Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

I'm just a guy with lots of integrity.


What is the correct age and how do we know it's correct are two sides of the same coin. One must first pursue the first before they get to the second. In other words, one must be willing to accept what the correct age is, regardless what that correct age ends up being, before one can care about their methods of finding out what the correct age is.

So, no, that's not the "real" question. It's just the next question.


Common descentists hate to read.


Sure, whenever the outliers don't shake the narrative they are published openly. When the outliers don't make sense, then one has to understand the raw data and do the work themselves because, by god, the scientists that did the work will never explain it.


They don't turn a blind eye to errors. They just don't question valid data that goes against the common descent narrative.


Sure they are. And they are the focus of the vast majority of the work being done in the field! While the vast majority of the anomalies that could shake the narrative are ignored in radiometric dating.


We tried to find a debate partner for an engineer that questioned radiometric dates. One would think even a grad student could make an engineer look foolish taking such a position. But, no, anyone that knew anything about radiometric dating won't touch that one because they know inconsistency being ignored is the norm and that it makes them look bad.

Dear Yorzhik,

Yes, you DO have a LOT of Integrity!! It's wonderful having you post here. It also does help out TONS and I can see what you are saying, and it is matching my beliefs also. Whoever thinks this Earth is some million or billion years old is really quite erroneous. I like the way you think, because the methods being used to date things are quite awry. And for me to not believe in the Shroud of Turin because of some mistaken dating factors, well, that isn't going to happen. It was Jesus' burial shroud. Which OTHER PERSON had such markings on them as that shroud. I believe that the energy/Spirit put back into Jesus by God caused that image on the Shroud. I can't help believing that. And I certainly don't believe that the Shroud was a 'forgery.' It would take quite a bit of doing to cause such an image. It is seemingly impossible, or highly improbable at least. Well, I just say what is in my heart and on my mind. I have been trained by the Lord pretty well, despite the two mistakes I've made since I started here years ago. If you all want to quit believing me because I made two mistakes out of all the time I've been here, then have at it. God is my Rock and Jesus, my Savior!!

Much Love, In Christ!!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel: :guitar: :singer: :cloud9: :cloud9:
​

 

[patrick jane]

Is there any wonder that the United Methodist Church would prohibit the teaching of Intelligent Design? Really?

They have a methodically methodical methodic method. Methodists

 

[Tyrathca]

It seems your debate tactic for this conversation is to start by muddying the waters.

If by muddying the water you mean pinning you down on what you mean at the start rather than letting you be loose with definitions later then sure. I'm not going to agree to something from you unless it is clear what I am agreeing to, I've made that mistake with you before and you've shown no signs of change since then.

Can we agree that DNA is encoded information without having to know the mechanism that encodes it?

Normally I could agree that DNA is encoded but you've already narrowed the definitions to be relating specifically to Shannon information only. So now I can't agree until you actually explain how it is applicable (since the definitions I would have agreed to are irrelevant). Our current argument is as to whether Shannon information "encode-transmission-decode" can be applied to DNA and to my current view there is no non-arbitrary way apply it (since there is no clear encode-transmission-decode unless you are talking about transcription/translation with mRNA). What you are really asking is 'can we just agree that we can apply Shannon information without me actually showing how to apply Shannon information?"

We know this because the protein that some portion of DNA encodes for is not DNA, but if that portion of the DNA is changed, that in turn will change the protein.

And this means it fits Shannon information encode-transmission-decode why? And this sentence doesn't even makes sense "some portion of DNA encodes for is not DNA"???? I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say here anyway.... Could you reword it please?

We know enough about DNA that we shouldn't be unable to say during what changes/times/whatever Shannon information is applicable. Shouldn't you already have this figured out given you claim to know what the conclusions of applying the theory and math is already?

But if you want to say that DNA is not coded information, then do you also disagree with Nature? "DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information" or Wikipedia? "DNA digital data storage" or phys.org? "DNA used to encode a book and other digital information"

That last one is great. It is a test that DNA is actually encoded information.

So can we at least agree that DNA is encoded information?

