Radiometric dating.
Light shift from distant galaxies.
But you know that already. However, you will have some fringe belief that fits your needed theology and you will ignore the evidence.
Been there, done that, Cognitive dissonance at its best.
-
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
Radiometric dating.
Light shift from distant galaxies.
But you know that already. However, you will have some fringe belief that fits your needed theology and you will ignore the evidence.
Been there, done that, Cognitive dissonance at its best.
Except that if you actually read what I said, over and over and over, the only qualification I specified was that they be recognized as experts. I never, nowhere, nada, zero, did not … put any restriction on whether or not the experts believed in common ancestry. It is you that is repeatedly inserting conditions in what makes an expert – conditions that I have been meticulous about not requiring of the experts.
I am sorry you have such a horrific allergic reaction to the suggestion of doing no more than asking the experts, but I think it would show a smidgeon of honesty on your part to tell us what scientists you feel would be more qualified to answer questions about human evolution.
Your statement is certainly an improvement, since honesty is a personal trait I expect of myself even more than I do of others. And indeed I am ignorant of many, maybe even most, subjects. But I am curious, can you clarify what it is that you infer I am willfully ignorant of?
Wonderful, then you do have experts on your side. You had me worried that maybe the last of your experts had finally died off.
I won’t contest for one second that you have identified a scientific issue that is crucial to the question of human evolution, and I admit (again) that I am not technically competent to engage that issue. If you want to claim that as some sort of victory (standing your ground), then please do so.
Do you understand genetics? I have Kondrashov’s classic paper (the “died 100 times over” one), and feel comfortable with most of its mathematic content, but that mathematics is meaningless unless you are competent in understanding the genetic mechanisms it is being applied to. I see terminology in his paper that I have only a nebulous idea of what they mean, and I see terminology completely foreign to me. Which means I am miserably qualified to make any meaningful judgement on whether or not his conclusions are correct.
And yes, I think that you are bluffing if you expect us to believe you have an adequate technical understanding of his paper (or technical papers subsequent to his). If you would like, I can list a number of terms and concepts I don’t understand well, but that Kondrashov relies on. Are you willing to show us that you are technically conversant with them?
A bit overstated, since a whole lot of mutation studies are very amenable to laboratory investigation.
But you do have an advantage inasmuch as you are not prone to rely on “hypothetical answers”. For you, of all the studies, lab reports, books, and such in the world, the most truthful one of all is a book of creation fables passed down from ignorant nomadic societies. You know – that book that includes the account of a donkey engaging in a human language exchange with its owner, and an account of a feller taking up residence inside a really humongous fish for a few days. I think you call that book scripture, and you even claim that:
I admit I have a limited understanding of science, yet I tend to look a little bit askance when asked to believe that science supports domesticated gabby quadrupeds talking in human language, and that a guy that spends a few days immersed in digestive juices, sans oxygen, comes out little the worse for wear. Can you point out what gaps in my scientific knowledge make these stories in scripture anything other than embarrassingly silly?
Right Divider
Body part
That you think that the Creator of ALL things cannot handle those things is what is silly.
My primary interest is in science. I am fine with your admission that in place of scientific support, you have only “godditit”. Does 6days concur with you?
6days
New member
Over and over you keep returning to your bandwagon fallacy argument. Why not just honestly admit there are experts who reject the common ancestry belief system. Or are you of the opinion that they are not experts because they don't agree with the majority? In any case... Argumentum ad populum it's not a logical argument.Redfern said:
I don't know if you are willfully ignorant. I suggested that is one possibility.Redfern said:
okRedfern said:
Kondrashov is admitting the problem...(we now know the problem is much bigger than he believed it was at that time). He is suggesting possible solutions ...trying to understand the data within his common ancestry beliefs. The mathematics are hypothetical solutions. He essentially starts with a conclusion then tries to shoehorn data to fit his priori belief.Redfern said:
A bit over stated since a whole lot of mutation studies are NOT amenable to 'uphill' evolution that the common ancestry belief system requires.Redfern said:
Science helps support the truth of scripture. Science helps reveal the silliness of stellar evolution (everything from nothing?)... Science helps reveal the silliness of chemical evolution (life from non-life)...And, Science helps reveal the silliness of the belief in uphill evolution (evolution can 'kiss' a frog enough so it turns into a handsome prince).Redfern said:
Science doesn't support that. Science however does help confirm that life comes from life... Science helps confirm that life has the appearance of intelligent design..Redfern said:
Science helps confirm that our universe appears finely tuned...as if designed... Science helps confirm much of the history in Scripture etc. And... Logic tells us that if a Creator can speak a universe into existence...and create a donkey, then He surely is powerful enough to get that donkey to speak.
