Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
Sad to see after all this time that Wolfie hasn't budged an inch. Let's not pretend this is about science. If there's any unquestionable element to your position, there is no science. If I say that evolution occurs via mutation, drift and selection, that can be questioned, pulled apart and hypothetically it can be falsified. It is specific and testable. That is science.
Starting with the simultaneously vague and unquestionable "God did it", with the rule that any evidence to the contrary is false and then proceeding from that point to find out merely how God did it... that is the polar opposite of science. Unless the the assumption of its practitioners is that the creation bit is falsifiable, "creation science" is an oxymoron.
I also asked you some questions a good while ago Wolfie, which you never answered. I asked you to explain, if variation does not come about via mutation, descent with modification and selection, why we find that the life forms of Earth, particular the eukarya, have a nested tree relationship in terms of their traits? This is the opposite of what would be expected if life originated from multiple original species, the "created kinds". The second was how the number of species currently in existence could have come into being from the limited species saved in the flood (example being 140,000+ moth and butterfly species from a single species) and why nobody ever recorded the emergence of thousands of new species per year in the time since then? Add to that the number of species found in the fossil record, which you would claim were killed in the flood. How did so many species originate from the relatively few created kinds over the course of just a couple of thousand years before the flood?0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Starting with the simultaneously vague and unquestionable "God did it", with the rule that any evidence to the contrary is false and then proceeding from that point to find out merely how God did it... that is the polar opposite of science. Unless the the assumption of its practitioners is that the creation bit is falsifiable, "creation science" is an oxymoron.
The worst thing is that they actually do believe that and they don't see anything wrong with believing it and they think thats 'science'.0 -
The worst thing is that they actually do believe that and they don't see anything wrong with believing it and they think thats 'science'.
Science to some people means doing experiments and wearing a lab coat... or other such vague definitions. The definition of science ended up being a pivotal point in the Dover trial in 2005. Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe found himself forced to concede that by the definitions of "science" and "theory" that he and the Discovery Institute were using, astrology also could be defined as such. Which would not go down well with most Christians I suspect.0 -
....by believing in something that has NEVER been observed (new information being spontaneously generated) ... Evolutionists are firmly in the 'astrologer' category !!!:eek::)AtomicHorror wrote: »Science to some people means doing experiments and wearing a lab coat... or other such vague definitions. The definition of science ended up being a pivotal point in the Dover trial in 2005. Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe found himself forced to concede that by the definitions of "science" and "theory" that he and the Discovery Institute were using, astrology also could be defined as such. Which would not go down well with most Christians I suspect.
...on the other hand, Creation Science is in the forensic science category!!!!:)0 -
Advertisement
-
...NONE!!!:(LOL
What possible movitation would the millionaire Ken Ham have for lying to the public
...money makes the world go around ... and it is a necessaity for everyone (including Christians) in order to settle their bills!!!Funny how all these things end up really being about money ...
...why this puritanical attitude to money, Wicknight?
...or is it only Ken Ham's money that causes you to break out in 'judgemental spots'?!!!:eek:
...the most judgemental, intolerant and puritanical people I meet are very often 'pseudo-liberals' ... when their 'pet' ideas are seriously challenged!!!0 -
...sees design and tries to explain it by materialistic mechanisms ... and fails!!!!Human Spine Ideal...you gotta be kidding me!
NO ALL KNOWING ENGINEER WOULD DESIGN A MACHINE LIKE OUR SPINES
Anyways, here is a simple enough explanation of how evolution caused backpain by bad spine curving...
...gleefully ignores the fact that intestinal torsion is MORE COMMON in quadrapeds than bipedal Humans ... but claims the opposite.
...quibbles over backpain (which is consistent with a fallen formerly-perfect Creation) but doesn't even attempt to explain how even one biochemical in the back could have arisen spontaneously ... to say nothing about the backbone itself or indeed the Human Being him/herself!!!
...completely baffled by why we are bipedal!!!!
....he then tries to explain the relatively short lives of Human Beings by attributing improved reproductive performance to people who die young!!!!
...a recipe for poorer reproductive success, if ever I saw one, in a mammal with highly dependent offspring, like Human Beings!!!
...also has no expanatory power to explain why men die younger than women ... when men can successfully reproduce into their 90s and women stop at 50!!!
