Why don't creationists publish?

Jehovah's Witnes Discussion Forum ^ | 5-2-03 | German JW

[Con X-Poser]

Recently, Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, a JW working in a leading position at the Gene-Science-Department at the Max-Planck-Institute, has been banned from the Institute's WebSite for spreading his view about Evolution. He promotes the so called "Intelligent Design".

Max-Planck-Institute calles this Creationism in disguise. They said they ridiculed themselves by letting him keep on. Despite he had the support of his boss, Loennig's WebSite is now gone and subject to investigation.

I am not competent in discussing the topic on this level but I prefer a dialogue to a ban. It seems the Max-Planck-Institute has run short on arguments.

You find Loennig private WebSite here: http://www.we-loennig.de/

You find a discussion of the ban (in German) here: http://www.vdbiol.de/debatten/evolution/evolution.html

[Aric2000]

It's a lot more scientific then "goddidit"

[f.Christian]

You don't get it ...

we need seperation of state from freaks // ideology ---

not God -- truth !

[Poohbah]

Which proves what??? That there existed a variety of organisms. It doesn't prove that the process you described is what caused the variety.

Danny, Danny, Danny...

LEARN TO READ-A DA F***ING EENG-GLEESH BEFORE REPLYING TO MY POSTS.

The scenario I laid out is reproduced in the fossil record.

If you're simply going to engage in intellectual onanism, go hang out at the ICR website, and leave the serious thinking to others, OK?

[DannyTN]

"Irreducible complexity is a lazy man's way of saying that goddidit, there, all done, no more research necessary.

I might as well say, "Natural selection is a lazy man's way of saying naturedidit, there, all done, no more research necessary. Both are equally invalid statements in their accusation and conclusions.

Neither Creationism, ID, nor Darwinism infers anything about the industriousness of the man or about whether we should research.

If God did it. Let's study how He did it, because by studying His creation we will come to know Him better. This by the way was the motivation behind many of the great scientists of the world. And let's study because we can learn and employ some of the same techniques.

If ID is right. Let's study how it was done for the same reasons.

If nature did it. Then let's study those natural processes and learn how we can help nature and control nature.

The only thing your statement tells us is that you are biased, not scientific.

[Con X-Poser]

<< my faith in God doesn't depend upon the falsification of evolution. >>

What kind of wimpy god do you put your faith in? It's not the God of the Bible, because that God clearly is not an evolutionist. Your god didn't tell anybody what He did or how to be right with him, like the God of the Bible did.

If evolutionists do believe in a god, they should at least admit they don't believe in the God of the Bible (unless they want to claim their god is a liar for describing his creation in detail in Genesis).

If a Christian can believe in a supernatural event like the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then it should be no trouble to believe in a supernatural creation. If you don't believe in the resurrection, then you are not a Christian. The resurrection is the most vital tenet of Christianity.

[Aric2000]

Excuse me, are you using the old "you believe in evolution unquestionably and therefore you are an atheist"? or are you just implying it?

All I said is that ID fails any and all scientific methods that are used to look at it.

It's basic premise is flawed to be called scientific.

If you want to call it philosophy, cool by me, call it religion, cool by me, but it most definitely is NOT science.

Therefore, to say it competes with the scientific theory of evolution is ridiculous.

Just admit it's NOT scientific and let's move on.

[Poohbah]

If evolutionists do believe in a god, they should at least admit they don't believe in the God of the Bible (unless they want to claim their god is a liar for describing his creation in detail in Genesis).

Uh-oh.

Methinks you have a problem. A very BIG problem.

The physical evidence regarding the universe and the processes at work in the universe does not coincide with the alleged detailed description of that universe and how it got here in Genesis.

So, if you're saying that because theistic evolutionists do not accept a literal account of Creation from Genesis, they believe their God is a liar...

...then you have to actually CONCEDE that your God is a liar, because He allegedly lied like a rug, laying out Creation to appear as if it occured billions of years ago instead of only a few thousand.

So, which one is it?

[balrog666]

...then you have to actually CONCEDE that your God is a liar, because He allegedly lied like a rug, laying out Creation to appear as if it occured billions of years ago instead of only a few thousand.

Liar, murderer, jealous thug ... isn't that the basis of the Old Testament? Of course, that does sound like most of those old mythologies ...