I don't disagree with them, but this is why I want to pin you down on what you mean now - you are playing loose with definitions and meanings. "Encode" can mean nothing more than specify the genetic code, but that is not a definition relevant to the application of Shannon information so is irrelevant.
Also the last does actual have a clear point of encoding, transmission and decoding - the information off a book in an electrical computer system is converted/compressed into a genetic code and was then later received and decoded back into an electronic computer system.
Can you say when there is an analogous process in a cell?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Creation Versus Evolution


PART ONE:

We compare the theory of evolution with the Bible’s creation account in easy-to-understand terms, using evidence from the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, and astronomy. We provide links and a bibliography for those who want to study both sides of the issue. We fully explain all the scientific terms on this page.

How did humans (and everything else) come into existence? The only explanation you will find in public school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. Yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.

If there is no support for the theory of evolution, why is no alternative taught? We can only think of two reasons:

1. The Bible’s creation account is not “politically acceptable.”
2. The authors, book publishers, and school boards do not have all the facts.

The Creation Account: In The Beginning

As we wrote in our “Science and the Bible” section, the Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have additional proof in our “How Do You Know The Bible Is True?” section—and more on this page.

Since we can prove the Bible is true, it makes sense to find out what the Bible tells us about how life was first created and how we got here. After all, if God is really God, He was there at the time and would know how to tell us what happened. The Bible’s account of the beginning of life in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 can be understood by anyone.

Special Note—Genesis 1 and 2:

The Bible often restates important points. As an example, the first four books in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all biographies of Jesus. Scholars have learned over time that these four “views” of Jesus give us a better understanding of Him than we would have had if only one account had been recorded. The same is true of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 describes all the physical events of creation. Genesis 2 looks back at the creation of humans more closely. Genesis 2 may appear to be a little different from Genesis 1, leading some people to believe there is a mistake in there somewhere.

This is a problem caused by translation from the original Hebrew into English. Careful attention to the verb tenses in Hebrew and to the purpose of each chapter removes any apparent contradictions between the two. For example, Genesis chapter 2, verse 19 (Gen 2:19) uses the perfect tense, indicating finished actions regarding the creation of the animals. That is, the animals brought to Adam were created earlier, not created in Adam’s presence. Chapter 2 is a “look back” at the last half of chapter

It is interesting that the formation of the earth proposed by noted astronomer (astrophysicist) Hugh Ross has the exact same order as the creation account given in Genesis chapter 1.

1. Creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. Transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent.
3. Formation of a stable water cycle.
4. Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s).
5. Production of plants on the continent(s).
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible).
7. Production of small sea animals.
8. Creation of sea mammals.
9. Creation of birds.
10. Making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents).
11. Creation of mankind.

Note: The preceding list assumes that the universe was the result of a “big bang” type event (an evolutionary cause). This is not in agreement with the Bible. For example, this list proposes that the appearance of light (item 2) and the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars (item 6) are results of the Earth’s atmospheric changes — not a result of the literal creation of the sun, moon, stars, or light. So, be aware that lists like the one above do not agree with the Bible’s stated cause for these events. We only include this list to illustrate that science agrees with the Bible’s order of creation events.
Incidentally, this does not mean that we believe the Bible because we can find some scientific proposals that agree with it. It means that science continues to uphold knowledge recorded in the Bible over three thousand years ago.

PART TWO:

Another significant event occurs in Genesis chapters 6 through 8 — what can be referred to as “The Flood”. To save themselves, Noah and his family built a covered boat called an “ark.” It was a large, boxy craft that resembled a covered barge.

Notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of heaven.” Science has discovered large underwater springs, so it is easy to imagine “fountains of the great deep” being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. It has also been proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a “canopy” would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very temperate. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time—indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening “the windows of heaven.” The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.

Although “off the subject,” this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas—some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.

Note: Genesis chapter 1, verse 7 states, “Thus God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.” Since the word firmament means an “expanse,” some people proposed that the firmament corresponds to Earth’s atmosphere, and use the verse to “prove” that a canopy of water existed above our atmosphere. However, we learn in Genesis chapter 1 verses 14-19 that the Sun and Moon are in the firmament. Therefore, the firmament corresponds to the Earth’s atmosphere and the heavens beyond. This does not mean the “canopy theory” is wrong, but that well-meaning people must not use the Bible to “prove” that it is true. How Did the Theory Start?