...he then states that he questioned some of the wilder evolutionist ideas on ageing when he was an undergraduate ... but eventually ended up accepting a theory on calcium deposition that has no basis in reality and doesn't actually explain ageing!!!!:D
....but admits that 20 year-olds have the potential to live to 1,000 years ... just like the earliest Humans did before the Flood fundamentally changed our environment - and reduced our longevity to an average of about 70 years!!!:D0 -
....by believing in something that has NEVER been observed (new information being spontaneously generated) ... Evolutionists are firmly in the 'astrologer' category !!!:eek::)
...on the other hand, Creation Science is in the forensic science category!!!!:)
In forensics, the identity or even existence of the criminal is falsifiable by examination of the evidence. For creation science to be comparable, both the identity and the existence of the creator must be potentially falsifiable. What evidence, hypothetically, would falsify the involvement of an intelligent creator in the creation of life?0 -
Still no comments on the answers to your 21 Questions? Planning to ignore that awkward little post forever?...sees design and tries to explain it by materialistic mechanisms ... and fails!!!!
Try this for once. Rather than simply denying something, form an argument. Why is the video wrong? What points are contradicted and by what evidence? Convince us.0 -
...many times the identity of the criminal is NEVER established ... but the fact that a criminal committed the crime still remains a certainty ... because we identify the action of an 'intelligence' in the complexity and specificity of the evidence at the crime scene!!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »In forensics, the identity or even existence of the criminal is falsifiable by examination of the evidence. For creation science to be comparable, both the identity and the existence of the creator must be potentially falsifiable. What evidence, hypothetically, would falsify the involvement of an intelligent creator in the creation of life?
...similarly the complexity and specificity of living systems is infallible evidence of the action of an 'intelligence' as well!!!:)
...the falsifiability of the hypothesis 'that somebody did it' is the same whether we are examining a crime scene .. or a living organism ... and it is determined by whether the 'hallmark sign' of intelligent activity ... which is complex specificity, is present or not!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
...many times the identity of the criminal is NEVER established ... but the fact that a criminal committed the crime still remains a certainty ... because we identify the action of an 'intelligence' in the complexity and specificity of the evidence at the crime scene!!!!
You are wrong and you miss the point. The evidence must have the capacity to establish that an intelligence is not involved. People die by accident and natural causes, objects go missing. If the evidence used does not have the power to show this when it is the case, to falsify the existence of the criminal, then the evidence is worthless and the investigator is not performing science. If the assumption is that a crime has been committed cannot itself be questioned either in principle or in practice using the available evidence, then we are not talking about science....similarly the complexity and specificity of living systems is infallible evidence of the action of an 'intelligence' as well!!!:)
You've avoided my question. What evidence would hypothetically show the non-existence or non-involvement of the creator?0 -
...really competent criminals try to 'cover their tracks' by trying to eliminate any evidence of a complex specific nature that can be linked to themselves or discovered at the crime scene.AtomicHorror wrote: »You are wrong and you miss the point. The evidence must have the capacity to establish that an intelligence is not involved. People die by accident and natural causes, objects go missing. If the evidence used does not have the power to show this when it is the case, to falsify the existence of the criminal, then the evidence is worthless and the investigator is not performing science. If the assumption is that a crime has been committed cannot itself be questioned either in principle or in practice using the available evidence, then we are not talking about science.
If your valuable French Vase is missing, this may simply be because it has fallen behind the sofa due to a gust of wind ... but if it isn't in the house and an external window is broken, the complex specificity of such evidence indicates the action of an intelligence and therefore a crime. A competent thief cannot avoid the fact that your vase will be missing but they will try to avoid leaving any more complex specific evidence at the crime scene such as a broken window or a possible DNA sample.
On the other hand God wanted to show that 'He Did It' ... and therefore He has left DNA ... and many other biochemicals ... all over the place (within all higher living organisms)!!!!
...the absence of complex specificity in living organisms would be pretty infallible evidence of the non-existence and/or non-involvement of a creator ... just like the presence of complex specificity in living organisms is infallible evidence of the existence and/or involvement of an intelligent creator.:cool::)AtomicHorror wrote: »You've avoided my question. What evidence would hypothetically show the non-existence or non-involvement of the creator?0 -
On the other hand God wanted to show that 'He Did It' ... and therefore He has left DNA ... and many other biochemicals ... all over the place (within all higher living organisms)!!!!
Wait, are you saying that DNA is NOT in ALL living organisms???
What on earth do you mean by Higher Organisms?0 -
...really competent criminals try to 'cover their tracks' by trying to eliminate any evidence of a complex specific nature that can be linked to themselves or discovered at the crime scene.
