CherubRam
New member
Right!
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolution is a falsehood
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Right!
6days
New member
Your disappointment it's a result of you not understanding the difference between a scientific study and beliefs. IE scientific studies might help to show that our DNA is 45% similar to a carrot or 95% similar to a chimp. A common designer, or common ancestry are beliefs they are not scientific studies.Redfern said:
And... yet you do ignore it. In spite of overwhelming genetic evidence against 'monkey' to man beliefs....you still believe.Redfern said:
Your 'question' was silly. Do you want to eat carrots that are not DNA based. DNA in all life is evidencea of our common Designer.Redfern said:
DNA similarity can be interpreted either as a common designer... Or common ancestry. A common designer is the best explanation.Redfern said:
The origin of DNA is foundational to understanding the diversification of life. I understand why evolutionists love to avoid the topic.Redfern said:
Appeal to poplular opinion is maybe your best 'argument'; but, not scientific. Fish evolving into philosophers is a belief ....it is not science.Redfern said:
In the beginning God created
Respect and Civility
Respect and Civility
A few posts back I pointed out to 6days that part of the ToE is the common ancestry of both plants and animals. 6days response was to laugh that idea off as “silly”. To point out to him my feelings on his answer I posted:
6days, you seriously twisted what I said about being disappointed. I suspect I have a better understanding of the nuances of how science works than you do. But my disappointment was very pointedly engendered by you so flippantly dismissing common descent of plants and animals as “silly”, since that is a slap in the face to thousands of the world’s most qualified biologists. If I were to stoop to a similar level of dialogue as you, I might employ terms that characterize all religious believers as just a collection of emotionally weak pathetic cowards who can’t face their own mortality without a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises about a future nirvana. But I can’t follow your sordid lead, since I have long worked with many strongly religious people whose morals are impeccable and who are outstanding scientists.
I had expected that you, who so vociferously defends what you term the “Word of God”, would therefore demonstrate Christian conduct in the way you respond to those who have ideas you disagree with. Clearly I was mistaken in my assessment of you. So 6days, are you willing to proceed:
a) without engaging in gratuitous mockery of people or ideas you disagree with, and
b) not make scientific assertions sans specific evidence backing them?
Respect and Civility
A few posts back I pointed out to 6days that part of the ToE is the common ancestry of both plants and animals. 6days response was to laugh that idea off as “silly”. To point out to him my feelings on his answer I posted:
And 6days' response to that was:
Before proceeding in my discussion with 6days, I want to elevate the level at which the discussion proceeds. To illustrate, I will look at just the beginning of his last response to me.
6days, you seriously twisted what I said about being disappointed. I suspect I have a better understanding of the nuances of how science works than you do. But my disappointment was very pointedly engendered by you so flippantly dismissing common descent of plants and animals as “silly”, since that is a slap in the face to thousands of the world’s most qualified biologists. If I were to stoop to a similar level of dialogue as you, I might employ terms that characterize all religious believers as just a collection of emotionally weak pathetic cowards who can’t face their own mortality without a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises about a future nirvana. But I can’t follow your sordid lead, since I have long worked with many strongly religious people whose morals are impeccable and who are outstanding scientists.
I had expected that you, who so vociferously defends what you term the “Word of God”, would therefore demonstrate Christian conduct in the way you respond to those who have ideas you disagree with. Clearly I was mistaken in my assessment of you. So 6days, are you willing to proceed:
a) without engaging in gratuitous mockery of people or ideas you disagree with, and
b) not make scientific assertions sans specific evidence backing them?
Redfern, with 6 days, Stripe and a # of others here, you are dealing with people who accept as fact that the universe is about 6000 years old. They MUST believe that for theological reasons, not any rational reasons. After being here for a # of years I have no expectation of a reasoned discussion with them, to make the jump to the real world creates an enormous internal conflict and attacks the basis of their person. Sad but true.
6days
New member
You can believe that, just like you believe bacteria can evolve into biologists. Fortunately... science helps dispel false beliefs.
6days
New member
Silly beliefs should be mocked.
Of course... You are always welcome to challenge claims ask for 'backup support'. Will you also agree 'not make scientific assertions sans specific evidence backing them?'
Thanks, Jonahdog. I value my limited time enough that I am reluctant to engage in conversations where nothing more than an interminable series of broad claims and counterclaims get tossed back and forth. But in a few cases I wonder if both sides could cooperatively focus on some specific details that would result in both sides conceding that science does support one side over the other.
A lot of posters are poorly qualified to do more than spout platitudes and irrelevant filler (see CherubRam), but 6days regularly claims that science supports his side and opposes old earth ideas. Can he deliver on his claim?
Unfortunately, in his response to my request for more civility in our postings, 6days indicates he is resistant to cease using one of his favorite tools – mockery. In my scientific career on several occasions I have strongly disagreed with co-workers, and ultimately sometimes I was vindicated, and at other times I had to admit I was wrong. But at no time in my memory do I recall that our disagreements were ever presented as mockery or derision. But here in this so-called “Christian” forum 6days’ support of mockery illuminates a wide gulf between his profession of faith and his actual Christian conduct.