Summarized briefly, Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals. He guessed that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. This was not a surprising discovery, by the way. Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this. This process of changing an organism’s appearance through a series of small changes is correctly called “micro-evolution” (with an “i”) and is not what we are referring to when we write “the theory of evolution” on this page. After a series of micro-evolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color, but it is still a frog—not a fish or a lizard.

Copyright © 1998-2001 by Clarifying Christianity (SM).


More On This Later! Hope you found this interesting!!

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

...or phys.org? "DNA used to encode a book and other digital information"

You seem to be conflating semantic information with Shannon information.

You must be aware they refer to entirely different concepts, so which one are you using? It is common for YECs to muddy the water by sliding from one definition to another, so it'd be nice if you'd just stick to the one.

But which one? :idunno:

That last one is great. It is a test that DNA is actually encoded information.

So can we at least agree that DNA is encoded information?

If you are plumping for Shannon information, then you'd find that this experiment's encoding system (8 bit ASCII at one base per bit) gives approximately 2.6 bits of information per letter (ignoring semantics), or 1.3 bits allowing for the redundancy of English spelling, which is less than 0.2 bits per 'DNA letter'.

This is compared to the ~2.0 bits per DNA letter of completely random DNA sequences.

Encoding a book into DNA reduces the information of that DNA.

 

[alwight]

Yes, you can pin me down on less than 10K years.

OK that's clear enough as a reference perhaps, but in other threads I was pretty sure that you were using a somewhat extended version, my bad perhaps? :think:
Presumably then it's more to do with an adherence to a literal Genesis than science?
However you really can't now claim that the science supports your timescale when clearly your estimate doesn't even come close to matching academic scientific conclusions. Claiming instead that the science itself nevertheless supports you and your adherence to an ancient scripture, despite the consensus of scientists and my own perhaps more limited understanding of the evidence, amounts to a denial of a natural reality imo.

No. Scientific estimates say the earth is 10K years or less. Consensus estimates put the age out to billions of years.

Nonsense, as you well know scientific conclusions estimate the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old from whichever branch of natural science is selected. You simply wave it away because it doesn't fit with your ancient scriptural pre-conclusions.
Science isn't somehow a separate entity from humanity, it's the human endeavour to gain knowledge to be used for the benefit of all humanity, not an academic club for those with little or no integrity bent on feeding us misinformation providing it pays the mortgage.
Science is what reputable scientists do and say it is following the scientific method. Denying the scientific consensus in favour of bald assertions and a literal adherence to an ancient scripture is anti-science.

First, we cannot throw away common descent because science, which are natural explanations, say quite clearly that mutation+NS did not happen.

I really can't help what you have erroneously concluded in your consensus of one Yorzhick. Clearly as you may agree both genetic mutations and natural selection are facts of life, so presumably you are asserting that mutations are never naturally selectable or indeed de-selectable.
You seem to be saying that a colour mutation (say) that just happened to make an insect less conspicuous in its environment is nevertheless just as likely to be predated upon as one of its cousins that happened to be rather more obvious?
Is that really what you are telling me?

It's positive science we know, not incredulity, and it is completely separate from any supernatural explanation. So you first have to come up with a natural explanation for common descent that doesn't include mutation+NS before we can believe in common descent, because as far as I know, consensus is married to the idea that common descent happened via mutation+NS.

Since your assertions here have never been established anywhere to my knowledge, only ever asserted, then I think that your agenda is quite clearly to single-mindedly rebut any natural explanation whatever it may be.
I see no indication that despite your previous claims you have any intention of offering an alternative natural explanation. Your aim is only to promote the supernatural, why not admit it, you aren't fooling anyone?

Second, my belief in a miraculous creation has no bearing on the scientific evidence that mutation+NS is wrong.

But that's just not true, your belief in a miraculous creation is imo the central point here.
We already know that science is falsifiable and sometimes is demonstrably wrong. That may or may not be the case here in which case a better natural explanation would be required, though I personally don't see any need here. However you clearly aren't interested in natural answers, natural answers get in the way, you only want supernatural ones.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am going to have to disagree with you on some aspects of this reply.