If your valuable french vase is missing, this may simply be because it has fallen behind the sofa due to a gust of wind ... but if it isn't in the house and an external window is broken, the complex specificity of such evidence indicates the action of an intelligence and therefore a crime. A competent thief cannot avoid the fact that your vase will be missing but they will try to avoid leaving any more complex specific evidence at the crime scene such as a broken window or a possible DNA sample.
Again, missing the point and getting bogged down in the analogy. The point is still that in forensics, the capacity to falsify the involvement or existence of a criminal must exist or the entire thing is pointless. What good is forensic science if it lacks the power to tell us when a crime has not been committed?On the other hand God wanted to show that 'He Did It' ... and therefore He has left DNA ... and many other biochemicals ... all over the place (within all higher living organisms)!!!!
God could conceivably leave any evidence He liked or none at all. You're just stating what we do see and claiming it is evidence of intelligent intervention. You might as well say that existence itself is evidence of God. And on top of that you're claiming to know God's intentions.
The evidence cited also supports evolution, except that evolution also explains the evidence and predicts new evidence, which we frequently find....the absence of complex specificity in living organisms would be pretty infallible evidence of the non-existence and/or non-involvement of a creator ...
Nonsense. You could argue that you merely have not yet found or cannot yet detect the required complexity. Or simply claim that God does not work that way, but instead favours simplicity. Since you don't define God, his preferences or his behaviour in exact terms, you can't actually falsify his involvement.just like the presence of complex specificity in living organisms is infallible evidence of the existence and/or involvement of an intelligent creator.:cool::)
Still dodging the question. Detail just one positive, verifiable piece of evidence which would falsify the involvement of an intelligent Creator in the formation of life. Not the absence of anything, but the presence of something. If you can do that then maybe you've got some science.0 -
-
...some viruses contain RNA
Not really a relevant point but viruses aren't life forms, higher or lower. They have no metabolic functions outside of host cells and no capacity for independent self replication. Not sure what Malty's point is though... all known life forms have a DNA genome, but that doesn't argue against your position. Though it does support common descent, sort-of.0 -
... such forensic science is no good ... and your point is???AtomicHorror wrote: »Again, missing the point and getting bogged down in the analogy. The point is still that in forensics, the capacity to falsify the involvement or existence of a criminal must exist or the entire thing is pointless. What good is forensic science if it lacks the power to tell us when a crime has not been committed?
... God could have hidden His Creation activities ... but He chose to provide such evidence of His Creation that anybody who denies the evidence will be without excuse ... and I do know God's intentions ... because it says so in His Word!!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »God could conceivably leave any evidence He liked or none at all. You're just stating what we do see and claiming it is evidence of intelligent intervention. You might as well say that existence itself is evidence of God. And on top of that you're claiming to know God's intentions.
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 ¶ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
....The God of The Bible has said that the evidence of His Creative Act would be obvious for everybody to see ... so even though, in general, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - the absence of evidence, in the case of living organisms, would be infallible evidence of the non-existence of the Creator God of the Bible!!!:)AtomicHorror wrote: »You could argue that you merely have not yet found or cannot yet detect the required complexity. Or simply claim that God does not work that way, but instead favours simplicity. Since you don't define God, his preferences or his behaviour in exact terms, you can't actually falsify his involvement.
...observing a materialistic process spontaneously producing Complex Specified Information would be positive evidenceAtomicHorror wrote: »Still dodging the question. Detail just one positive, verifiable piece of evidence which would falsify the involvement of an intelligent Creator in the formation of life. Not the absence of anything, but the presence of something. If you can do that then maybe you've got some science.0 -
...I tried to avoid off-point nit-picking by not making the claim that all living organisms contain DNA ... but now you are nit-picking about viruses not being 'living organisms' ... just shows how closely everything I say is examined by you guys!!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »Not really a relevant point but viruses aren't life forms, higher or lower. They have no metabolic functions outside of host cells and no capacity for independent self replication. Not sure what Malty's point is though... all known life forms have a DNA genome, but that doesn't argue against your position. Though it does support common descent, sort-of.0 -
Just clarifying...
I was asking what JC meant by Higher living organisms. I got the impression from that expression that he may have thought that 'lower' organisms had no DNA.
Anyways, What do you mean by Higher living organisms?0 -
...I tried to avoid off-point nit-picking by not making the claim that all living organisms contain DNA ... but now you are nit-picking about viruses not being 'living organisms' ... just shows how closely everything I say is examined by you guys!!!!
