Jump to content


Photo

Creation Is ...


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#1 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:06 PM

Creation is not merely our best science. It is our only science.
-Walter ReMine


I have finished reading the main part of The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine. Wow! I would implore all who are interested in origins to read it, or at the very least the appendix 'Survival of the Fittest'. The book's destruction of evolution as science is thorough. The author gets deep into evolutionary thought and shows what it really stands on: naturalism, tautology, special definition, metaphysics and lameness(fails to explain). Where he talks about Punctuated Equilibria and human embryonic gill slits he doesn't just show that they have zero evidence to support them he shows precisely why evolutionists need them to prop up their theory.

I especially like where ReMine takes statements from evolutionists where they are trying to present survival of the fittest and natural selection as scientific concepts. He asks the reader to replace those terms in the evolutionists statements with the word 'astrology' to see how the same logic could be used to defend it as scientific.

Before I read the book I had seen some one describe it as the book evolutionists don't want you to read and now I see why that would be the case. ReMine used to study magic; the art of illusion and how to see through illusion. He applies these skills to evolution and exposes the magicians tricks.

I have not had the time so far to look properly for arguments against ReMine's book, which I hope to do soon. The little I have seen just attacks him personally.

The quote above is near the end of book's conclusion. This is the first time in the book where I felt ReMine had gone too far with his reasoning. But the more I thought about it the more it made sense to me. ReMine shows that what we observe in life must have been set up to deliberately thwart all evolutionary explanations (he refers to evolutionists having to constantly retreat as new data becomes known to us). The way life is requires a designer, a designer who not only made life to function but also look like the product of design. If life existed because of natural laws it would look very different, ReMine's arguments for this are extremely compelling. I can just imagine the thoughts of this designer when designing the butterfly; "Lets see them try to explain this without a designer".

The idea that a being exists that is capable of creating what we see in life is both terrifying and wondrous. This being's mind is unfathomable to us and I think this is one of the reasons people accept evolution; humans tend to fear the unknown. It is a human trait to believe things simply because we want them to be true, we are all guilty of this. The fact that humans possess the ability to understand the concept of morality (the greatest of humanities abilities imho) suggests that maybe the designer thought the concept important to, now that is really terrifying.

#2 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 22 August 2009 - 12:26 AM

ReMine shows that what we observe in life must have been set up to deliberately thwart all evolutionary explanations (he refers to evolutionists having to constantly retreat as new data becomes known to us). The way life is requires a designer, a designer who not only made life to function but also look like the product of design. If life existed because of natural laws it would look very different, ReMine's arguments for this are extremely compelling. I can just imagine the thoughts of this designer when designing the butterfly; "Lets see them try to explain this without a designer".


View Post


Sounds like a very interesting book. Unfortunately, I have noticed ingrained evolutionary thought will not be shewed away like a fly. No evolutionist who is making his living by science is going to suddenly ooh and ahh at the apparent evidence of design--because it does not appeal to his pride, nor is it in the best interest of his career.

Think of all the the hard work that has been done to "confirm" Darwin's theory. I mean evi=olutionary scientists are very intelligent, very credentialed, and very respected people. Why would someone want to give all the credit to a Being they have never seen?

Even if there were thoughts of wonder, they will soon be squelched by a "what is before your eyes" naturalistic line of thinking, backed by the career pressure to keep it to yourself. We all have to "play the game" on our jobs.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 August 2009 - 06:30 AM

AFJ,

That is a very sad but true statement. It's not like there is a big smoke filled room where scientists meet to keep their story straight. They don't have to. The corporate pressure is already there. If someone wants to feel it, just start debating for the relevance of creation.

However, this OP was great and I believe that minds can and are being changed. People who address these issues head on are doing a great work. I might have to check this book out. I always find myself cautiously optimistic, prayerfully anticipatory, and naturally cynical.

#4 Walter ReMine

Walter ReMine

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Age: 99
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saint Paul

Posted 29 August 2009 - 04:39 PM

I have finished reading the main part of The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine. Wow! I would implore all who are interested in origins to read it, or at the very least the appendix 'Survival of the Fittest'. The book's destruction of evolution as science is thorough. The author gets deep into evolutionary thought and shows what it really stands on: naturalism, tautology, special definition, metaphysics and lameness(fails to explain). Where he talks about Punctuated Equilibria and human embryonic gill slits he doesn't just show that they have zero evidence to support them he shows precisely why evolutionists need them to prop up their theory.

