Creation vs. Evolution

[Silent Hunter]

Science and Gods Word are always harmonious.

:rotfl:

 

[6days]

Science doesn't tell us who the designer is, but evidence such as functionality and complex codes are evidence of a designer.

Sorry no it isn't. It is evidence for natural functionality and complex codes, nothing more IMO.

We agree that it is evidence.

The functionality of Erv's is evidence. I think you understand that both evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence. (Same DNA, same mutations, the same fossils , the same universe etcetera).

I understand that scientists do all the hard work and then creationists come along and claim the evidence

Perhaps you don't understand science as well as I thought. Creationists and evolutionists work together in the lab.

. But no one doing genuine science (which includes many Christians) takes them seriously any more.

No true Scotsman fallacy...

Your statement is false and shows a lack of understanding. There are creationists in virtually every field of science (microbiologists, geneticists, astrophysicists, geologists etc). Evolutionists and creationists work side by side with little thought about origins.

Contrary to opinion of many evolutionists, the belief in origins contributes nothing to real science. You are unable to name any advancement in science or technology that came about because of the belief in a common ancestor. And perhaps the belief in evolutionary theory has slowed the progress of science. Evolutionary theory lead many to false beliefs that our body had useless vestigial organs. The ToE hindered gene research because evolutionists were sold on ideas such as pangenesis. Evolutionary theory likely slowed medical research, because people believed our DNA was mostly comprised of biological remnants ...98% junk DNA. And... the belief in a common ancestor has lead to extreme suffering in this world. The belief that some people are more highly evolved than others has resulted in genocides.

than they do flat Earthers, ...

Its not an idea from the Bible. The oldest book in the Bible calls earth a sphere fear that hangs in space. Very different ideas than many had back when that was written.
Btw... the current president of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist . If I recall his name is Daniel Shelton. I tried to engage him in dialogue about a year ago re his beliefs. I only received the one email where he described himself as agnostic.

Coming right up....soon as you present empirical evidence of a common ancestor.

Watch the video, the one on ERV's. Parsimony and Occam's Razor greatly favours common descent over any supernatural flim flam

The video is several years old, if its the I seen previously. Newer research tilts the evidence towards the creationist view.

Speaking of supernatural flim flam.... can you believe that once upon a time there was nothing...no energy, no space...then from this nothingness, there was a cold whoosh... then there was everything? Speaking of film flam, can you believe that life comes from non life?

.
The evidence for evolution is abundant. It makes no difference what you think or your opinion of scientists like Ken Miller. Science will continue to progress just fine without you.

Science will continue to progress no matter what people think about origins... correct! Origins is more of a historical science... not empirical science.

That's right, I'm biased toward reality. Scepticism is the heart of the scientific method after all and science is pretty successful at enhancing all our lives through medicine and technology

You continue to confuse your belief about the past with science. .
I agree that science enhances our lives, but no enhancement has ever come about because of Darwinian beliefs in a common ancestor.

And speaking of the scientific method... it was in large part developed by a creationist.

Yeah... I think its sort of a meaningless term.
Sort of like 'evolution science' would be a fuzzy meaningless definition.

Except The Theory of Evolution is an actual science theory and creationism is a religious notion built of ancient creation myths

Creationism is based on Gods Word contained in the History Book of the Universe (the Bible), and supported by science.

We agree!
Good, on that note I'm done with this. I don't do long drawn out, repetitive conversations that go on for weeks and go no where. You're not going to change my view nor I yours.

You are correct...we won't change each others mind. But, I enjoyed your good replies to my comments.

I'll be interested to see your reply to nogugu's posts though, assuming you have nothing to fear there. You do seem to be ignoring other posters who have opposed your views in this thread.

I have only made comments to you so far, along with few to Michel. I don't mind replying to anyone if I have time. However I likely won't reply much to nogugu unless I see apologies to Michael. Nogugu is simply a internet bully. If he / she wants to apologize to Michael and promise to stop slandering others, I will gladly reply.

Thanks for the chat......

and sincere thanks to you!

 

[alwight]

There are creationists in virtually every field of science (microbiologists, geneticists, astrophysicists, geologists etc). Evolutionists and creationists work side by side with little thought about origins.