[DannyTN]

"LEARN TO READ-A DA F***ING EENG-GLEESH BEFORE REPLYING TO MY POSTS. "

Fossils are not the process, nor do they record sufficient proof of the process. You still only have a theory that one organism somehow mutated into another, without knowledge or evidence of the causative agent(s).

And you categorically refuse to consider any causative agent that employs outside intelligence. Which is a dogmatic stance that is unworthy of a scientific mind.

[Aric2000]

Nonono, he's not a liar, it's all just a big joke that god played on us, or how about this one... Satan did it so that we would question the bible and be condemned forever. Are there any more? My memory fails me, but I know there must be more CYA's around here somewhere...

[Aric2000]

We couldn't care less about an outside intelligent causative agent, because it is not provable or falsifiable, therefore it is religion or Philosophy, NOT science.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Help me out here Dimensio, I think I lost him somewhere, my explanation must be failing, will you give it a shot please?

[Con X-Poser]

<< Fine. Start making some useful predictions with creation science. >>

I predict the fossil record would show most forms of life appearing abruptly, kind of like a Cambrian explosion.

I predict a scarcity in anything that can even be reasonably claimed to be a transition.

I predict life will show stasis and extinction.

I predict we will find many of today's creatures existed in larger size in the past.

I predict we will find sedimentary layers all over the earth, as if laid by a worldwide flood.

I predict we will NOT find gradual change in the underground terrain, as if it developed over billions of years, but we will find stratification s if the earth had been flooded.

I predict we will find fossils all over the world.

[Poohbah]

Fossils are not the process, nor do they record sufficient proof of the process.

Actually, they DO record enough of the process to see this on a macro scale.

And you categorically refuse to consider any causative agent that employs outside intelligence.

Because you haven't presented ANY evidence to support your claim, except for your own mathematical ignorance.

Which is a dogmatic stance that is unworthy of a scientific mind.

PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

[Aric2000]

Care to have some fun with this?

[Poohbah]

I predict the fossil record would show most forms of life appearing abruptly, kind of like a Cambrian explosion.

So would evolution. Nonconclusive.

I predict a scarcity in anything that can even be reasonably claimed to be a transition.

An eminently false claim. Your theory just bombed.

I predict life will show stasis and extinction.

So would evolution. Nonconclusive.

I predict we will find many of today's creatures existed in larger size in the past.

So does evolution. Nonconclusive.

I predict we will find sedimentary layers all over the earth, as if laid by a worldwide flood.

Hypothesis contrary to observations dating back to the 18th century. Your theory just bombed.

I predict we will NOT find gradual change in the underground terrain, as if it developed over billions of years, but we will find stratification s if the earth had been flooded.

Hypothesis contrary to observations dating back to the 18th century. Your theory just bombed.

I predict we will find fossils all over the world.

So does evolution. Nonconclusive.

Four nonconclusive claims and three utterly false claims.

Thank you, now go back to the drawing board.

[PatrickHenry]

Irreducably complex placemarker.

[Jeff Gordon]

I drive down the street and see a lot of ugly people -- drivers and I don't shoot them the you know what like they do to me !

Wow! You get a lot of people shooting you the finger while you are driving. I wonder why?

[DannyTN]

"...then you have to actually CONCEDE that your God is a liar, because He allegedly lied like a rug, laying out Creation to appear as if it occured billions of years ago instead of only a few thousand. "

While I hold out the possibility that maybe we are reading into Genesis a shorter time frame that is actually said, I think the more likely scenario is that your assumption or interpretation of your scientific observations that the universe is billions of year ago is incorrect.

I don't think it is billions of years old. I think if you accept the flood of the bible then you have to recalculate and reinterpret sediment rates and the fossil record.

If you accept that God hung the stars in the sky, according to his purposes which may or may not have had man in mind at the time. And if you accept that God may not be constrained by all of the same physical laws that human's feel constrained by because of our imperfect scientific knowledge, precisely because He has greater knowledge of the underlying physics. Then you may not come to the conclusion that the universe is necessarily as old as some scientists believe it to be. And you don't necessarily come to the conclusion that deceit is involved in it's layout.

[Right Wing Professor]

I predict the fossil record would show most forms of life appearing abruptly, kind of like a Cambrian explosion. (Etc.)

I predict Hank Aaron will eventually surpass Babe Ruth's record for home runs.

Come on, he's just this unheralded black kid playing for a lousy team. Someone's going to give me good odds on that one, right?

[Aric2000]

And you live up to your tagline once again.

I'll just let you go for the gusto and I will be the comedic relief.