I especially like where ReMine takes statements from evolutionists where they are trying to present survival of the fittest and natural selection as scientific concepts. He asks the reader to replace those terms in the evolutionists statements with the word 'astrology' to see how the same logic could be used to defend it as scientific.

Before I read the book I had seen some one describe it as the book evolutionists don't want you to read and now I see why that would be the case. ReMine used to study magic; the art of illusion and how to see through illusion. He applies these skills to evolution and exposes the magicians tricks.



Thank you for the kind words about my book. I am also pleased when people name different chapters as their notable favorite, as that means there are many chapters that people find notable, depending on personal interests.

I have not had the time so far to look properly for arguments against ReMine's book, ... The little I have seen just attacks him personally.


The attacks on my book have taken two forms: (1) misrepresent what I wrote, and (2) attack me personally. I am disappointed that evolutionists attack that way (almost without exception so far). But I also find it encouraging they can't make a better response. Considering the many 'risky' (i.e., testable) claims made in the book, the book would be rather easy to defeat if it were false.

Creation is not merely our best science. It is our only science.
-Walter ReMine


The quote above is near the end of book's conclusion. This is the first time in the book where I felt ReMine had gone too far with his reasoning. But the more I thought about it the more it made sense to me. ReMine shows that what we observe in life must have been set up to deliberately thwart all evolutionary explanations (he refers to evolutionists having to constantly retreat as new data becomes known to us). The way life is requires a designer, a designer who not only made life to function but also look like the product of design. If life existed because of natural laws it would look very different, ReMine's arguments for this are extremely compelling. I can just imagine the thoughts of this designer when designing the butterfly; "Lets see them try to explain this without a designer".


The quote he is referring to (above) indeed comes near the end of my book, so must be understood from what comes before it. The quote is obviously limited to biological origins (not all science issues), since that is what the book is about. In particular, my book uses the very same criteria that evolutionists used in all their court cases -- namely testability -- to identify science from non-science. My book shows, that by the evolutionists' own criteria, Message Theory is testable science, and macro-evolutionary theory is not. That is the meaning of the above quote from my book.

Prior to publication, I did not realize testability would be such a controversial issue among creationists/ID-ists themselves. A great many of them devalue testability or cast it aside altogether, and for those who take that view, the above quote (especially when taken out of context) will seem rather odd.

-- Walter ReMine

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 August 2009 - 05:44 PM

Thank you for the kind words about my book. I am also pleased when people name different chapters as their notable favorite, as that means there are many chapters that people find notable, depending on personal interests. 

The attacks on my book have taken two forms: (1) misrepresent what I wrote, and (2) attack me personally. I am disappointed that evolutionists attack that way (almost without exception so far). But I also find it encouraging they can't make a better response. Considering the many 'risky' (i.e., testable) claims made in the book, the book would be rather easy to defeat if it were false.

View Post


Dr. ReMine,

I've just had the pleasure of perusing your website to see what Ryyker was talking about. The book itself looked impressive, in depth, and like a resource that would be indispensable for the informed apologist/polemicist. I look forward to reading and adding it to my study library.

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 August 2009 - 08:35 PM

Welcome to EFT, Dr. ReMine. I guess I better purchase this book. :D Can we get it through your website?

#7 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 August 2009 - 05:49 PM

The quote he is referring to (above) indeed comes near the end of my book, so must be understood from what comes before it. The quote is obviously limited to biological origins (not all science issues), since that is what the book is about.

View Post

Hi Walter, and welcome to the forums :lol:

To say creation is our only science would be nothing short of moronic, so thanks heaps for clearing that up :huh:

Also I wanted to check, others have referred to you as Dr. ReMine, but (unless I missed it) neither yourself nor the OP did. You are a doctor yes?

Finally, would it be possible to get one of the quotes from you book in regard to this:

I especially like where ReMine takes statements from evolutionists where they are trying to present survival of the fittest and natural selection as scientific concepts. He asks the reader to replace those terms in the evolutionists statements with the word 'astrology' to see how the same logic could be used to defend it as scientific.


Regards,

Arch.

#8 Walter ReMine

Walter ReMine

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Age: 99
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saint Paul

Posted 30 August 2009 - 11:50 PM

Dr. ReMine,

I've just had the pleasure of perusing your website to see what Ryyker was talking about. The book itself looked impressive, in depth, and like a resource that would be indispensable for the informed apologist/polemicist. I look forward to reading and adding it to my study library.



