Nothing can be proven scientifically. Science is not about proof, but about preponderance of evidence, as you observed. This might make science suspect to you, but it works very, very well.
Nevertheless, we still can study history and learn about what happened.
This is one reason science requires reproducibility. If someone claims to have found the fossil of a fish with legs, for example, he better be able to produce that fossil, and there better be legs to be found on it.
If someone claims that he can show how homobox genes are essentially the same in all metazoans, other researchers will have to find the same thing, or that researcher is in considerable trouble.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Nobel Laureate physicist Richard Feynmann
(I do not mean any person in particular, BTW)
I hope we all enjoyed it and learned a little from it.
Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Gup20, Jun 25, 2004.
Page 16 of 16
-
-
-
Notice that in the discussion on chiral distributions - UTEOTW was quick to claim that having ALL the good emperical science AGAINST abiogensis was what constituted "ALL the evidence in his favor" because he discounted science and appealed to what he admitted - was pure guesswork (plus some wet clay for good measure).
In other words - it "demonstrates" that evolutionism will "gladly" hang its hat on "thin air" though it be contradicted by mountains of emperical evidence showing that all living cells are composed of L-amino acids.
So it is not the "Simple case" that evolutionism's believers are "looking at all the physical evidence" while Gospel oriented Bible-believing Christians "ignore physical evidence and look at the Bible alone". (Though I think the evolutionists entertain themselves by telling that story.)
In Christ,
Bob -
Your post lacks content. It's difficult for me to help you understand, if I don't know what's bothering you about it.
I take it you aren't a biologist. Perhaps if you learned a bit about evolution and the evidence for it, you'd be less emotional in your aversion to it.
However, if we want to criticize the theory of evolution, we must criticize what it says, not what some people say it says.
And "everything" is not part of evoutionary theory.
Barbarian observes:
I have no idea what "evolutionism" means.
Barbarian observes:
but most Christians admit that scripture and evolutionary theory are compatible.
Christianity is what Christians believe. -
Again -- you simply ignore the details and repeat your assertion.
The other clear fact - is that the Bible DOES address the origin of all life - NOT JUST a single living cell.
So the claim that the Bible and evolution are NOT addressing the subject of the creation/origin of all species - all living things on earth - is bogus.
Let's pick GOD's way of stating how it was.
"FOR in SIX days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and ALL that is in them...
So in SIX days YOU shall labor and do all your work".
Same context, same author, same timeline. Exegetically impossible to obfuscate in favor of evolutionism's doctrines.
Now lets see how often evolutionists like Richard Dawkings claim "that" as evolutionism "verbatim".
When God gives us 6 "evenings and mornings" and describes events of EACH... events that do NOT reduce to "the big bang" or "creating just one cell" - He provides a model totally incompatible with evolutionism.
Even Richard Dawkings admits it. And he is no creationist.
In Christ,
Bob -
" can keep posting it - but if you keep ignoring that detail -- it only increases my opportunity to "Show" that evolutionist (icons) themselves admit that the "Claim" of evolutionism is to start with nothing and then explain away life in such a way that the evolutionist (Dawkings in this case) has no need of inserting a "Creator" into the "story"."
Yes Bob, please post it again. Then I can again point out that quoting Dawkins on matters of religion is a fallacious appeal to authority since he has no special expertice in religion. But, in his actual area of expertice, evolution, he says "Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true...The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos. Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood."
I can see why you have not posted the quote again since I pointed this out. Only threatened.
The point of chalk is that you cannot explain where it came from. I am surprised that you bring attention to something you can't answer. -
"Notice that in the discussion on chiral distributions - UTEOTW was quick to claim that having ALL the good emperical science AGAINST abiogensis was what constituted "ALL the evidence in his favor" because he discounted science and appealed to what he admitted - was pure guesswork (plus some wet clay for good measure)."
Why don't you address any of the real posts I have made on this subject? I mean, I have very well explained how catalyst makes the chiral problem a problem in your own mind. And if you notice, the catalysts I have mentioned are very common materials. -
We all know it.
They aren't the same thing.
IF there IS NO God - then ALL that the fool sees on earth -- he must account for by some "other means" than divine creation.
And "obviously to all" this is what we see them doing.
The fact that some Christians also seek to play that "game" with them - is amusing to the atheists (as Dawkings is quoted as saying on this thread) and so also do Bible believing Christians find it amusing at best.
But even worse for evolutionism - good science flatly contradicts the speculative myths of evolutionism.
We saw that with entropy. Even the evolutionists Isaac Asimov clearly admitted what science SEES (local INCREASEs in entropy) with what evolutionism "needs" -- (Massive DECREASES in local entropy).
We saw that again with the lack of mono-chiral results in all experiments used today to produce proteins for cell "building blocks".
The emperical evidence clearly contradicts what evolutionism "needs" so evolutionists turn to junk-science instead.
In Christ,
Bob -
"We saw that again with the lack of mono-chiral results in all experiments used today to produce proteins for cell "building blocks"."
No, we saw that catalysts are fully capable of making non-racemic mixtures and of catalyzing and stabilizing the polymerization. -
Notice – what follows will be a pointer BACK to Creation week, giving God's OWN summary of it.
God's Word points us back in time to the 7th day of creation week. The day WHEN it was made the holy day of God.
The action commanded - the reason that establishes the commandment, the same unit of time applied to BOTH the timeline for Genesis 1 and the timeline for humanity at the foot of Sinai.
In that summary God "locks in" the "time unit" so that even the most blind can not miss "seeing" that the same author in the same context applies the same time unit to BOTH the people at Sinai and God in Genesis 1.
Oh that everyone would embrace God's Word just as it reads.
Notice that the argument of evolutionism is not scripture - it is "hokey guesswork"
That's a pretty tough puzzle I have to admit. No wonder Christians would want to dump the Word of God in favor of that little tiny puzzle.
I think I see the point now.
This is why it is so hard to take evolutionists seriously whenever they pretend to adress the integrity of their views in the context of scripture.
In Christ,
Bob -
I think I have already seen that one.
-
"We saw that with entropy. Even the evolutionists Isaac Asimov clearly admitted what science SEES (local INCREASEs in entropy) with what evolutionism "needs" -- (Massive DECREASES in local entropy)."
I'll give you one last chance before the thread closes.
Give me one step, any step, in the evolution of man from a single celled organism prevented by entropy and why.
I'd bet I still will not get answer. I don't feel like pointing the flaws in your reasoning out again, so I'll just leave it at that. A simple question which you will not answer. -
Barbarian observes:
However, Genesis directly contradicts the "Ex nihilo" claims of young Earth creationism, because it says that the earth and waters brought forth living things.
This is another red herring.Click to expand...
Evolutionism dies a horrible death in "SIX evenings and mornings".Click to expand...
Every atheist evolutionist on the planet would admit that.Click to expand...
Obviously the Bible does not promote evolution or speak to it except to say "The fool has said in his heart - there is no God".Click to expand...
You've confused atheism and science.
No you have confused evolutionism with science. They aren't the same thing.Click to expand...
Meaning that the fool must then account for all of life and nature "without God" as the explanation.Click to expand...
Actually -- "yes".Click to expand...
IF there IS NO God - then ALL that the fool sees on earth -- he must account for by some "other means" than divine creation.Click to expand...
But even worse for evolutionism - good science flatly contradicts the speculative myths of evolutionism.Click to expand...
We saw that with entropy. Even the evolutionists Isaac Asimov clearly admitted what science SEES (local INCREASEs in entropy) with what evolutionism "needs" -- (Massive DECREASES in local entropy).Click to expand...
To establish your claim, you might consider answering UTEOTW's challenge above. Show what essential process of evoltution is ruled out by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Show your work.
We saw that again with the lack of mono-chiral results in all experiments used today to produce proteins for cell "building blocks".Click to expand...
Learning about the specifics would definitely help you in these debates. -
Originally posted by Brett:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gina L:
Physical evidence doesn't lie? That's a VERY silly and invalid argument. Evidence can be misunderstood, altered, or able to be understood only partially, as so clearly evidenced by changing technology that shows how much we don't know.
GinaClick to expand...
Now, I hate to do this to you and not give you a chance to reply, but the thread is now closed. Feel free to transfer what I said to another thread if you feel you have something to add to it, ok?
Gina -
Johnv said: ↑OTOH, Gup, Jesus said Jonah was in a whale, which contradicts the OT account of it being a fish (the hebrews had different words for "fish" and "whale", and knew the difference between the two). That being said, issue like whale/fish, literal/nonliteral creation, women and headcoverings, sabbath on sundays, etc, are non-docrtinal splittings of scriptural hairs, which result in discussions that do nothing but divide believers.Click to expand...
-
Marcia said: ↑I looked this up and the word Jesus used can be translated as sea monster, huge fish, or whale.Click to expand...
Page 16 of 16