It was an aside really. I figured you probably know the difference between virus, prokaryote and eukaryote.... such forensic science is no good ... and your point is???
My point is that comparing forensic science to creationism is nonsense unless creationism provides a possible way to demonstrate that no intelligent agent was involved in the formation of life.... God could have hidden His Creation activities ... but He chose to provide such evidence of His Creation that anybody who denies the evidence will be without excuse ... and I do know God's intentions ... because it says so in His Word!!!!
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 ¶ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
If this is science we're talking about, why do you need to quote scripture?....The God of The Bible has said that the evidence of His Creative Act would be obvious for everybody to see ... so even though, in general, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - the absence of evidence, in the case of living organisms, would be infallible evidence of the non-existence of the Creator God of the Bible!!!:)
If it's as obvious as the bible says, why is there so much contradictory evidence? I mean, early geologists set out expecting, even fully assuming, that they would find evidence of the Flood. But they found instead a world hundreds of millions of years old. These were bright people, most of them faithful Christians. But the "truth" was not obvious to them. Why do you guys have to ignore or "re-interpret" so much basic observational evidence to make an argument for intelligent intervention?...observing a materialistic process spontaneously producing Complex Specified Information would be positive evidence
How would you demonstrate that the creator did not do it? How does he normally create Complex Specified Information?0 -
Advertisement
-
...Higher Living Organisms in this context, is everything other than viruses.Just clarifying...
I was asking what JC meant by Higher living organisms. I got the impression from that expression that he may have thought that 'lower' organisms had no DNA.
Anyways, What do you mean by Higher living organisms?0 -
..OKAtomicHorror wrote: »It was an aside really. I figured you probably know the difference between virus, prokaryote and eukaryote.
...it does....AtomicHorror wrote: »My point is that comparing forensic science to creationism is nonsense unless creationism provides a possible way to demonstrate that no intelligent agent was involved in the formation of life.
....the absence of complex specificity in living organisms would be pretty infallible evidence of the non-existence and/or non-involvement of a creator ... just like the presence of complex specificity in living organisms is infallible evidence of the existence and/or involvement of an intelligent creator.
...and observing a materialistic process spontaneously producing Complex Specified Information would be positive evidence for the non-existence and/or non-involvement of a creator.
... I did so to define the characterisitics of the God whose existence and actions we are scientifically evaluating ....and because you asked the folowing theological question....If this is science we're talking about, why do you need to quote scripture?
"God could conceivably leave any evidence He liked or none at all. You're just stating what we do see and claiming it is evidence of intelligent intervention. You might as well say that existence itself is evidence of God. And on top of that you're claiming to know God's intentions"
...they are objectively wrong...and most of the so-called 'early geologists' to which you refer, were either atheists and/or gnostics.If it's as obvious as the bible says, why is there so much contradictory evidence? I mean, early geologists set out expecting, even fully assuming, that they would find evidence of the Flood. But they found instead a world hundreds of millions of years old. These were bright people, most of them faithful Christians. But the "truth" was not obvious to them. Why do you guys have to ignore or "re-interpret" so much basic observational evidence to make an argument for intelligent intervention?
....we're not evaluating the evidence for how God did it ... we are evaluating the evidence that He did it!!!How would you demonstrate that the creator did not do it? How does he normally create Complex Specified Information?
...the absence of complex specificity in living organisms would be pretty infallible evidence of the non-existence and/or non-involvement of a creator ... just like the presence of complex specificity in living organisms is infallible evidence of the existence and/or involvement of an intelligent creator.
...and observing a materialistic process spontaneously producing Complex Specified Information would be positive evidence for the non-existence and/or non-involvement of a creator.0 -
AtomicHorror said:
As I have often pointed out, my position involves both religion and science. Your problem is in not distinguishing between them.Sad to see after all this time that Wolfie hasn't budged an inch. Let's not pretend this is about science. If there's any unquestionable element to your position, there is no science. If I say that evolution occurs via mutation, drift and selection, that can be questioned, pulled apart and hypothetically it can be falsified. It is specific and testable. That is science.
It would be only religion if we did not present scientific argument as to why the evidence to the contrary is false. We do however, and of course it is not the evidence that is false, but your interpretation of it.Starting with the simultaneously vague and unquestionable "God did it", with the rule that any evidence to the contrary is false and then proceeding from that point to find out merely how God did it... that is the polar opposite of science.
