Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

The fascinating thing is how 6days keeps saying "thanks to science", when the same science shows his young-earth creationism to be nonsense.

 

[6days]

In the context of "science supports creationism," as you've repeatedly stated to be factual, can you find one single scientific organization that agrees with your statement?
Why or why not?

Do you understand the difference between science..... and an organization?

Do you know that a scientist and science are two different things?

 

[6days]

The fascinating thing is how 6days keeps saying "thanks to science", when the same science shows his young-earth creationism to be nonsense.

Thanks to science we know our body is not full of useless evolutionary leftovers.
Thanks to science, we know our bodies our not 98%junk DNA.
Thanks to science we understand our marvelously designed vertebrate eyes are.
Thanks to science we are beginning to understand the sophisticated intelligent design of cells. ETC>>>ETC>>>ETC
Thanks to science... Its a wonderful time to be a Christian!

 

[Greg Jennings]

Do you understand the difference between science..... and an organization?

Do you know that a scientist and science are two different things?

Glad that we agree that no scientific organization endorses young Earth creationism, and all support the theory of evolution. :up:


Perhaps you were unaware, but scientists are the people that make up scientific organizations. You can't buy your way in or claim to be an expert on false merit. Whatever the organization says reflects the ideology of its members.


So you are saying that in these organizations, scientists disagree with the stance of the organizations that they are a part of? Where is your evidence for this vast conspiracy?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Thanks to science we know our body is not full of useless evolutionary leftovers.
Thanks to science, we know our bodies our not 98%junk DNA.
Thanks to science we understand our marvelously designed vertebrate eyes are.
Thanks to science we are beginning to understand the sophisticated intelligent design of cells. ETC>>>ETC>>>ETC
Thanks to science... Its a wonderful time to be a Christian!

Thanks to science, we know that a literal Genesis is impossible. Ask any of the dozens of scientific organizations around the country and/or world. As we've discussed, they all give you the same answer

No matter how much you misrepresent reality, it isn't changing

 

[6days]

Thanks to science, we know that a literal Genesis is impossible.

That may be your belief but science 'suggests' the opposite. Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word and His creation.

Ask any of the dozens of scientific organizations around the country and/or world.

I would rather ask the One who created us, than the opinion of some who fail a basic science test given in Job 38 and 39

 

[Greg Jennings]

That may be your belief but science 'suggests' the opposite. Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word and His creation.

Scientists say that science does not support a literal Genesis.

Who is telling you that science supports a literal Genesis?

I would rather ask the One who created us,

No, you would rather read words written by primitive tribesmen 3500 years ago. Books written by 40 different authors, none of whom claim to be God. Why do you trust the words of those tribesmen, but not the words of Native American tribes that have other, differing myths? As we've discussed, the evidence doesn't point to young Earth creationism in the slightest. So why do you favor the old Semitic creation myth over an Iriquois myth?

than the opinion of some who fail a basic science test given in Job 38 and 39

You have said before that the bible is not a book of science, but now you are saying that it is? What in Job 38-39 is an adequate "basic science test" in your eyes?

I feel confident it's not the same standard real scientists use

 

[Lon]

Scientists say that science does not support a literal Genesis.

Er, not true at all. Science is merely a process that attempts to confirm or seek new answers to questions. It is not an end to itself and
those abusing it for such are no longer serving scientific inquiry but rather indoctrination. Science (a process of trying to find out what is true or at least works), doesn't care if all we have learned to date were completely overturned. Because science has limitations, it can only be applied to what it can accurately measure. Predictions and speculations, however well educated, are not actually the results of science. We can't prove we have any common ancestor. We can't prove where we came from. We can only point to evidence and what we believe it means. It doesn't matter how many people buy into it. For years, we've given anti-biotics for viruses ineptly. Science isn't wrong (it is simply a process for trying to discover truth, or perhaps even apprehending it), but scientist can be and often are.

No, you would rather read words written by primitive tribesmen 3500 years ago. Books written by 40 different authors, none of whom claim to be God. Why do you trust the words of those tribesmen, but not the words of Native American tribes that have other, differing myths? As we've discussed, the evidence doesn't point to young Earth creationism in the slightest. So why do you favor the old Semitic creation myth over an Iriquois myth?

