ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Hoops]

Why should it? Because it is being propped up as the innerant word of divinity and as the standard to which I should live my life.

Well,... yes.

To a degree that it asks me to be willing to sacrifice my life in the service of a creator defined therein. Am I just supposed to take it on face value and say "ok"? Because it says so?

Not at all. God gave you tremendous intelligence (it would seem to me) He expects you to use those. You've come to different conclusions than others who are equally smart, but that doesn't negate the Bible calling you to use all that you have.

Is it not reasonable to say that as a thinking creature I can not apply my intelligence, my rationale to the claims contained there in to evaluate the inerrancy against the physical world around me and determine if they are consistent.

I would disagree. You are assuming, it would seem. that naturalism is the only way to pursue Truth. I disagree.

I have seen many a pronouncement of when science and scripture disagree I will choose scripture........

You haven't seen me pronounce sudh.

My life is of considerable worth to me. I am unwilling to blindly devote it to the subservence of the incomprehensible.

Me to.

You have been presented with scads of evidence that contradict the Bible and yet you pass it off as not in the Bible so moot.

False.

Turn this around...... Present one confirmable piece of evidence that the Bible is inerrant.

Prophecies of Christ.

Provide one valid piece of evidence for a global flood.

Don't know enough about it.

The whole concept of the global flood contradicts the idea of a loving, loyal god.

Bull. It may conflict with YOUR idea, but that doesn't make it so.

Where did grace and forgiveness go for those millions who allegedly drowned?

For you to take this stance, you will have to show evidence that 1) they did not have the Grace you speak of, 2) that it would be more gracious for them to live in the circumstances that existed, 3) that they were not forgiven.

If the god of the Old Testament is the same god of the New Testament he is schizophrenic.

Empty of content.

[Guest]

Empty of content.

The one destroys planets, countries, cities and peoples in fits of anger. The other teaches turn the other cheek, love your enemy, grace, and forgiveness.

For an unchanging god his modus operandi sure changed between books.

[_Chap]

The one destroys planets, countries, cities and peoples in fits of anger. The other teaches turn the other cheek, love your enemy, grace, and forgiveness.

For an unchanging god his modus operandi sure changed between books.

The Book of Mormon Flying Jesus, destroyer of cities, was right back in character, don't you think though?

[_SteelHead]

Prophecies of Christ.

Isn't that a bit circular? I prove that a book is inerrant because it later records the fulfillment of a prophecy it makes.........................

How about an external proof for the divinity of Christ?

[_Franktalk]

Here is an interesting discussion about the manifesto. In it you can read about how mainstream science treats a valid idea.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_top ... 00370.html

1) This isn't an example of mainstream science suppressing an idea, it's an example of a discussion on an internet message board.

2) Even in this example, there's no suppression. Suppression of an idea doesn't involve free and open discussion of said idea, published for all to see.

Did you read it?

[_Morley]

Did you read it?

All 111 pages of the board? No. What I did read seemed mildly friendly.

Don't be coy. What is it you want me to see?

[_Franktalk]

Did you read it?

All 111 pages of the board? No. What I did read seemed mildly friendly.

Don't be coy. What is it you want me to see?

I don't care if you read it but by not reading all of it and then telling everyone that it does not contain information on the suppression of Davison is a leap of faith on your part. The arguments made by some in the posts are well thought out while others are just the same old dogma preached by mainstream science. It did not matter if the responses had anything at all to do with the ideas of Davison. That is mainstream science. It is more baffle with BS than supply any information. It is the total lack of respect that people have towards any new idea. It seems that if you throw enough goo against the wall then something may stick. Or it is the case that it is assumed that most reading the posts will not know the subject well enough to figure out that the responses have nothing to do with the theory. This is typical of many arguments between people in general. A typical argument goes like this.

New theory guy - Because of A, B, C, D, E, and F it seems that X fits the data.

Old theory guy - But everyone knows that X is not true.

New theory guy - Your response does not address the issue.

Old theory guy - Yes it does as everyone knows.

New theory guy - But what about the data?

Old theory guy - The data can not support the conclusion because if it did then everyone would have figured that out long ago and since no one has accepted that it must be false.

New theory guy - Will you look at the data?

Old theory guy - I don't need to, I know it is false because it does not agree with what I know to be true.

New theory guy - But the X conclusion better fits the data.

Old theory guy - What data?

