Creation vs. Evolution

[patrick jane]

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.

How can a procedure cause a hepatitis c infection ?

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks to science we know our body is not full of useless evolutionary leftovers.

What do you mean "full of"?

Thanks to science, we know our bodies our not 98%junk DNA.

What is the exact percentage?

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

Where can I read about those things in the scientific journals (since you're saying they're "thanks to science")?

Thanks to science... Its a wonderful time to be a Christian!

Let's review the conversation I described with my colleagues....

See, we all know how things are in the world of science. Every single accredited university that has a science program teaches evolution and that the universe is billions of years old. Every single biotech firm operates under the paradigm of evolutionary theory. Every single scientific organization that has voiced their opinion on the issue has unequivocally stated that evolution is reality. Every single biological journal publishes multiple papers per year expanding our understanding of how evolution works, how it proceeded in the past, and uses that information to add to our scientific knowledge. And when you get into "billions of years" it's just as clear. IOW, in the earth and life sciences, evolution and "billions of years" are an essential part of the entire framework and have been for a very long time.

At the same time, not one accredited university, scientific organization, biotech firm, scientific journal, or other productive scientific endeavor incorporates or utilizes creationism or the idea that everything is less than 10,000 years old in any way, shape or form. Creationism hasn't accomplished or even contributed to anything science in well over a century. From a scientific standpoint, creationism is 100% irrelevant and has been for a very long time.

So the state of the issue from a scientific perspective couldn't be any more clear, right? There is no debate, there is no controversy, there really isn't even anything to discuss.

Yet if you come into forums like the one I showed you, you encounter all sorts of Christians who will tell you...apparently with a straight face and in all seriousness (if you could see them)...that the exact opposite is true. Evolution is failed and/or disproven, and has not only failed to contribute anything to science in any way at all, it has actually "hindered science". Creationism is the superior explanation, has produced all sorts of wonderful contributions to modern science, and is without any doubt perfectly in line with all the evidence.

And as the thread you just looked at shows, when you ask these creationists to back any of that up, they either call you names, sputter incoherently, or just ignore the question.​

Are you going to confirm my prediction?

 

[Jose Fly]

6days,

And let's not forget our previously ongoing topic.

Which part of me pointing out that the person you cited works for an organization that has its employees agree to work under a framework that you agreed was anti-scientific, do you consider to be discrediting and a personal attack?

And since when has junk DNA gone "poof" to the point that it disproves evolution (citations would be helpful)?

 

[6days]

6days,
And let's not forget our previously ongoing topic.
Which part of me pointing out that the person you cited works for an organization that has its employees agree to work under a framework that you agreed was anti-scientific, do you consider to be discrediting and a personal attack?

You ignored his argument and instead tried to discredit him suggesting he was "anti-scientific." Yes.. its a classic axample of ad hominem fallacy.

And.... not sure if you want to retract something that seems dishonest, but Tompkins does not work for AIG, as you said. He was a prof at Clemson and now works or ICR.

You did agree that this definition "is fine" for ad hominem . An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

And since when has junk DNA gone "poof" to the point that it disproves evolution (citations would be helpful)?

Strawman AGAIN.
Rather than asking me to defend your invented argument, I will gladly defend what I really said..."Junk" DNA, is only one of many poofed 'proofs' of evolutionism ...Thanks to science."

 

[alwight]

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 apparent lack of ET aliens within a detectable radius is nevertheless information and something worth knowing imo. If we didn't proactively search for them then some people would no doubt be imagining them existing at every possible opportunity anyway. Some people seem very keen that their own perhaps imaginative concepts thrive regardless of there being any positive or indeed negative facts and information.lain:

 

[Greg Jennings]

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

Lol fair point with the "literal."


It is figuratively robbing them

 

[Greg Jennings]

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.

Because I work with a few, and they don't take creationism seriously. If scientists don't take something seriously, you can rest assured that they won't go wasting money on it. They've been immersed in science for their whole lives, and don't see any reason to believe a literal Genesis any more than a literal Egyptian mythos. That's not to say that they don't believe in the bible (they are ALL Christian that I'm working with), but they know for certain that a literal Genesis is a bit unrealistic

 

[Greg Jennings]

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.

Haha we just went over the brontosaurus-apatosaurus sham in class! A classic example of science before the age of easy peer-review. As I'm sure you know, the only mistake on that fossil was it had the wrong skull. A big mistake, and not one that could ever happen with the intense scrutiny that scientific "discoveries" undergo today


Lon, what do you think antibiotics do? Your distrust of science is disappointing. Companies like Johnson and Johnson have scientists working for them, but they are by no means a scientific organization. They are a business, and businesses are about making money. You can trust the information from scientific organizations because they typically aren't monetarily incentivized.
You seem to think that it operates the same way it did 200+ years ago (when the whole scientific community believed in a literal Genesis). Tell me, if a literal Genesis is correct, and if you have ANY faith in scientists, then why did the entire fields of biology and geology start out with a belief in a young earth, then after decades of gathering evidence changed their minds to old earth?