Right Divider
Body part
I see that you worship "science". You are confused about what science can and cannot do.
Please enlighten me. What do you think science can or cannot do that I am confused about?
Clear back in post 39, when it had become patently obvious that you were not going to answer my original “experts” question, I said that I was ready to let it go. But it still seems to be such a burr under your saddle that you just can’t stop whimpering about it. But if your ego has been that badly damaged, perhaps I should exemplify the Christian conduct that you have so long abandoned by humoring you.
Bandwagon fallacy – clearly specify what conditions an argument has to meet to be a Bandwagon fallacy, and show where I have met those conditions.
Why not just honestly admit that back in post 35 I said:
If you are still offended by the quotes, ignore them. And then why not just honestly admit that back in post 38 you pointed out
To which I responded in the very next post
I didn’t use quotes, or put one single demeaning word in my acknowledgement of this expert in biology who supports your side.
Once again you choose to resort to a strawman. Please, please, please, show me anywhere that I specified an expert must agree with anyone else at all, to say nothing of requiring them to agree with a majority.
And, 6days – yes you, over here, don’t cover your mouth, ears, and eyes like one of the “hear, speak, see no evil monkeys” – yup, you – please, honest to gosh, cross your heart – tell us what criteria you would want in a biologist before considering him a scientific expert either for or against human evolution.
Darwinists love it when the discussion is over who believes what.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I see, when you lack anything specific that is derogatory to say, then putting forth a generalized smear will have to do. That’s taught in Bible Class?
Ok, let’s go the evidence route. Tell us how big Kondrashov felt the problem was, and how much bigger it really is than he believed it was. We are talking specifics here – probably numbers - not just generalized assertions.
I hope you meant to say that the answers resulting from the mathematics are hypothetical solutions. If not, you will need to restate your point more clearly.
Can you be a bit clearer on what you mean by shoehorning data? It sounds like you are suggesting he was willing to stoop to what is known as scientific misconduct.
Not aware of any creature called “evolution” that is partial to either uphill or downhill. But on mutation studies, I have no doubt there are lots of them that transcend time spans to well before creation week.
Well that’s a relief. So in your book of “ultimate truth” there really are accounts that deal with physical phenomena that science does not support. That makes your frequent “Science supports God’s Word” much more of a loosey-goosey claim.
I kinda think that is the way most human babies are made. But research into abiogenesis is also ongoing.
I think several hundred years ago it was Paley that made the observation that life has the appearance of intelligent design. But for more than a century now science has realized nature can produce things that appear designed.
That’s what the mudpuddle said about the shape of the hole in the road it was in.
Is your god that puny, that that the logic of us mere mortals can discern what he can or can’t do? Maybe you are a Mormon, on your way to becoming a god?
Right Divider
Body part
The word "science" simply means "knowledge". And knowledge is limited no matter how much man tries to gain it.
On the other hand, God has ALL knowledge since He is the Creator of ALL things.
What were once "scientific facts" are often later found to be incorrect and are replaced with "new scientific facts". The "old scientific facts" were not facts at all.
Earlier in this thread I said
Isn’t that the same idea you just expressed?
Which has zilch to do with my understanding of what science can or cannot do.
Well, welcome to Science 101. Now please tell me you actually had something of more substance than this pablum.
Right Divider
Body part
And....??
Of course it does, but apparently you're do dense to understand that.
That's funny. You actually agreed with what I said and yet called it "pablum".
You're a hoot!
Exactly.
Yeah, what you said is pretty much beginning baby food in the understanding of how science works.
There's nothing wrong with establishing a baseline in a discussion for what is and is not accepted by both sides.
A strong foundation for a discussion is a good thing.
I agree.
Right Divider
Body part
You seem like someone that needs baby food.
That God exists is outside of your kind of "science", regardless of your mocking.
The physical sciences are limited to the physical world.
I am going to vacate myself from this subthread with you, at least until I see a distinctly higher level of content from you. Obviously you can put whatever spin on my decision you would like. Have a good day.
Right Divider
Body part
Run... run away.... have a great day!