You're probably not aware of the larger context concerning this point. In another thread, 6days was chastising others for being anti-science for "not following the evidence wherever it leads". So naturally I pointed out that one of his most often-cited sources, AiG, directly states that they will not follow the evidence wherever it leads...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. ​

So all I'm doing is holding 6days to his own standards and exposing his hypocrisy.

 

[DavisBJ]

You're probably not aware of the larger context concerning this point. In another thread, 6days was chastising others for being anti-science for "not following the evidence wherever it leads". So naturally I pointed out that one of his most often-cited sources, AiG, directly states that they will not follow the evidence wherever it leads...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. ​

So all I'm doing is holding 6days to his own standards and exposing his hypocrisy.

I admit I haven’t had the time to follow discussions in other threads for some time. If indeed 6days has clearly said a scientist is obligated to follow the evidence, then he forfeits any pretense that he is a scientist. Within this thread on several occasions he has been quite explicit in declaring (just like AIG) that it is “God’s Word” (and more specifically the fundamentalist interpretation of “God’s Word"), and nothing else, that ultimately establishes what is true.

So rather than what would be blatant hypocrisy on his part by saying he follows evidence, I get the sense that 6days instead is pointing to what he considers to be good scientists who agree with him on theology, and he introduces their arguments, as he did with Lisle’s article.

My discomfort with your reply derives from the fact that Lisle’s article is pretty well technically faithful to science as far as it goes. Even coming from AIG, if the science is wrong, you need to show that what they present as science is wrong. Logically speaking, if AIG says science is right, and they say the Bible is right, then affirming allegiance to the scripture is to affirm allegiance to something that (in their eyes) is totally compatible with “true” science.

 

[DavisBJ]

We tried to find a debate partner for an engineer that questioned radiometric dates. One would think even a grad student could make an engineer look foolish taking such a position.

Yorzhik, when there are a couple of opposing ideas in science, which is going to be the best way to establish which is correct – debate in front of an audience who is likely poorly versed in the relevant science, or presenting the ideas in written form to scientists who are technically competent to do an in-depth review and evaluate the pros and cons of each idea?

 

[MichaelCadry]

They have a methodically methodical methodic method. Methodists

Dear patrick jane,

Very good play on words! Excellent!!

By the way, we're having St. Louis Style Ribs 2morrow. Yummmm!! I'm not quite sure what I'm making besides that, but it will be something good also. Probably Lyonnaise Potatoes and Cranberry Sauce or else sweet peas. See what happens. I hope your day was superb! Catch you later!!

May God Be With You Always,

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9: :angel: :rapture: :rapture:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

Paradoxical as it may sound, you are the person who causes me to most regret some of the things I say. Not because what I say to /about you is factually in error, but that in saying some of those things in retrospect I realize I have lowered my own standards of conduct. For that I do apologize, and I concurrently thank Patrick Jane for stepping up to the task of politely reminding me that I am wrong in those actions.

In the future I hope I can keep my own penchant for sarcasm in check when I am addressing you. Many months ago I imposed what I called a “no-science diet” on my responses to you, and since I have pretty much avoided the fruitless task of trying to bring you up to speed scientifically. I will endeavor to expand that restriction in my responses to you to include any responses where I have a temptation to resort to mockery and denigration.

That still leaves issues between us that I think can be addressed forthrightly, realizing full well that you will disagree. I can only bridle my own tongue, and hope that what I say might have a tad of influence in your thinking. Typical of the things I am referring to is the issue of false prophecy about the rapture that did not happen. On a completely dead-serious note, I see last year’s debacle about the rapture and your trivializing that failure now as pretty crystal-clear proof that you have no divine insight or calling.

Anyway, I don’t object to you saying you are laughing about some things I say. That, in and of itself, might be all the positive feedback your ego requires. “Qua trell rento”, my friend.

Dear DavisBJ,

All I see here is you not addressing my questions to you and instead, explaining your desired position against/for me. It's always okay what you say because it may be read by only three of the seven people that post here. That's a rough estimate. Isn't it awful that we don't reach a greater audience? It's a bummer. I wish the whole world could hear what we have to say. Hopefully, in the future, during Armageddon, you and others on this thread, will remember certain things I've said, and will help those around you with patience and with unconditional and relentless love and caring, etc.