New theory guy - The data I am trying to get you to look at.

Old theory guy - Thousands of really smart people have looked this over years ago and all agreed that Z is true. X can not be true because you are just one person and you must have made errors in your analysis. Why don't you publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal.

New theory guy - But they won't look at the data.

Old theory guy - What data?

[_keithb]

All 111 pages of the board? No. What I did read seemed mildly friendly.

Don't be coy. What is it you want me to see?

But, the whole point of threads like this one on internet message boards from a creationist standpoint is to either a) be coy (basically Hoops) b) win by exhausting the opposition by posting reams of material that have little to do with anything related to the OP (Hoops+Franktalk) and c) keep changing the subject when you lose an argument (Franktalk + erosion theory).

On a lighter note, I think Franktalk should temporarily change his name to Frankentalk for Halloween. That would be awesome!

[_Morley]

All 111 pages of the board? No. What I did read seemed mildly friendly.

Don't be coy. What is it you want me to see?

I don't care if you read it but by not reading all of it and then telling everyone that it does not contain information on the suppression of Davison is a leap of faith on your part. The arguments made by some in the posts are well thought out while others are just the same old dogma preached by mainstream science. It did not matter if the responses had anything at all to do with the ideas of Davison. That is mainstream science. It is more baffle with BS than supply any information. It is the total lack of respect that people have towards any new idea. It seems that if you throw enough goo against the wall then something may stick. Or it is the case that it is assumed that most reading the posts will not know the subject well enough to figure out that the responses have nothing to do with the theory. This is typical of many arguments between people in general. A typical argument goes like this.

New theory guy - Because of A, B, C, D, E, and F it seems that X fits the data.

Old theory guy - But everyone knows that X is not true.

New theory guy - Your response does not address the issue.

Old theory guy - Yes it does as everyone knows.

New theory guy - But what about the data?

Old theory guy - The data can not support the conclusion because if it did then everyone would have figured that out long ago and since no one has accepted that it must be false.

New theory guy - Will you look at the data?

Old theory guy - I don't need to, I know it is false because it does not agree with what I know to be true.

New theory guy - But the X conclusion better fits the data.

Old theory guy - What data?

New theory guy - The data I am trying to get you to look at.

Old theory guy - Thousands of really smart people have looked this over years ago and all agreed that Z is true. X can not be true because you are just one person and you must have made errors in your analysis. Why don't you publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal.

New theory guy - But they won't look at the data.

Old theory guy - What data?

I'm sure that you already know that that's pretty common in the area of science. It isn't always respectful or generous. It's pretty much the same with any idea in the academe, and it's going to be even tougher on a discussion board than in publication. With all that said, this board seemed pretty well-behaved and friendly to me.

[_Franktalk]

I'm sure that you already know that that's pretty common in the area of science. It isn't always respectful or generous. It's pretty much the same with any idea in the academe, and it's going to be even tougher on a discussion board than in publication. With all that said, this board seemed pretty well-behaved and friendly to me.

That is true. But on two main issues where I supplied data I got this kind of response. So if we want to discuss valid or invalid ideas we should concentrate on the data and analysis. My post on erosion was met with rejection because it could not be true because we say so. On the issue of gathering defects and evolution being impossible I received the ignore treatment so the question would just go away. This is very typical of men in general. I myself get tired of answering the same old questions but I do try and look into new ones.

"Theory suggests that the risk of extinction by mutation accumulation can be comparable to that by environmental stochasticity for an isolated population smaller than a few thousand individuals. Here we show that metapopulation structure, habitat loss or fragmentation, and environmental stochasticity can be expected to greatly accelerate the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large metapopulations may be at risk of extinction. Because of mutation accumulation, viable metapopulations may need to be far larger and better connected than would be required under just stochastic demography."

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/5/2928.full

It is not like I posted a link to some wacky site full of opinion based on space gas. But it does seem as time goes by science is getting to the point where Sanford's Genetic Entropy seems a better fit for the data.

As for the erosion post I have yet to have one person find an error in what I posted. My conclusions are attacked because they don't agree with established time scales. That means nothing to me. I just see that as arm waving. So for all of the expertise on this site I would have hoped for a better critique of the data or analysis. If I am indeed wrong then it should be a no brainer to point out the error instead of giving me opinion pieces. So the sample argument I posted applies to this site as well as others I have been to as well. But I will admit that I am guilty of doing the same at times.