Many Indians are Christian today. They believe their rough theology was made clearer by those Judeo-Christian writers. Christians, Jews, and Indians can be wrong about their understanding, but any words given by God are not up for correction. There are a good number of Scientists who are Christian. They have no problem reconciling their faith. Many of those, are YEC as well and a good many of those with further science degrees than you likely possess yourself.

You have said before that the bible is not a book of science, but now you are saying that it is? What in Job 38-39 is an adequate "basic science test" in your eyes?

It is not written for scientists. It contains information archeologists (scientists) use for finding places and things, so it contains accurate science information but is not written 'for' scientists primarily. You can use it for such, sure. Accurate information is what science also seeks after all.

I feel confident it's not the same standard real scientists use

Then your confidence is misplaced. Science isn't interested in posturing, only scientists with an agenda are. They give each other a hard time when they present evidence and findings against the rest of what science thinks is true, so it doesn't surprise me when it happens with Creationists too. There is a bit of politics going on. It likely started with prestige of being published and belonging to the National Geographic, but when findings in science are politicized for $$$ and prestige, we all can very easily become duped, especially when affiliated with these political and financial sources. The science industry is a trillion dollar industry world-wide. That's good in whatever way it serves man, but bad when that no longer functions well. Richard Dawkins raises donations, not to do a humanitarian science project, but to perpetuate atheistic science (specifically). Fighting with creationists with millions of dollars is a poor use of time and resources and is poor stewardship where a million dollars could do much better in scientific application or some other humanity effort.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Moved

 

[6days]

Fighting with creationists with millions of dollars is a poor use of time and resources and is poor stewardship where a million dollars could do much better in scientific application or some other humanity effort.

Agree..... As in the millions spent on SETI looking for intelligence that is 'out there'..... And yet that Intelligence is making Himself obvious, and they ignore Him.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Er, not true at all. Science is merely a process that attempts to confirm or seek new answers to questions. It is not an end to itself and
those abusing it for such are no longer serving scientific inquiry but rather indoctrination. Science (a process of trying to find out what is true or at least works), doesn't care if all we have learned to date were completely overturned. Because science has limitations, it can only be applied to what it can accurately measure. Predictions and speculations, however well educated, are not actually the results of science. We can't prove we have any common ancestor. We can't prove where we came from. We can only point to evidence and what we believe it means. It doesn't matter how many people buy into it. For years, we've given anti-biotics for viruses ineptly. Science isn't wrong (it is simply a process for trying to discover truth, or perhaps even apprehending it), but scientist can be and often are.

Many Indians are Christian today. They believe their rough theology was made clearer by those Judeo-Christian writers. Christians, Jews, and Indians can be wrong about their understanding, but any words given by God are not up for correction. There are a good number of Scientists who are Christian. They have no problem reconciling their faith. Many of those, are YEC as well and a good many of those with further science degrees than you likely possess yourself.

It is not written for scientists. It contains information archeologists (scientists) use for finding places and things, so it contains accurate science information but is not written 'for' scientists primarily. You can use it for such, sure. Accurate information is what science also seeks after all.


Then your confidence is misplaced. Science isn't interested in posturing, only scientists with an agenda are. They give each other a hard time when they present evidence and findings against the rest of what science thinks is true, so it doesn't surprise me when it happens with Creationists too. There is a bit of politics going on. It likely started with prestige of being published and belonging to the National Geographic, but when findings in science are politicized for $$$ and prestige, we all can very easily become duped, especially when affiliated with these political and financial sources. The science industry is a trillion dollar industry world-wide. That's good in whatever way it serves man, but bad when that no longer functions well. Richard Dawkins raises donations, not to do a humanitarian science project, but to perpetuate atheistic science (specifically). Fighting with creationists with millions of dollars is a poor use of time and resources and is poor stewardship where a million dollars could do much better in scientific application or some other humanity effort.

Lon, do you trust that scientific organizations, and the scientists that make them up, know how to do science? Do you trust that they know how to properly evaluate evidence?


And if you think scientists spend any amount of money "fighting with creationists" then breathe easy. Despite its popularity on forums, young Earth creationism is recognized by just about all scientists as contradictory to the evidence, and as such is not paid any further attention to.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Agree..... As in the millions spent on SETI looking for intelligence that is 'out there'..... And yet that Intelligence is making Himself obvious, and they ignore Him.

The Ark Museum (in addition to being scientifically irrelevant) has taken millions of dollars of tax-payer money in the union's poorest-per-capita state in order to be built, and also receives special tax breaks. It has literally robbed Kentucky's poverty-stricken citizens.

Are you saying THAT is a better use of money than trying to contact another civilization?

 

[Lon]

Lon, do you trust that scientific organizations, and the scientists that make them up, know how to do science? Do you trust that they know how to properly evaluate evidence?

In the thread with Stripe, you say creationists think they are right as long as they can avoid saying they are wrong. Both science and theology have history of interpreting wrong. While the earth is 'firmly established' in scripture, such does not demand geocentrism. Likewise, and more recently, it was a great blunder to give antibiotics for viruses. Even some scientists were crying "Stop! Desist!" but we made these super-viruses anyways (well, not me, I even refused to take them).

So, I trust in what can be substantiated and have less confidence in what cannot. I've no idea if God used a big-bang but I'm fairly confident that atheists trying to use it as the origin of the universe are not thinking metaphysically clearly.

And if you think scientists spend any amount of money "combating creationism" then breathe easy. Despite its popularity on forums, young Earth creationism is recognized by just about all scientists as contradictory to the evidence, and as such is not paid any further attention to.

There is no 'rest/breath easy.' It is foolish and a waste and throwing resources after the same. As to them 'not' doing it? Perhaps I should rephrase to 'atheism' but science is Dawkin's standby.

 

[Greg Jennings]

In the thread with Stripe, you say creationists think they are right as long as they can avoid saying they are wrong. Both science and theology have history of interpreting wrong. While the earth is 'firmly established' in scripture, such does not demand geocentrism. Likewise, and more recently, it was a great blunder to give antibiotics for viruses. Even some scientists were crying "Stop! Desist!" but we made these super-viruses anyways (well, not me, I even refused to take them).

So, I trust in what is can be substantiated and have less confidence in what cannot. I've no idea if God used a big-bang but I'm fairly confident that atheists trying to use it as the origin of the universe are not thinking metaphysically clearly.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you don't trust the scientific community?

 

[Greg Jennings]

There is no 'rest/breath easy.' It is foolish and a waste and throwing resources after the same. As to them 'not' doing it? Perhaps I should rephrase to 'atheism' but science is Dawkin's standby.

I think you misunderstood my answer.


Scientists don't spend money on anything to do with creationists or creationism. There is no money being wasted on that front by the scientific community

 

[Lon]

The Ark Museum (in addition to being scientifically irrelevant) has taken millions of dollars of tax-payer money in the union's poorest-per-capita state in order to be built, and also receives special tax breaks. It has literally robbed Kentucky's poverty-stricken citizens.

Are you saying THAT is a better use of money than trying to contact another civilization?

Tax credits. I don't think you know what 'literal' means?

 

[Lon]

I think you misunderstood my answer.

Scientists don't spend money on anything to do with creationists or creationism. There is no money being wasted on that front by the scientific community

Er, how would you know what scientists spend their money on?

On the other, it just happens that Dawkins has his hands both in science and atheism.

 

[Lon]

So if I'm understanding correctly, you don't trust the scientific community?

I didn't take antibiotics as the doctor prescribed for my virus. Perhaps we could chock that up to trusting one scientist over another at that point. I also trusted scientists who told me Brontosaurus as an actual dinosaur at one time. I also avoided a procedure this past year because it had caused a few to contract hepatitis C. I also see that Johnson and Johnson is in the news being sued again for what they caused in health problems. What's not to trust? :noway: I trust my doctor, but can he make a mistake? You bet.

If your trust in the science community is wholesale, I'd suggest you have problems beyond this discussion. I have no absolute confidence in any man to never make a mistake. I trust chemistry to produce consistent results. I trust medicine to produce consistent results, but tend to do what is best for me and others so avoid antibiotics for viruses, er, like the plague.

 

[6days]

Are you saying THAT is a better use of money than trying to contact another civilization?

What I said, is that SETI wastes millions of dollars searching for intelligence in the universe.....while they ignore / reject evidence of Thee Intelligence in the universe.

 

[6days]

Tax credits. I don't think you know what 'literal' means?

I haven't followed the story, but I think Kentucky offered tax credits that are essentially standard to ventures bringing tourism, employment and tax dollars into a state?