Why did the gathering of evidence lead to the wrong conclusion when (according to YECs) the right conclusion was reached initially, before the evidence was gathered?

 

[Greg Jennings]

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.

SETI has no statement on whether an intelligent being created us or not. You're just building another one of your world famous strawmen

 

[Jose Fly]

You ignored his argument and instead tried to discredit him suggesting he was "anti-scientific."

Do you disagree?

Yes.. its a classic axample of ad hominem fallacy.

So tell me....why do courts call "expert witnesses" to testify on scientific topics rather than just pull in random people off the street?

And.... not sure if you want to retract something that seems dishonest, but Tompkins does not work for AIG, as you said. He was a prof at Clemson and now works or ICR.

Sheesh...pay better attention. I already noted that as well as pointed out that ICR operates under the same anti-scientific framework.

Strawman AGAIN.
Rather than asking me to defend your invented argument, I will gladly defend what I really said..."Junk" DNA, is only one of many poofed 'proofs' of evolutionism ...Thanks to science."

Ok, exactly what science regarding junk DNA has "poofed the 'proof' of evolution"?

Oh, and btw....thanks for confirming my prediction. :thumb:

 

[6days]

Lon,.... Your (distrust) of science is disappointing.You seem to think that (science) operates the same way it did 200+ years ago (when the whole scientific community believed in a literal Genesis

Greg... your lack of knowlege of history is disappointing.

There has never been and never will be any 'scientific' community that all had same beliefs about our origins. Before the age of modern science was brought in largely by Bible believing scientists; the prevailing 'science' was an Aristotelianism logic or naturalism. Even Paul in the Bible is making arguments against the 'evolutionists' of his day. ("The Epicureans were materialists in the modern, scientific sense".https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-epicureanism-and-stoicism).




Re. Your comment that 200+ years ago the scientific community believed in a literal Genesis. Again, Greg...you should do some research. You obviously have not heard ofJean Baptiste Lamarck. He introduced yet another form of evolutionism that science has disproven. Science continues dispelling evolutionary beliefs

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... your lack of knowlege of history is disappointing.

There has never been and never will be any 'scientific' community that all had same beliefs about our origins. Before the age of modern science was brought in largely by Bible believing scientists; the prevailing 'science' was an Aristotelianism logic or naturalism. Even Paul in the Bible is making arguments against the 'evolutionists' of his day. ("The Epicureans were materialists in the modern, scientific sense".https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-epicureanism-and-stoicism).

For the last time......evolution has nothing to do with origins of life

Re. Your comment that 200+ years ago the scientific community believed in a literal Genesis. Again, Greg...you should do some research. You obviously have not heard ofJean Baptiste Lamarck. He introduced yet another form of evolutionism that science has disproven. Science continues dispelling evolutionary beliefs

Lamarck was resisted by the scientific community. Not many accepted his hypotheses, and they were later proven to be incorrect. However, Lamarckism represents an important recognition of the fact that populations change over time. It was a very old, incorrect method for explaining that observation

Bishop ussher, A. G. Werner, James Hutton, and tens of other prominent early geologists would disagree. Are you denying that science around 200 years ago was dominated by YEC ideology, and has since changed?

:chuckle: Read a freaking book, man. This is getting sad

 

[alwight]

Re. Your comment that 200+ years ago the scientific community believed in a literal Genesis. Again, Greg...you should do some research. You obviously have not heard ofJean Baptiste Lamarck. He introduced yet another form of evolutionism that science has disproven. Science continues dispelling evolutionary beliefs

200+ years ago the Genesis account of creation was the generally accepted belief of most ordinary western people. But some like Lamarck may have been wrong but they were at least attempting to explain real evidence and not merely adhering to the traditionally accepted Biblical creation account, which itself has been proven to be wrong by science many times over using science facts and evidence.
Science getting it right at the first attempt is hardly a requirement, but when it is shown to be wrong, that is often when a rather better explanation comes along.
Without pioneers like Lamarck getting its details wrong, science perhaps wouldn't eventually ever get it right. People who understand science know how this works and the steps involved toward getting to the best explanation, while you are only interested, it seems, when something or someone is, with hindsight, incorrect.

To pretend that intelligent people like Greg Jennings and others here who are perhaps rather more interested in science than in your ridiculous stubborn adherence to an ancient scripture, need to learn about those such as Lamarck is just a little more than condescending imo it's actually rather insulting.lain:

 

[6days]

the whole scientific community believed in a literal Genesis

It waa pointed out how inaccurate this was.

...science around 200 years ago was dominated by YEC ideology

Not so sure about that, but it certainly contradicts what you earlier said. As was pointed out to you...Lamarck and others rejected 'YEC ideology.

Read a freaking book, man.

??? But it seems I am the one who keeps correcting your false statements.

 

[6days]

200+ years ago the Genesis account of creation was the generally accepted belief of most ordinary western people.

Yes, but certainly not the whole scientific community ss Greg stated.

But some like Lamarck may have been wrong but they were at least attempting to explain real evidence

Hmmmmm.....

True, but you have left out the most important detail.

Many of the great scientists of the past were attempting, as you say, to explain real evidence. (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Mendel, Galileo, Kepler, Mendel, Edwards, Boyle, Pascal, Kirby, Barton, Cuvier, Stenno and many more). But, those scientists explained evidence within the framework of the Biblical creator. Lamarck, tried to explain evidence within a framework of deism, rejecting the Biblical creator. Science proved much of what Pasteur and other Biblical scientists thougt to be correct. Many are considered to be fathers of modern science. Science proved Lamarcks beliefs were false.

 

[Jose Fly]

Science proved much of what Pasteur and other Biblical scientists thougt to be correct. Many are considered to be fathers of modern science. Science proved Lamarcks beliefs were false.

Once again we see you trying to have it both ways (tails you win, heads we lose). One of the "Biblical scientists" you like to cite is Newton, who it turned out was wrong on some things (e.g., gravitation, which is why relativity replaced Newton's theories), and very, very wrong on others (e.g., alchemy). But since he's on your team, that all gets swept under the rug and we never see you post about how "science has proven the beliefs of Biblical creationists like Newton to be wrong".

Yet when scientists who aren't on your team ("evolutionists") have been wrong on things, you shout it from the rooftops like it's some sort of indictment of the entire field of evolutionary biology.

Funny how that works.

 

[6days]

Newton, who it turned out was wrong on some things

Of course! All scientists are sometimes wrong about things. But, Newton was not wrong because he started out with the wrong assumptions about our origins.

Yet when scientists who aren't on your team ("evolutionists") have been wrong on things, you shout it from the rooftops like it's some sort of indictment of the entire field of evolutionary biology.

Science does keep proving evolutionists wrong. We were discussing Lamarck since Greg seemed to be under the impression that at one time the entire scientic community believed in Genesis. There has always been people who rejected God's Word... such as Lamarck, who have been proven wrong by science

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course! All scientists are sometimes wrong about things. But, Newton was not wrong because he started out with the wrong assumptions about our origins. Science does keep proving evolutionists wrong.

Do you see the difference in how you characterize the two situations? When those on your team (creationists) are wrong about things, it's "scientists are sometimes wrong", but when those on the other team ("evolutionists") are wrong about things, it's "science keeps proving evolutionists wrong".

When it's your team it's just the individual that's wrong, and it's just what happens. When it's the other team the entire team is wrong and it's an indictment of their entire field.

How shady. :down:

 

[alwight]

Many of the great scientists of the past were attempting, as you say, to explain real evidence. (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Mendel, Galileo, Kepler, Mendel, Edwards, Boyle, Pascal, Kirby, Barton, Cuvier, Stenno and many more). But, those scientists explained evidence within the framework of the Biblical creator. Lamarck, tried to explain evidence within a framework of deism, rejecting the Biblical creator. Science proved much of what Pasteur and other Biblical scientists thougt to be correct. Many are considered to be fathers of modern science. Science proved Lamarcks beliefs were false.

I simply don't accept that science can even be attempted within a "framework" of something inherently supernatural, even if a supernatural is true.

Of course very few people 200 years ago would find their cause assisted by admitting that their endeavours required absolutely no divine presumptions. But science concerns itself only with the natural and not a presupposition of a supernatural "framework".
If science were to somehow include a supernatural then the miraculous could be invoked at any convenient point, perhaps where they were having the most difficulties. That would be an adulteration of science, which just isn't science at all. Indeed Newton himself would reach a personal goddidit point, perhaps he just got tired and lazy, yet years later his efforts were nevertheless eventually surpassed by those who didn't rush to reach a divine conclusion.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It waa pointed out how inaccurate this was.

Not so sure about that, but it certainly contradicts what you earlier said. As was pointed out to you...Lamarck and others rejected 'YEC ideology.


??? But it seems I am the one who keeps correcting your false statements.

You're not correcting jack. You're just regurgitating your incorrect, AiG/ICR based talking points that aren't based on history. You haven't back up anything you've said, and you won't be able to because you're horribly wrong.

Did Bishop Ussher, A.G. Werner, James Hutton, and so on exist? You don't even know who they are, do you?