Well, I do appreciate your response to me as I always do, Davis. It's good to have you post here. I know you tend to be a recluse for some reason on other posts and that you post mostly only here on this Thread. I'm glad you have an outlet here to vent your knowledge and feelings, and hopefully, what you are having for supper!! Heheeehee!!

I love you, DavisBJ, so you remember that and take good care of yourself. Jesus taught me to love you, so check out who Jesus is. He taught me to love my adversaries and to treat you like I'd want you to treat me. Good lessons thanks to my Savior.

May God's Love Encompass Your Soul & Heart!!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

All I see here is you not addressing my questions to you and instead, explaining your desired position against/for me. …

Michael

Dear Michael,

I did not address your questions directly because it appeared (and still appears) to me that they were more in the nature of comments than actual requests for answers. I have been quite forthright about those subjects already, but just to satisfy your request I will give brief answer again. And, Michael, in accordance with my recently reaffirmed policy, I will not uselessly expend time debating the underlying science with you.

… You make me laugh! Do you actually think life has come about naturally {by nature}?

Yes, I do.

Do you think that the Earth came by itself naturally?

If you are asking if I believe the earth formed via natural processes, then yes.

And the Universe is nature?

I think of the word “nature” more as meaning the way the universe is seen to work.

Any means of being besides believing it all has a Master over it?

Not at all. My disbelief in God is simply because I see nothing that convinces, or even seriously suggests, that anything beyond Mother Nature is involved in the universe we are in. “Atheist” = a – theist, meaning not a believer in there being a God. Less strident than anti-God – in opposition to the concept of God.

All of these MARVELOUS things have come about 'Naturally!!'

Yes, I too stand in awe of what I see Mother Nature has done.

ROTFL!!!

My exuberance is more in quietly contemplating and appreciating the beauty of nature than in breaking down in laughter.

If what we have said here on this Thread, DavisBJ, hasn't gotten through to you yet, then I really doubt anything will. But you never know. The Lord works in mysterious ways!!

That is a theme that you express quite often.

… during Armageddon …

I thought that was a particularly good Bruce Willis movie.

… you and others on this thread, will remember certain things I've said …

It is the remembrance of some things you have said that convinces me you may be well-intentioned, but nevertheless living in a mental fantasy world.

…help those around you with patience and with unconditional and relentless love and caring, etc.

Honorable aspirations that I try to meet.

… what you are having for supper!!

The minutiae of my daily life is not something others are interested in.

I hope your life is full, and you continue to have good health.

 

[Caino]

But would these same YEC's use a dentist from the 600 BC? What about surgery using a local anesthesiologist from 550 BC Babylon? No, it's only where common sense science conflicts with the creation stories of Man in an age of the Leviticus laws that we "suddenly" get stuck in time.

Accordingly Christian apologetics must be part beligerant denial at all cost! THAT is why primitive Christianity is dying.

 

[DavisBJ]

I'm just a guy with lots of integrity.

Your reply may be a light-hearted response, but even so, I cannot concur.

What is the correct age and how do we know it's correct are two sides of the same coin. One must first pursue the first before they get to the second. In other words, one must be willing to accept what the correct age is, regardless what that correct age ends up being, before one can care about their methods of finding out what the correct age is.

So, no, that's not the "real" question. It's just the next question.

I don’t see any benefit in engaging in a philosophical game of dodge-ball, when I think our differences can be plainly stated. I feel that science has determined that the earth is many millions of years old. I am not aware of any other methodology that I feel is superior to science. I think you put your highest confidence in what you understand a literal reading of Genesis says.

Common descentists hate to read.

I presume that is a snarky way of saying I misread what you actually meant. You may be right. Since the subject was dealing with radioactive dating, and laboratory calibrations are crucial in that process, I honestly thought you were implying labs do not care much about calibrating their instruments. Rather than me guessing at what you meant, will you kindly restate in forthright simple English what you were saying?