The book is not lite reading. It is for serious students of the origins controversy. The book pursues two goals: (1) The detailed identification (and dismantling) of various evolutionary illusions (these are illusions about the data, and illusions about the structure and status of evolutionary theory itself); and (2) Offering an alternative theory (called Message Theory) that explains all the major patterns of life in a testable scientific manner.

The book shows that Message Theory is testable science, and macro-evolutionary theory is not. Actually, when macro-evolutionary theory makes a clear prediction, it is falsified by the data. So modern evolutionists make their theory structureless, amorphous, ambiguous -- and untestable. By the criteria they themselves used in all their court cases, macro-evolutionary theory is not scientific.

This path -- of showing that evolutionary theory is untestable, and supplying a testable alternative -- is new to creation/ID with my book.

Adam, since you asked -- yes the book is available through the publisher's website (preferred), or through ARN or CRSQ or AIG, also through many libraries where the book has been donated for your convenience.

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 August 2009 - 02:43 AM

The book is not lite reading. It is for serious students of the origins controversy. The book pursues two goals: (1) The detailed identification (and dismantling) of various evolutionary illusions (these are illusions about the data, and illusions about the structure and status of evolutionary theory itself); and (2) Offering an alternative theory (called Message Theory) that explains all the major patterns of life in a testable scientific manner.

The book shows that Message Theory is testable science, and macro-evolutionary theory is not. Actually, when macro-evolutionary theory makes a clear prediction, it is falsified by the data. So modern evolutionists make their theory structureless, amorphous, ambiguous -- and untestable. By the criteria they themselves used in all their court cases, macro-evolutionary theory is not scientific.

This path -- of showing that evolutionary theory is untestable, and supplying a testable alternative -- is new to creation/ID with my book.

View Post


Thanks for the information Dr. ReMine. I’m currently perusing double post graduate degrees. One is in Apologetics/Polemics, and though it is more in the historical, logical/philosophical disciplines, an understanding in other disciplines (even if only for reference material) can only be a boon in this field

#10 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 03:42 AM

Thank you for the kind words about my book. I am also pleased when people name different chapters as their notable favorite, as that means there are many chapters that people find notable, depending on personal interests. 
The attacks on my book have taken two forms: (1) misrepresent what I wrote, and (2) attack me personally. I am disappointed that evolutionists attack that way (almost without exception so far). But I also find it encouraging they can't make a better response. Considering the many 'risky' (i.e., testable) claims made in the book, the book would be rather easy to defeat if it were false.

View Post


The way you show how evolutionists protect evolution from being falsified and then so expose message theory to falsification was very striking.

The quote he is referring to (above) indeed comes near the end of my book, so must be understood from what comes before it. The quote is obviously limited to biological origins (not all science issues), since that is what the book is about. In particular, my book uses the very same criteria that evolutionists used in all their court cases -- namely testability -- to identify science from non-science. My book shows, that by the evolutionists' own criteria, Message Theory is testable science, and macro-evolutionary theory is not. That is the meaning of the above quote from my book.

View Post


My apologizes to you and the readers of this forum if anything in my post suggested anything to the contrary. That was certainly not my intention.

Prior to publication, I did not realize testability would be such a controversial issue among creationists/ID-ists themselves. A great many of them devalue testability or cast it aside altogether, and for those who take that view, the above quote (especially when taken out of context) will seem rather odd.

-- Walter ReMine

View Post


Yes, I find it amazing when people talk about science and ignore or downplay testability and expect others to just swallow what they say. If people don't think that the testability of a concept is fundamental to it then that is fine but they should at least be honest enough to not call it scientific.

Well, I finished the book and immediately started reading it from the beginning again, think that is the first time I have ever wanted to do that with a book.

#11 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 04:04 AM

--snip--

Finally, would it be possible to get one of the quotes from you book in regard to this:


I especially like where ReMine takes statements from evolutionists where they are trying to present survival of the fittest and natural selection as scientific concepts. He asks the reader to replace those terms in the evolutionists statements with the word 'astrology' to see how the same logic could be used to defend it as scientific.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Arch, may I resepctfully suggest you read the book for yourself. If you are genuinely interested in being as informed as possible about origins then this book is a must read imho.
I have been following origins for about four years and thought I had pretty much heard all the arguments on both sides but this book blew me away.

Having said that, I will try to get a post together regarding this by the end of the weekend.

#12 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 August 2009 - 09:27 AM

Arch, may I resepctfully suggest you read the book for yourself. If you are genuinely interested in being as informed as possible about origins then this book is a must read imho.
I have been following origins for about four years and thought I had pretty much heard all the arguments on both sides but this book blew me away.

Having said that, I will try to get a post together regarding this by the end of the weekend.

View Post


That would be like pulling teeth… ;)

Personally I think the book is worth a read.

#13 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 04:39 PM

The book shows that Message Theory is testable science, and macro-evolutionary theory is not. Actually, when macro-evolutionary theory makes a clear prediction, it is falsified by the data.

View Post

I'm confused Walter, how can data falsify an untestable theory?

Regards,

Arch.

#14 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 31 August 2009 - 09:40 PM

Welcome to EFT, Dr. ReMine. I guess I better purchase this book.  ;)  Can we get it through your website?

View Post


Adam, it is without a doubt the best creation book I've read. Many notable creation scientists have referenced this book in their own publications, it is a must have for every creationist library.

Fred

#15 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 07 September 2009 - 02:13 AM

This is just one of the numerous gems I found in the book. Here we have an evolution proponent attempting to defend natural selection against the charge that it is untestable. This is in the Appendix to Survival of the Fittest.

Several philosophers opposed to natural selection have stated that it is impossible to falsify any claims made on behalf of natural selection. Here one must make a distinction between the theory of natural selection as such and the application of natural selection to specific cases. As soon as one deals with specific cases, one can make predictions that can be falsified in principle, by testing them against various assumptions. (Mayr, 1982, p 523, italics added)


If we replace natural selection with astrology we get:

Several philosophers opposed to astrology have stated that it is impossible to falsify any claims made on behalf of astrology. Here one must make a distinction between the theory of astrology as such and the application of astrology to specific cases. As soon as one deals with specific cases, one can make predictions that can be falsified in principle, by testing them against various assumptions.

Few would accept this as a valid reason to accept astrology as testable but Mayr uses the exact same logic with natural selection.

Of course this is just one isolated example from the book. Remine's examination of survival of the fittest is utterly revealing.

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 September 2009 - 02:18 AM

Adam, it is without a doubt the best creation book I've read. Many notable creation scientists have referenced this book in their own publications, it is a must have for every creationist library.

Fred

View Post

Thanks. I'm on it. I'm going to see if CSF of Pittsburgh carries it and get it off of them when we get together to listen to Steve Austin.

#17 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 07 September 2009 - 02:48 AM


The book shows that Message Theory is testable science, and macro-evolutionary theory is not. Actually, when macro-evolutionary theory makes a clear prediction, it is falsified by the data.

I'm confused Walter, how can data falsify an untestable theory?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


As I said earlier, the contrast between evolution and Message Theory in regards to testability was striking. Remine makes specific claims about what must be observed and what must not be observed if Message Theory is valid.

What happened when the fossil record did not have the many undeniable transitional fossils that should have been found if evolution were true. Was evolution considered false? Nope. All that was needed was for someone to come up with punctuated equilibrium and evolution went on it's way. Everything between zero and millions of undeniable transitional fossils is accommodated by evolution.

What happened when science revealed that abiogenesis was utterly implausible. Was evolution considered false? Nope. All that was needed was to remove abiogenesis from evolution.

I guess this is why I am so taken with The Biotic Message, one appreciates some solid science after being exposed to evolution for so long.

#18 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 07 September 2009 - 04:09 AM

What happened when science revealed that abiogenesis was utterly implausible.

View Post

When did that happen? do you have any links?

#19 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 September 2009 - 04:37 AM

What happened when the fossil record did not have the many undeniable transitional fossils that should have been found if evolution were true. Was evolution considered false? Nope. All that was needed was for someone to come up with punctuated equilibrium and evolution went on it's way. Everything between zero and millions of undeniable transitional fossils is accommodated by evolution.

View Post


Okay, ignore for the moment that I disagree with the above statement. Either way, you've found data that can prove or disprove evolution. Which completely goes against this statement:

macro-evolutionary theory is not [a testable science]


A lack of transitional fossils would definitely be data against evolution, thus making it possible to disprove, thus making it a valid theory. The logic just doesn't work.

Also, is there any chance you could go over the wording in your quote in post #15? It's just not making a lot of sense to me ;)

Regards,

Arch.

#20 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 September 2009 - 08:22 AM

When did that happen? do you have any links?

View Post

I think this is a funny question. Maybe first we should hear the best news that says it's plausible so we can all stare and wonder at the strength of the faith of the one pronouncing it's plausibility. ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users