its value, but very few others in these modern times do. For the most part, it's belittled. Unfortunately, this attitude infects many nominal Christians.)

But back to the topic....really, isn't the God who created the universe, supposed to be omnipotent? Or does the Bible say He has physical limitations?

I'm under the impression that time was manipulated by Him, either sped up for Joshua, or stopped completely / slowed down for the rest of the universe. Although the Bible is silent on how the extended daylight was accomplished.

If everything were explained and laid-out in the Scriptures, where would the need for faith be? We have enough 'demonstrable' facts within the Bible's pages, to accept the rest of what is stated as "assured" -- Hebrews 11:1.

 

[Deeje]

It appears to me, from Deeje's portrayal, that Jehovah's Witnesses are a bunch of pessimistic escapist cowards who, by their ideological blindness have thrown in the towel at the first sign of adversity. They have no hope for a better future in this world, either for themselves or for their children and are only exhorting their God for this world to end, so that they can flee it.

My portrayal of this world is the Bible's portrayal. This is a world ruled by God's adversary and seen clearly in the evil acts perpetrated by wicked humans under his influence. Man's "inhumanity" does not come from within humans but is influenced by the unseen wicked forces that the Bible speaks about.

Ephesians 6:10-13:
"Finally, go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness of his strength. 11 Put on the complete suit of armor from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil; 12 because we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places. 13 For this reason take up the complete suit of armor from God, so that you may be able to resist in the wicked day and, after you have accomplished everything, to stand firm."

How dare they speak the name of Gandhi, who, seeing the great imperfections, flaws and suffering of people took up the mantle of giving a billion people in India and South Africa hope, dignity, self-autonomy and a brighter life free from oppression....with nothing but words of peace and self-abnegation.

Gandhi spoke for himself....When British Viceroy Lord Irwin asked Gandhi what he thought would solve the problems between Great Britain and India. Gandhi picked up a Bible and opened it to the fifth chapter of Matthew and said: “When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems not only of our countries but those of the whole world.”
Was he wrong?

He is also reported to have said...
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” I totally agree. What passes for Christianity today, is nothing close to what Christ began.

How dare they speak about such people, MLK, Mandela...who strove with great optimism and hope against relentless odds to bring new light to the people they loved for they believed in this world and this human project called living. What, I wonder, would have been the fate of this civilization if such people and all those who followed them, thought so little of the promise of men and women and the hopes and dreams for this earth here? What, I wonder, would have been the fate of this civilization if the English people, the people of the colonies, and the people of US and Russia thought the world to be unsalvageable as the insanity of Nazism and Fascism threatened to engulf the world?

MLK achieved a lot for American blacks, after decades of human rights abuses, but evil people took him out. Racism is still thriving in some parts of America.

The Psalmist wrote....
"Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.
4 His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish."

Good men often have no one to fill their shoes when they die.....so wicked humans again ascend to power....and again the power corrupts them.

Mandela was not about racism, but about equality. He would not agree with what is happening in South Africa today.

The rise of a new black racism in South Africa

The 'white squatter camps' of South Africa | Daily Mail Online
And as far as world domination by Nazism or fascism.....history was actually written in advance in Bible prophesy. Namely the book of Daniel. The Anglo-American dual world power was to be the dominant ruling power until the coming of Christ to judge the world. The Bible speaks of no human world power to follow. (Daniel 2:44) The rule of God's kingdom has no successors.

The people of JW are misinformed, this world is not sick with some fatal disease with rapid euthanasia as the only deliverence.

Euthanasia is a rather good metaphor. Someone needs to put this world out of its misery. I think that the world is groaning in agony. Can man provide a solution.....or is he the problem? The woeful state of this world is clearly not fixable by men. According to the Bible, they will attempt one last shot at controlling things with a single world government, taking away all the freedoms that humans have fought to achieve....but it will fail. (Revelation 13:16-18)

No, this world and the human spirit is but partially formed, like a half made painting, but with breathtaking potential for much greater richness. I, as a Hindu, believe that God (in the form of Krishna) has asked us to strive relentlessly with our various gifts from one generation to the next to bring this world a bit more towards completion, and maturing and shaping our own spirit in that striving.

These are your gods...correct?

Krishna

Ganesha

Brahma

When will your gods get their wish? Can you see any evidence of these men who "strive relentlessly with...various gifts from one generation to the next to bring this world a bit more towards completion, and maturing and shaping our own spirit in that striving"? I cannot.

The God of the Bible says of these gods....

" A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes, but they cannot see; 6 Ears they have, but they cannot hear;
A nose, but they cannot smell; 7 Hands they have, but they cannot feel; Feet, but they cannot walk; They make no sound with their throat. 8 The people who make them will become just like them, As will all those who trust in them." (Psalm 115:5-8)

How do you know that they exist?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My portrayal of this world is the Bible's portrayal. This is a world ruled by God's adversary and seen clearly in the evil acts perpetrated by wicked humans under his influence.

But just one quickie question, if you don't mind -- how does "omnipotence" have an "adversary" that can "rule?"

There are only two possibilities: either God and the Adversary are both omnipotent, in which case they are both "gods" of the same sort and doomed never to be able to defeat one another, or one is omnipotent and the other isn't, in which case the former wins BY DEFINITION without even a contest.

I paraphrase Henry Higgins (My Fair Lady): "Why is thinking something Christians never do?"

 

[Sapiens]

\...

(Most people are just not aware of the magnitude of influence that the Bible indicates the forces working against Jehovah God, exert on society [Revelation 12:9]! Evidence that existed, that supported the Exodus, etc., would be a target for destruction by God's Archenemy. Anything that gives validity to the Bible's supernatural events, thereby reinforcing its Divine Authorship, is earmarked for attack. The present popular worldview is evidence of this influence, even tho the Bible has timeless counsel that benefits ourselves and our relationships with others, when it's applied. Even Mahatma Ghandi recognized its value, but very few others in these modern times do. For the most part, it's belittled. Unfortunately, this attitude infects many nominal Christians.)

This is perhaps the worst and most pervasive argument from ignorance that I have ever seen. It not only advances the idea that if we don't know, then god must have done it, and further, it goes on to suggest that if there is rational evidence that god did not do it, or if there is evidence that it never happened, that is just part of a conspiracy to cover up the "truth!"