Generally imo creationist scientists typically seem to be say chemists or those who work in fields outside of the natural sciences.
Anyway how would that work then if say a creationist "natural scientist" points out to his "evolutionist" colleagues that something they've just jointly concluded using the scientific method is actually contrary to the literal Genesis narrative account?
Do they all just hit their foreheads and agree that their findings must therefore be wrong and get on with something else? :doh:


Project Steve

 

[Hedshaker]

Dreadful post wiped from history......

 

[dave3712]

True.
Creationism is the belief that God created. We know its true because its in Gods Word, the Bible.
Science is what God created for us to discover the world around us. Modern science is rooted in Christianity and the Biblical belief that God created our universe in an orderly fashion that could be discovered and understood.

So, Michael. You are correct that there is such a thing as creationism and science. Sometimes creationists can make mistakes in what they say or believe. However, Gods Word never makes mistakes. Science and Gods Word are always harmonious.

There WERE seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the geological Eras.



1. Formative/Cosmologic Era-Hadean Era/ = First Day

(This was a 9 billion year long duration until the formless matter of the Earth appeared and gradually record the History of the Earth in these rock layers):

2. Hadean Era-Archaean Era/ = Second Day

3. Archaean Era-Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day

4. Proterozoic Era-Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day

5. Paleozoic Era-Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day

6. Mesozoic Era-Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day

7. Cenozoic Era-Common Era/ = Seventh Day

 

[noguru]

Actually noguru is very smart. You would be foolish to ignore his comments.

Thanks.

And as you noted, I am not bullying 6gays. I have not threatened him with any malice if he does not agree. I am simply throwing out a challenge to him to put his money where his mouth is. He talks a good game (even that is debatable because it is obvious that his understanding of science, the history of, and its developed methodology is deplorable), but only on a superficial and very empty level. There is no substance behind his words, that is why he will not respond to my posts. He is bluffing. And he is too much of a coward to get his hands dirty or admit his error. People like that are really quite disgusting, I don't care which religion they choose as a label.

 

[6days]

There are creationists in virtually every field of science (microbiologists, geneticists, astrophysicists, geologists etc). Evolutionists and creationists work side by side with little thought about origins.

Generally imo creationist scientists typically seem to be say chemists or those who work in fields outside of the natural sciences.
Anyway how would that work then if say a creationist "natural scientist" points out to his "evolutionist" colleagues that something they've just jointly concluded using the scientific method is actually contrary to the literal Genesis narrative account?
Do they all just hit their foreheads and agree that their findings must therefore be wrong and get on with something else?

Thanks for the fun question. I had a laugh as I imagined all the creationists in the room saying " Well, would you look at that. We were wrong" (or all the evolutionists in the room saying that). That isn't going to happen though, because no matter what the data says, the two different sides interpret the data to fit their worldview.
Example 1....the creationist
Evolutionists said that a proof of evolution was true is that our appendix was a useless evolutionary left over, a biological remnant. The creation scientists didn't just throw up their hands and say "game over".
I know of two possible explanations creationists gave about the " useless" appendix. One explanation turned out to be correct.... we had incomplete knowledge and our appendix actually is useful.
Example 2...the evolutionist
DNA has been found in various organisms. I think the oldest was dated by evolutionist at 130 million years old. ( it may be more or less than that I am doing this from memory)
In recent years it was discovered that DNA has a half life. If DNA was preserved in ideal conditions, it would be completely gone in a couple million years. Its impossible the organism is 130 million years. Did evolutionists throw up their hands and say " our model is wrong" ha...no! They come up with explanations to preserve their model.

Re your comment about most creationist scientists being outside of the "natural sciences"...there actually are quite a few creationists in the natural sciences. Some grew up believing God created....others have grew up as evolutionists and have switched camps. Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionist and science wtiter is concerned about 'the increasingly unmanageable problem of high-level academic defectors from evolutionary theory' (Not just creationist defectors but secular ones)
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...ther-new-anti-evolution-book-by-thomas-nagel/
A funny line from Coyne is that the secular opposition to the ToE is coming from molecular biologists. He suggests they perhaps don't have a good enough education in evolution!
Perhaps these scientists have superior knowledge than Coyne does about life at the most elemental levels.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear gcthomas,

Bats are not less related to rodents than they are to humans. If bats don't have continually growing incisors, it is because God did not give them such teeth. Are you skeptical? I think that hedshaker would suffocate if he had to learn too much more about how 6days wipes him up with a Bounty Paper Towel.