Not at all. Unless you mean we all must regard known facts as falsifiable. For example, water vapourises given sufficient heat. Is that falsifiable? If so, then so too is the creation bit. It is a truth known to all to whom it has been revealed.Unless the assumption of its practitioners is that the creation bit is falsifiable, "creation science" is an oxymoron.
Several points:I also asked you some questions a good while ago Wolfie, which you never answered. I asked you to explain, if variation does not come about via mutation, descent with modification and selection, why we find that the life forms of Earth, particular the eukarya, have a nested tree relationship in terms of their traits? This is the opposite of what would be expected if life originated from multiple original species, the "created kinds".
1. Variation does come about via mutation, descent with modification and selection. Flies, dogs, horses,etc. all vary in this manner. My claim is that they do not vary beyond their kind - dogs do not vary to become non-dogs, etc.
2. Some of the nesting would cover variation within kinds.
3. Some of the nesting would be covered by design similiarity - no need to design a new way of doing it for every organism.
4. The nesting model is not the straight-forward tree commonly presented. It has many non-fits that descent does not account for.
Rapid speciation, the ability for which was part of the original kind. And who was to comment on such changes? Was it an issue back then? How much of what was written has survived?The second was how the number of species currently in existence could have come into being from the limited species saved in the flood (example being 140,000+ moth and butterfly species from a single species) and why nobody ever recorded the emergence of thousands of new species per year in the time since then? Add to that the number of species found in the fossil record, which you would claim were killed in the flood. How did so many species originate from the relatively few created kinds over the course of just a couple of thousand years before the flood?
That rapid speciation can occur even today is evident:
Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists
http://creation.com/brisk-biters
Speciation conference brings good news for creationists
http://creation.com/speciation-conference-brings-good-news-for-creationists
But for a more detailed explanation of the creationist understanding of speciation:
Variation, information and the created kind
http://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind0 -
2Scoops said:
I did, but you refused to recognise the evidence. Let me again offer something:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Creation science is the science presented by a religious group who feel false science threatens their beliefs.
And yet you cannot provide a single example of the former or demonstrate the falsity of the latter...
Science by a creationist group -
Catastrophic Granite Formation
Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusion and Cooling
by Andrew A. Snelling
February 6, 2008
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation
Falsity of evolutionary science:
Comparative similarities: homology
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-homology.asp
In fact, when it comes to many of the similarities among molecules, the theory of evolution is not only weak, it has been falsified. That conclusion was expressed by Colin Patterson19 of the British Museum in an address to leading evolutionists which he gave at the American Museum of Natural History.
Patterson first lamented that his topic, creation and evolution, had been forced on him, and then he acknowledged that he had recently been entertaining non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas. Why? Because, he said, after twenty years of research in evolution, he asked himself to name just one thing about evolution he knew for sure—and he couldn’t come up with anything! When he asked other leading evolutionists, the only thing anyone could come up with was that “convergence is everywhere.” (Remember convergence—similarity without common ancestry—discussed earlier?) Finally, Patterson said with dismay, he was forced to conclude that evolution is an “anti-theory” that generates “anti-knowledge”—a concept full of explanatory vocabulary that actually explains nothing and that even generates a false impression of what the facts are.
Patterson said that he finally awoke, after having been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth all his life, to find that evolutionary theory makes bad systematics (the science of classification). He then proceeded to examine the molecular data as a creationist would, in simple recognition that creationists produce testable hypotheses, and that now he can understand and explain what inferences creationists would draw from the data, without either agreeing or disagreeing with them. What a superb example of healthy scientific skepticism! Patterson is able to see the data regarding homology in their wholeness, and experience the unbridled freedom to wonder not only how but whether evolution occurred!0 -
I'm glad you highlight the fact that an evolutionary presupposition underlies foolish medical approaches to spinal troubles.Human Spine Ideal...you gotta be kidding me!
NO ALL KNOWING ENGINEER WOULD DESIGN A MACHINE LIKE OUR SPINES
Anyways, here is a simple enough explanation of how evolution caused backpain by bad spine curving...
Perfect design, however, has been modified by disease and genetic deterioration since the Fall.0 -
As I have often pointed out, my position involves both religion and science.