I may tentatively touch on a couple of things 6days included in the post from a couple of days ago, and I would welcome your participation, Jonahdog (as well as anyone else who can participate respectfully and contribute specific information). But I will vacate myself from the conversation if nothing productive is being accomplished.
Unless you are willing to concede a young universe and 6 day creation, you are wasting your time.
The threat to 6 days theology and its connection with his psyche is just too great. Same with Stripe, although I have a sneaky suspicion he may be a Russian bot.
6days, I am going to focus on one recent exchange we had as an acid test to see whether there is any hope in us having a fully honest and respectful exchange of ideas.
You recently said:
You recently said:
I disagreed with your claim, and I tried to be quite specific in determining whether or not it is ridiculous to believe that modern man evolved from previous “lower” life forms. I said:
To answer a scientific question centered on biology I specified that we should draw on the expertise of a wide variety of scientists who are recognized as the world leaders in biological studies. I made no restrictions as to what their theological beliefs were, where in the world they grew up, lived, studied or taught. Here is how 6days responded:
I specify we go to hundreds of the world experts in biology for their conclusions on a scientific question that is core to their fields, and 6 days prostitutes this as just an unscientific “popular opinion”. For 6days to resort to a strawman of this magnitude, then I question that he has any intention of engaging in honest dialogue. I am going to see if 6days has the moral backbone to admit his deceit. If he does I will move on to address some other ideas that that are still hanging from our earlier posts. But if he is unwilling to converse with more integrity than he has so far, then I have no interest in engaging with him.
6days
New member
Good suggestion. However, if you suggest we accept majority / popular opinion as truth, then it is a 'bandwagon' argument.Redfern said:
For example..... Imagine that the majority opinion amongst PhD scientists was that the Earth was flat; however there were several thousand PhD scientists who argued that the Earth was a sphere. you can accept that the world is flat because of majority opinion if you wish, but that does not make it truth.
I accept God's opinion as ultimate truth and the science which supports it... In the beginning God created
Right Divider
Body part
DNA among HUMANS, sure.You should tell the court system that. I'm sure there are a lot of alleged fathers of children out there who would like to know.
HUMANS reproduce to make more HUMANS.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed, you do it all the time.
Outside of finding a new way of saying “an appeal to popular opinion”, I see nothing new in your response. It really is not to your credit to repeatedly use the straw-man trick of making it sound like we are asking a bunch of Joe-blow average off-the street guys for their opinion. Once again, let me repeat what I have (several times) been careful to say – that you go to those who have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD IN BIOLOGY.
I honestly think that, given a scientific question that needs resolution, the best place to start is with those who are the experts in the field. There’s no guarantee that they are right, but at least start with whatever input they can offer. Since you don’t want to do that, who in the scientific community do you suggest going to as a starting point? If not the experts, then who in the scientific community do you want to go to? Do you prefer relying on the opinions of scientific newbies, or perhaps those who are ignorant of science, or even anti-science? Who?
And where did I ask that the opinion of the experts be accepted as truth? I only asked what you, 6days, would expect their answers to be on the question of whether man is a product of evolution. You seem tremendously resistant to giving a simple straightforward answer. What do you think the answer of the experts would be? Just can’t bring yourself to answer?
Since you typify relying on experts as being no more than “an appeal to popular opinion”, does that include the experts that you have forwarded in your arguments? For an example in biological science, several times you have mentioned Kondrashov and others on the subject of VSDMs. Can we dismiss their claims as just “public opinion?” Several times I have seen you get in theological arguments with other Christians over the meaning of “days” during creation week, and you responded with:
“James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.”
Is relying on those professors “of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university” just “an appeal to popular opinion?”
Agreed. There are well-known cases where the majority of the experts were eventually found to be wrong. I know of “scientists” that support your ideas about human evolution, and some that oppose your view.
What on earth are you talking about – “ultimate truth and the science that supports it.” Science helps us increase our confidence in our understandings, but it is not in the business of “truth”, and most certainly nothing so esoteric as “ultimate truth”. I am left to conclude whatever this ephemeral “ultimate truth” is must be your personal belief in what “God’s opinion” is, and that is purely theology, not science.
Science is a methodology that tries to help us understand how the universe works – a methodology that is agreed upon and used by scientists of diverse religious, political, and social leanings. But in your case, you have abrogated any pretense of accepting evidence supporting scientific ideas that conflict with your specific theological beliefs. Did I get that right?
Many times I have seen you make the unqualified claim that science supports your view. So I turn the question back to you – What specific scientific evidence do you have that makes it “ridiculous to believe that fish can evolve into philosophers”?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Although there may be evolution within species it is still the same species.
Dogs will always be dogs and their offspring will always be dogs.
Breeding does not change the species.
CherubRam
New member
Evolution
Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms of life.
If this was true of life, then the links would not be missing.
Note: Ape DNA is not compatible with Human DNA.