Sure, whenever the outliers don't shake the narrative they are published openly. When the outliers don't make sense, then one has to understand the raw data and do the work themselves because, by god, the scientists that did the work will never explain it.

This sounds like just a gratuitous slap at the integrity of a whole lot of labs. As I alluded to before, whether or not a lab feels it would be worthwhile to chase down the explanation for outliers can depend on a number of factors. If the lab is doing fundamental research in dating new strata, then the need to understand each data point is increased. If the outlier is typical of outliers that have been seen and resolved in prior studies, then it may not be unreasonable to simply note that and move on.

They don't turn a blind eye to errors. They just don't question valid data that goes against the common descent narrative.

I see you have picked up a tad of 6day’s malady – a reflexive need to incriminate “common descent” even when the subject under discussion is based on principles having nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. What I understand you to be saying is that when a radiological dating laboratory gets a reading that translates into a date that might cause issues for evolution, then they meekly go to the biologists for advice on whether or not to they should question the data?

Sure they are. And they are the focus of the vast majority of the work being done in the field! While the vast majority of the anomalies that could shake the narrative are ignored in radiometric dating.

I see. The personnel that do radioactive dating are, morally speaking, diametrically opposite to the people who study ancient Biblical manuscripts. The Biblical scholars are paragons of honesty as they strive to understand and resolve manuscript anomalies, whereas the scientists involved in radiological dating are consummate scoundrels, fundamentally dishonest in deciding what data is good and what data to ignore.

Now can we at least make a minimal effort to stop this infantile reliance on massive gratuitous character assassination?

 

[patrick jane]

But would these same YEC's use a dentist from the 600 BC? What about surgery using a local anesthesiologist from 550 BC Babylon? No, it's only where common sense science conflicts with the creation stories of Man in an age of the Leviticus laws that we "suddenly" get stuck in time.

Accordingly Christian apologetics must be part beligerant denial at all cost! THAT is why people are no longer coming to church!

Churches are full in my area and there's a Church in every neighborhood, sometimes 2 or 3.


View attachment 21408

 

[alwight]

Churches are full in my area and there's a Church in every neighborhood, sometimes 2 or 3.


View attachment 21408

The church next to me was converted into flats and sold off, but at least there are more people using it now than before.

 

[Caino]

Churches are full in my area and there's a Church in every neighborhood, sometimes 2 or 3.


View attachment 21408

I'm referring to the general decline of Christianity. You may need to get out a little more.

 

[Jose Fly]

I admit I haven’t had the time to follow discussions in other threads for some time. If indeed 6days has clearly said a scientist is obligated to follow the evidence, then he forfeits any pretense that he is a scientist.

Or anyone who works for AiG (and signs that statement of faith, thereby agreeing to that anti-scientific operational framework).

So rather than what would be blatant hypocrisy on his part by saying he follows evidence, I get the sense that 6days instead is pointing to what he considers to be good scientists who agree with him on theology, and he introduces their arguments, as he did with Lisle’s article.

And that was my point. The people he thinks are "good scientists" overtly violate the very principle he claims to be essential for conducting science.

My discomfort with your reply derives from the fact that Lisle’s article is pretty well technically faithful to science as far as it goes.

If so, then Lisle needs to publish it somewhere relevant, rather than on AiG's website where it is guaranteed to go unnoticed.

Even coming from AIG, if the science is wrong, you need to show that what they present as science is wrong. Logically speaking, if AIG says science is right, and they say the Bible is right, then affirming allegiance to the scripture is to affirm allegiance to something that (in their eyes) is totally compatible with “true” science.

Trust me....several of us here have done exactly that many, many times.

 

[noguru]

Churches are full in my area and there's a Church in every neighborhood, sometimes 2 or 3.


View attachment 21408

And most people in jail claim to believe in God. Most religious people are mislead if not downright fraudulent.

 

[DavisBJ]

And most people in jail claim to believe in God. Most religious people are mislead if not downright fraudulent.

I would be interested in how many inmates were professing Christians prior to their incarceration. I have seen lots of accounts of prisoners “finding God” in jail. I suspect those prisoners who profess conversion are using “finding God” as a ploy that will look favorable to prison staff and parole boards. Of course that makes them even more, as you say, “downright fraudulent.”