God Give You What You Deserve, Always,

MichaelC

 

[MichaelCadry]

Generally imo creationist scientists typically seem to be say chemists or those who work in fields outside of the natural sciences.
Anyway how would that work then if say a creationist "natural scientist" points out to his "evolutionist" colleagues that something they've just jointly concluded using the scientific method is actually contrary to the literal Genesis narrative account?
Do they all just hit their foreheads and agree that their findings must therefore be wrong and get on with something else? :doh:


Project Steve

Dear Alwight,

The chance of that happening is most unlikely, but I'm sure if it happened, they would study it more to make sure. Science has found salt, sugar, chocolate caffeine, butter, etc. to be not good for you, but then they say it turns out that many are okay after all. Now Stevia may be a great resort to sugar, but it causes sleepiness in some. Mix some caffeine with it and you've got a great cola. I'm not trying to get off the subject with you, but just talking about science, etc., besides Creationism or Evolutionism Science. Just a little break from it all. I mean if my ancestors could eat butter and honey, then so can I. I'm not going to worry about it at all!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

I am 58 years old.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

I am not wrong 5 out of 6 times. That's just your words, not the truth!! You've made it up for your own delight!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

It might be very helpful to you to go without DELAY and read my post no. 928 on Page 62. It won't take that long. Please consider it.

Thanks very much buddy,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear hedshaker,

There must be evolutionists, because this site here tells you when you are spelling a word wrong, and it has no trouble with the word evolutionists. Would you rather was called them Darwinists? Now that does not compute as being a word.

Have fun twisting 6days words around. It's either his or mine. You remind me of a follower of the Baha'i faith, (similar to Islam). The way you twist words, etc.

Sure, I don't know what I'm talking about!!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear hedshaker and noguru,

Hedshaker, the only reason you're so fond of noguru is because he sides with you in your evolutionist's beliefs and other pooh. Let the Christian ask Christ what he thinks of His Father, the Creator of the Earth, and Sea, and Heaven and the Universe. Read Revelation 14:7. God says there that He created the earth and the heaven, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. And that He created man in His Own Image. Now if the Bible says that God created man, where does that leave you, noguru and hedshaker, and Alwight, etc.?? You are on your last leg before God proves Himself to all of the world's people. Then you shall Bow to Him. It is written, and All knees shall bow to Him. What of that noguru. How smart is that?? Yep, you're really smart. I wouldn't follow you straight into Hell. That wouldn't be smart.

 

[freelight]

metaphysics............

metaphysics............

~*~*~


Greetings all,

Just a recap of my former sharings here for newbies to the thread

So far the 'contest' between creation and evolution continues, yet on another level is unnesessary...since Life is....and it evolves by a dynamic intrinsic to its own nature, in whatever form or conception.

Creation is continuously unfolding, which must include its source, call it 'God' or any other name, title or pro-noun. - what you call it or how you contextualize it will depend on your current point of view, belief, world-view, proclivities, etc. All points of view or beliefs are subject to change.

In-joy!



pj

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear hedshaker and noguru,

Hedshaker, the only reason you're so fond of noguru is because he sides with you in your evolutionist's beliefs and other pooh.

Actually you're wrong and you're judging others by your own low standards. I find noguru's posts honest, informative and generally on the button. There is only one thing we disagree on, theism and that's about beliefs not science.

But don't let that stop you telling me how I think. You already do future predictions via a personal angel so why not add psychic mind reading into the mix

 

[alwight]

Thanks for the fun question. I had a laugh as I imagined all the creationists in the room saying " Well, would you look at that. We were wrong" (or all the evolutionists in the room saying that).

:e4e:

That isn't going to happen though, because no matter what the data says, the two different sides interpret the data to fit their worldview.

That might be the creationist way of doing things but rigorous science doesn't work that way. Peer reviewed science cannot exist without facts, testable evidence and the scientific method but creationist assertions have shown to be worthless hot air when compared to the same measures. Peer reviewed science is worthy because it is falsifiable (makes falsifiable claims), while creationism is unworthy because it is not (it makes no falsifiable claims).

Example 1....the creationist
Evolutionists said that a proof of evolution was true is that our appendix was a useless evolutionary left over, a biological remnant. The creation scientists didn't just throw up their hands and say "game over".

They wouldn't do that simply because of what I said earlier, if the science seems to say something that is contrary to Genesis they can simply deem science wrong because it is automatically trumped by scripture, "game over", however good the science was. Creationists are apparently quite content with that sort of "thinking".

I know of two possible explanations creationists gave about the " useless" appendix. One explanation turned out to be correct.... we had incomplete knowledge and our appendix actually is useful.

Yes that's just how it goes, some hidden unknown purpose is presumed (un-evidenced) to exist by creationists as the supposed actual explanation, because simply being what it appears to be, a vestigial organ, would be evidence of evolution and that simply can't be allowed to be true because it goes against a literally interpreted Genesis, game over.

Example 2...the evolutionist
DNA has been found in various organisms. I think the oldest was dated by evolutionist at 130 million years old. ( it may be more or less than that I am doing this from memory)
In recent years it was discovered that DNA has a half life. If DNA was preserved in ideal conditions, it would be completely gone in a couple million years. Its impossible the organism is 130 million years. Did evolutionists throw up their hands and say " our model is wrong" ha...no! They come up with explanations to preserve their model.

No it means that in the light of more recent evidence it has been found that DNA can be recovered from further back in time than they had previously thought possible. I thought it was now from about 80 million years ago btw, but clearly it wasn't T-Rex "soft tissue" as creationists were claiming I believe. Everything in science needs evidence to support it and up until recently such evidence was unknown so they kept it to a more conservative and supportable estimate rather than risk making fanciful wild claims and bald assertions.

Re your comment about most creationist scientists being outside of the "natural sciences"...there actually are quite a few creationists in the natural sciences. Some grew up believing God created....others have grew up as evolutionists and have switched camps. Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionist and science wtiter is concerned about 'the increasingly unmanageable problem of high-level academic defectors from evolutionary theory' (Not just creationist defectors but secular ones)
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...ther-new-anti-evolution-book-by-thomas-nagel/
A funny line from Coyne is that the secular opposition to the ToE is coming from molecular biologists. He suggests they perhaps don't have a good enough education in evolution!
Perhaps these scientists have superior knowledge than Coyne does about life at the most elemental levels.

I wonder if you took a look at that "Project Steve" link I left before? :think:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Hedshaker,

Oh, I could make a prediction about you alright, but you wouldn't like it. And I don't want to get banned for saying such a thing, which I don't plan on doing. Where you go after this life of yours ends is God's guess, you know, my invisible Friend?? I don't need the wind to blow to let me know it exists, even though I can't see it with my eyes. You won't read my book so why should I suffer your videos??

God Giveth and He Taketh Away,

MichaelC

 

[6days]

:e4e:
No it means that in the light of more recent evidence it has been found that DNA can be recovered from further back in time than they had previously thought possible. I thought it was now from about 80 million years ago btw, but clearly it wasn't T-Rex "soft tissue" as creationists were claiming I believe.

It wasn't T-rex material inside a T-rex bone? Somebody must have slipped some more recent DNA in trying to fool evolutionists?
There has been soft tissue found in iguanadon bones dated at 120 million years. Without doing a search, I think there has been soft tissue, and DNA found in fossils that evolutionists dated even older than that. But in any case... the half life of DNA is only a little more than 500 years. REAL science suggests that when DNA is found in things dated millions of years..... that there dates are whacked. Its impossible. But evolutionists MUST maintain the dating to maintain their theory.
This is just one of many many things in recent years that is causing some hard core evolutionists to look for alternative explanations to ToE.
If you wish, I should be able to provide you citations on decay rates etc, and where Schweitzer and others claim the soft tissue is genuine

:
I wonder if you took a look at that "Project Steve" link I left before? :think:

Not recently... I have looked it over before though.
I assume you mention it because of the Dissent from Darwin thing?
I didn't bring that up... but it is impressive that over 700 scientists all with PhD have stuck their necks out signing that statement. I know of some PhD creationists who can't be bothered as it exposes them to risk.

 

[6days]

Dear 6days,

It might be very helpful to you to go without DELAY and read my post no. 928 on Page 62. It won't take that long. Please consider it.

Thanks very much buddy,

Michael

I did rely to part of your comment. I would reply more in private message but I can't figure out how to do that.