Yes, the unquestioning acceptance of religion and the refusal to acknowledge science.I did, but you refused to recognise the evidence. Let me again offer something:
Science by a creationist group -
Catastrophic Granite Formation
Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusion and Cooling
by Andrew A. Snelling
February 6, 2008
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...nite-formation
Falsity of evolutionary science:
Comparative similarities: homology
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...1-homology.asp
You didn't provide any science, as well you know, which we discussed in great detail at the time. This post is no different - 2 more creation essays. Needs moar data.0 -
2Scoops said:
I did, but you refused to recognise the evidence. Let me again offer something:o⋅pin⋅ion [uh-pin-yuhn]
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.ev⋅i⋅dence [ev-i-duhns]
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
You just gave us an opinion. I ask again, show us evidence.0 -
-
Your opinion of what constitutes science and essays may be deficient. but here's a bit more data for you:Yes, the unquestioning acceptance of religion and the refusal to acknowledge science.
You didn't provide any science, as well you know, which we discussed in great detail at the time. This post is no different - 2 more creation essays. Needs moar data.
Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
by Andrew A. Snelling
March 26, 2008
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model0 -
Advertisement
-
monosharp said:
So you delude yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Creation science is the science presented by a religious group who feel false science threatens their beliefs. And they do indeed they fight against anything which goes against their beliefs, including current theories held in reverence by the scientific establishment.
No theory is held in 'reverence' by the scientific establishment. I don't believe evolution because I 'want' to or because I am 'atheist'. My atheism has nothing to do with how I view science.
You are happy to change anything that does not threaten your materialist world-view. If Einstein's corrections made evolution incompatible, you bet he would have been fought tooth & nail.If tomorrow someone brought serious evidence that for example seriously questioned natural selection as a process of evolution then science would change.
Scientists base their knowledge on evidence, it is constantly changing and mistakes are corrected. Scientific theories are not 'beliefs', they are the best explanation using the current evidence at that time.
For example Newtons view on gravity was scientific theory for years, he made some mistakes which were later corrected by Einstein and I'm sure in a few years we'll find that Einstein had made mistakes which will be corrected.
Thats science. We don't hold anything in 'reverence'.
At the very least I would be forced to admit all the evidence appears to contradict my position, and appeal to time to bring new light. Such is the strength Truth gives to its holder. Your lot however seem incapable of acknowledging apparently contrary evidence (with a few honourable exceptions) - showing how insecure your position really is.Thats the main difference. Whether or not you are right or wrong you will always hold your view because its your belief. If we should you 100% irrefutable evidence you will not change and you will find anyway out of accepting it because it goes against your belief.
That's a good example of your insecurity. Creationists are happy to acknowledge evolutionary science as science, albeit mistaken.And that is why creation science is not science.
Unless you are a theistic evolutionist, evolution entails abiogenesis. Are you a theistic evolutionist?Quote:
No, nor do I believe life spontaneously arose from non-life, or any other fairy story. As to religious people believing fairy stories, the world is full of false religion, both of the atheistic and theistic kind. Evolution is one of the main contenders.
Honestly, Why do you assume belief in evolution means belief in abiogenesis ? They really are not the same thing. Its like saying believing in evolution means believing in the big bang. Its not the same thing at all.
Your embarrassment over abiogenesis is a further indicator of the insecurity of your position.
Really? Any of the anti-creationist articles I have read on origins present abiogenesis as the prime candidate. Indeed, it has been defended here by many.If you ask a scientist where does life come from he will say, "We don't know but there are many theories"
If you ask a scientist about the diversity of life he will point you to the theory of evolution.
I'm happy to acknowledge that the last sentence is theology, not science. But the previous sentences were the scientific argument.Quote:
What really matters is not the size of changes, but rather whether changes add information to a creature’s genome. Observational science tells us that all the “evolutionary” changes we observe either keep genetic information constant or reduce it. That’s the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution would require. Furthermore, humans are set apart as a unique created kind in the Genesis account.
Please tell me you do understand that that is not science ?
OK, for argument's sake - Evolution in the sense of first self-replicating molecules-to-Man is a fiction.Quote:
Diversification is a fact. Evolution in the sense of molecules-to-Man is a fiction.
Abigenesis = evolution.
Exactly what Malty_T said, here is a simple enough explanation of how evolution caused backpain by bad spine curving...Quote:
Are you denying that the scientific world held that our curvature was a weakness in itself, due to our supposed move from our ape-like originals?
Who are you talking about here ?
That's one interpretation of the evidence before us. The other is that the design was fine, but the client's behaviour brought degradation and death (the Fall).Quote:
It fits the creationist model. We are meant to have human spines, not ape-like ones. Designed for work and play.
Designed badly.
Evolutionary theory was the foundation of how he viewed our anatomy.From talkorigins.
Williams' treatment for back pain was not based on evolutionary theory. It was based on observations of normal people and people with back pain.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement