Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

Dear BJ,

Yes, I'd tell science to not waste their time.

I’m getting mixed messages from you guys on this. Mr. Vowels says science should try to study God.

Just because I didn't know which season Jesus is returning, that by far, doesn't mean that He isn't returning extremely soon.

But over and over in earlier posts you strongly claimed that you did in fact know in which season Jesus was returning. But now that you have shown that you are just a recent addition to a long (and not very distinguished) list of failed prophets, true to form you have a litany of excuses.

For all that research has learned from tornadoes, earthquakes, storms, hurricanes is that we have no handle on any of these occurrences whatsoever. God determines all of the details, not mankind.

Man may not have the power to prevent or even significantly alter many of the forces of Mother Nature, yet in fact science has saved numerous lives by just understanding these things. The populations of entire villages have been saved because we now understand lahars and pyroclastic flows from volcanos, building codes now often reflect an understanding of the local potentials for damage from earthquakes and landslides. You want science to put its head in the sand and let tens of thousands of people be drowned by a tsunami instead of warning them when one is coming?

Ah, there is no talking with you.

There sure ‘nuff is talking to me. You are doing it.

 

[DavisBJ]

Do you believe in Dark energy and Dark matter?

If you do, then that means that you are 95% in the dark?

So I feel fine ascribing the above to God.

In your case, I don’t object much to your approach. It appears that for fields where science is not really mature, you have a filing drawer that says “God” on the label, and a note affixed under it: “Contents to be moved to other drawers when science masters this subject.”

 

[DavisBJ]

Another great example of the false witness way of arguing.
Let's just call it "#9" arguing.

Call it whatever you like. It is a simple and straightforward question that believers assiduously avoid giving direct answer to.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear BJ,

I do have evidence of a miracle that God did for me. He sent 7 inches of snow on the New York Daily News Bldg. within 48 hours of my sending a reporter a letter telling him it would happen. God told me to write him and tell the reporter that, so the reporter would know that God was really with me. I got a 3-hour interview and one terrified reporter. I have a copy of the letter I sent him on ABC-TV stationery, and I also have the article reporting about the 7 inches of snow that fell in their rival newspapers story about it. God has done many miracles for me. That's why I'm in Phoenix, instead of Miami Beach!!

Michael

Michael,

I have lived in several snowy locales. And hundreds of times I could have, with high confidence, predicted ahead of time that there would be a 7-inch snowfall. When the snowstorm abated, all I needed to do was actually measure the depth. On the lee side of a wall, it is 2 inches deep. On the windy side, it is 3 feet deep. On the street, it varies from a few inches deep to over a foot. You tell me the depth you want, and I will find a place with that much snow there.

You should have stayed in Miami Beach.

 

[alwight]

Do you believe in Dark energy and Dark matter?

If you do, then that means that you are 95% in the dark?

So I feel fine ascribing the above to God.

I wouldn't actually need to believe in it but I can accept that science cannot yet account for the dark matter that it accepts is nevertheless there.
Do you think they should just accept that it cannot be explained and stop looking?
Isaac Newton was a brilliant scientist who decided that at some point his science would stop and defer to God, but it was more than a century later before his work was surpassed. I wonder what more he could have done if had pressed on regardless?

 

[6days]

Dear All,

About this deluge! It was a Great Encompassing FLOOD. Noah took birds into the Ark also. If God was destroying all flesh off of the earth, then why wouldn't birds just fly to the nearest dry spot and stay there? I mean if there is dry land somewhere in this Great Flood, then the birds closest to it would fly to it. Noah would not need birds on the Ark. So now that you are wrong, are you sure that everything else that comes out of your head is wrong too? See Post #14573. Page 972. You missed it??

Michael

correct...the idea of a local flood is silly for many reasons. Also the belief in a local flood makea God out to be a liar since He promised there would never be another flood of the earth.

 

[iouae]

I wouldn't actually need to believe in it but I can accept that science cannot yet account for the dark matter that it accepts is nevertheless there.
Do you think they should just accept that it cannot be explained and stop looking?
Isaac Newton was a brilliant scientist who decided that at some point his science would stop and defer to God, but it was more than a century later before his work was surpassed. I wonder what more he could have done if had pressed on regardless?

One can download for free Sir Isaac's religious writings, where he tries to predict the second coming. If I remember correctly, the date he arrived at was 2065. A very good read.

Amazing to think that not that long ago in ye olde merrie England, one had to be so secretive about one's Christianity. Sir Isaac was somewhat different from the mainstream but it was only a lucky accident after he died that his interest in religion and religious books were discovered.

I doubt that Sir Isaac's deferring to God held back his science. He went as far as he could go. It takes time and new technology before another breakthrough could happen. Einstein came along at a time when we now had electricity and all the instruments to further science.

 

[alwight]

One can download for free Sir Isaac's religious writings, where he tries to predict the second coming. If I remember correctly, the date he arrived at was 2065. A very good read.

Amazing to think that not that long ago in ye olde merrie England, one had to be so secretive about one's Christianity. Sir Isaac was somewhat different from the mainstream but it was only a lucky accident after he died that his interest in religion and religious books were discovered.

I doubt that Sir Isaac's deferring to God held back his science. He went as far as he could go. It takes time and new technology before another breakthrough could happen. Einstein came along at a time when we now had electricity and all the instruments to further science.

Isaac Newton certainly believed in the Abrahamic God but I'm not sure that "Christian" is entirely accurate. He didn't seem to think that Jesus shared any essential characteristics of God.
http://www.enlighteningscience.suss...science_and_religion/isaac_newton_on_religion

 

[Jose Fly]

I really like this lecture from Neil deGrasse Tyson called "The Perimeter of Ignorance". In the context of knocking down ID creationism, he describes several times in the history of science where a scientist would come across something they just could not figure out, declare it unsolvable, and deem it to be in the providence of the Gods.....only to have someone else come along later and solve it, sometimes hundreds of years later.

IOW, it's a caution against giving up, and thinking that if we can't figure something out now, no one ever will.

The Perimeter of Ignorance

 

[patrick jane]

What is ID ? ID creation ?

 

[iouae]

I really like this lecture from Neil deGrasse Tyson called "The Perimeter of Ignorance". In the context of knocking down ID creationism, he describes several times in the history of science where a scientist would come across something they just could not figure out, declare it unsolvable, and deem it to be in the providence of the Gods.....only to have someone else come along later and solve it, sometimes hundreds of years later.

IOW, it's a caution against giving up, and thinking that if we can't figure something out now, no one ever will.

Why does science think that all solutions must be "sola scientia"?

 

[iouae]

What is ID ? ID creation ?

I presume intelligent design.

"The "intelligent design" movement was formed in the mid-1990s by a group of scholars whose objective was to present a significantly more tenable alternative to evolution than that promoted by young-earth creationists such as Henry Morris and John Whitcomb. The principal figures of the intelligent design movement, notably Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells, have respectable academic credentials and generally accept the overall scientific account and timeline of the creation. However, they still insist that many features of life on earth are too complex to be explained by natural evolution. They acknowledge limited variations within basic "kinds," but insist that the individual kinds were separately formed or designed by an intelligent entity, utilizing means that may not be subject to human investigation..."
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/intelligent-design.php

 

[ok doser]

What is ID ? ID creation ?

it's the first two-thirds of IDK

what's the last third? :idunno:

 

[gcthomas]

Why does science think that all solutions must be "sola scientia"?

If not 'by knowledge alone', by ignorance alone!

 

[Jose Fly]

Why does science think that all solutions must be "sola scientia"?

I'm assuming you mean "Why do scientists think that...." (since science isn't a sentient being).

I can only speak for myself, and I'd say that it depends on the problem/question. If the question is about aspects of the natural world and how it works, then we have very good reason to presume that there is a scientific answer. We have hundreds of years of answering such questions scientifically, so there's no reason to think that's going to suddenly stop.

But if the question is something like "What is art", then I think that sort of thing is too subjective and lies outside of science.

 

[DavisBJ]

Why does science think that all solutions must be "sola scientia"?

I don’t believe that is a tenet of science, though that view is held by many scientists. But “sola scientia” has been spectacularly more successful at understanding the world and its history than any competing methodology. And these forums are a testament to a religiously motivated “anti-scientia” movement against scientific disciplines that religionists feel threaten their favorite dogmas.

 

[iouae]

One can go through school biology classes without hearing about evolution. This shows it is possible to teach biology without an evolutionary bias.

But the moment you sign up for a BS (BSc) in Botany and Zoology, you are bombarded from day one with evolution.

It IS possible to teach Taxonomy or the classification of plants and animals without evolution.
It IS possible to teach Anatomy or the internal structures comprising organisms, without evolution.
It IS possible to teach Physiology, or the internal functioning of the body, without evolution.

But an evolutionary interpretation is superimposed on the pure facts.
To pass the exams you have to regurgitate the evolution which the course teaches.

I am not even suggesting that we teach Biology from a Creationist point of view. Just teach it from a neutral point of view as one does in high school.

Is it any wonder that the system churns out virtually brainwashed biologists who have only been taught the subject from an evolutionary point of view? And the system is self-replicating. If one has been taught evolution, to become a lecturer, one is expected to teach from an evolutionary point of view.

The same applies to palaeontology.

Thus the sciences are not "sola scientia".

The natural sciences are pure science, steeped in an EVOLUTIONARY INTERPRETATION. Evolution permeates the natural sciences.

Science is far from impartial and unbiased.

 

[Jose Fly]

One can go through school biology classes without hearing about evolution.

Not good ones.

This shows it is possible to teach biology without an evolutionary bias.

"Evolutionary bias"? Populations evolve...it's an observed fact....so much so that we even manipulate the process to our own ends.

It's very revealing that you see acknowledging this reality as "bias".

But the moment you sign up for a BS (BSc) in Botany and Zoology, you are bombarded from day one with evolution.

It IS possible to teach Taxonomy or the classification of plants and animals without evolution.
It IS possible to teach Anatomy or the internal structures comprising organisms, without evolution.
It IS possible to teach Physiology, or the internal functioning of the body, without evolution.

It's possible to teach US history without mentioning the Civil War, or the Korean War, or any number of other things. But just because it's "possible" doesn't mean we should do it.

But an evolutionary interpretation is superimposed on the pure facts.

That populations evolve is a "pure fact".

I am not even suggesting that we teach Biology from a Creationist point of view. Just teach it from a neutral point of view as one does in high school.

Again, it's revealing how you want to teach biology without acknowledging the fact that populations evolve. And you have the gall to accuse others of "bias"? Your hypocrisy is astounding.

Is it any wonder that the system churns out virtually brainwashed biologists who have only been taught the subject from an evolutionary point of view? And the system is self-replicating. If one has been taught evolution, to become a lecturer, one is expected to teach from an evolutionary point of view.

The same applies to palaeontology.

I hear they do the same thing with gravity and physics....and with geology and erosion....and with history and war. What bias!!

The natural sciences are pure science, steeped in an EVOLUTIONARY INTERPRETATION. Evolution permeates the natural sciences.

Science is far from impartial and unbiased.

Yes, "biased" in that scientists actually acknowledge reality. How terrible.

And again, your hypocrisy is noted.

 

[iouae]

Not good ones.



"Evolutionary bias"? Populations evolve...it's an observed fact....so much so that we even manipulate the process to our own ends.

It's very revealing that you see acknowledging this reality as "bias".



It's possible to teach US history without mentioning the Civil War, or the Korean War, or any number of other things. But just because it's "possible" doesn't mean we should do it.



That populations evolve is a "pure fact".



Again, it's revealing how you want to teach biology without acknowledging the fact that populations evolve. And you have the gall to accuse others of "bias"? Your hypocrisy is astounding.



I hear they do the same thing with gravity and physics....and with geology and erosion....and with history and war. What bias!!



Yes, "biased" in that scientists actually acknowledge reality. How terrible.

And again, your hypocrisy is noted.

Obviously you were awake in class the day they taught that populations evolve

Jose, I vaguely remember you are a biologist. Are you maybe involved in population dynamics?

 

[Jose Fly]

Obviously you were awake in class the day they taught that populations evolve

Not only that, but as an undergrad we conducted experiments that demonstrated how they evolve.

Jose, I vaguely remember you are a biologist. Are you maybe involved in population dynamics?

Yep.