6days
New member
Sure! Lets check those experts who have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD IN BIOLOGY who disagree with your belief system also, ok? And... we are talking about beliefs about the past..redfern said:
You can read and find many PhD biologists, geneticists and more who disagree with your beliefs and discuss how evidence supports the Biblical account. For example...Dr. Maciej Giertyc says EVIDENCE is LACKING for common ancestry beliefs 'being also an academic teacher in population genetics, I found it necessary to play down the evolutionary explanations given in textbooks, for the simple reason that I find no evidence to support them. In fact, it was my teaching of population genetics, coupled with the discovery that my children are being taught evolution in secondary school on the claim that population genetics provides evidence for it, that made me enter the debate publicly.redfern said:
I had been taught that palaeontology gives the bulk of the evidence for evolution. To my surprise, I found that evidence is lacking not only in genetics but also in palaeontology, as well as in sedimentology, in dating techniques, and in fact in all sciences.
Of course not. He is however giving a conclusion to be considered... not everyone agrees with his conclusions. If you or I suggested we accept his opinion /conclusion because most agreed with him, then its a 'bandwagon' fallacy argument.redfern said:
Again... your 'argument' is silly. Yes, he is giving his opinion saying all Hebrew or Old Testament profs at all world-class universities agree with him. If you have a expert in Hebrew that disagrees with him... and you want to discuss it... go.redfern said:
The overwhelming deleterious nature of mutations.redfern said:
The Agony of a Simple Answer
The Agony of a Simple Answer
I wonder why 6days is so fanatically resistant to giving a simple and straightforward answer to a simple and straightforward question. Is it some sort of personal psychological barrier that he dare not trespass, or perhaps fear of divine censure for making obvious his wholesale dismissal of the conclusions of the vast majority of practicing biologists across the world?
Several posts back when I first articulated an unambiguous question about going to many of the top biology institutions in the world and asking the top biologists about human evolution, 6days dodged answering by saying that would be an “appeal to popular opinion”. But a popular opinion is a belief shared by most people. If he is right then the answer to the question would reflect the beliefs of most people on the likelihood of humans being an evolved species. Does he really think the answer from most of the common folks would be the same as the answer from most of the experts in biology?
When I pointed out again that it was those scientists who are most technically qualified, and not the commoners, that I specified the question should be posed to, he then termed that as just a “bandwagon” argument. But a bandwagon argument is one in which it is asserted that you should follow the belief of the crowd. I made no assertion as to whether or not 6days should defer to any other person’s (or crowd’s) beliefs. Go back and carefully read what I actually asked of 6days. I only asked him what answer(s) he would expect to receive from those scientists who are best qualified to engage the question of human evolution.
Similarly, he could ask me to go to the pre-eminent Christian theologians for their inputs on a disputed question. Such a request would give me no angst at all.
In my last post to 6days, yet again trying to see if would respond to what I asked, I prodded him by suggesting:
He even had the courtesy to repeat the core of my original question:
But alas, in his reply, he once more diverts to a tangent about an expert in biology who supports his side. But fortuitously, in my previous post I already pointedly said:
He added one more name to the YEC list of experts instead of answering my question. So I give up. As 6days has now made abundantly clear, in fact he either won’t - or can’t - bring himself to give a direct answer to my unambiguous question.
The Agony of a Simple Answer
I wonder why 6days is so fanatically resistant to giving a simple and straightforward answer to a simple and straightforward question. Is it some sort of personal psychological barrier that he dare not trespass, or perhaps fear of divine censure for making obvious his wholesale dismissal of the conclusions of the vast majority of practicing biologists across the world?
Several posts back when I first articulated an unambiguous question about going to many of the top biology institutions in the world and asking the top biologists about human evolution, 6days dodged answering by saying that would be an “appeal to popular opinion”. But a popular opinion is a belief shared by most people. If he is right then the answer to the question would reflect the beliefs of most people on the likelihood of humans being an evolved species. Does he really think the answer from most of the common folks would be the same as the answer from most of the experts in biology?
When I pointed out again that it was those scientists who are most technically qualified, and not the commoners, that I specified the question should be posed to, he then termed that as just a “bandwagon” argument. But a bandwagon argument is one in which it is asserted that you should follow the belief of the crowd. I made no assertion as to whether or not 6days should defer to any other person’s (or crowd’s) beliefs. Go back and carefully read what I actually asked of 6days. I only asked him what answer(s) he would expect to receive from those scientists who are best qualified to engage the question of human evolution.
Similarly, he could ask me to go to the pre-eminent Christian theologians for their inputs on a disputed question. Such a request would give me no angst at all.
In my last post to 6days, yet again trying to see if would respond to what I asked, I prodded him by suggesting:
He even had the courtesy to repeat the core of my original question:
But alas, in his reply, he once more diverts to a tangent about an expert in biology who supports his side. But fortuitously, in my previous post I already pointedly said:
He added one more name to the YEC list of experts instead of answering my question. So I give up. As 6days has now made abundantly clear, in fact he either won’t - or can’t - bring himself to give a direct answer to my unambiguous question.
Darwinists love it when the discussion is over who believes what.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk