PDA

View Full Version : Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science



Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 09:50 AM
That's right....creationism is just a belief, not a science, and hasn't contributed anything to science. Now, before any of you creationists get upset at me for saying this, you should know that 6days is the one who said it.

CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4485775&postcount=65)

I guess we found something we can agree on! :up:

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 09:51 AM
That's right....creationism is just a belief, not a science, and hasn't contributed anything to science. Now, before any of you creationists get upset at me for saying this, you should know that 6days is the one who said it.

CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4485775&postcount=65)

I guess we found something we can agree on! :up:

you agree with the statement he made?

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 09:54 AM
On creationism, yes.

6days
October 14th, 2015, 09:57 AM
That's right....creationism is just a belief, not a science, and hasn't contributed anything to science. Now, before any of you creationists get upset at me for saying this, you should know that 6days is the one who said it.

CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4485775&postcount=65)

I guess we found something we can agree on! :up:
:)
I hope everyone checks your link!

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:00 AM
On creationism, yes.

his statement covered more than creationism

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:02 AM
:)
I hope everyone checks your link!

I do too, because it's good to know that at the very least, we've agreed to the fact that creationism is a belief, not science, and hasn't contributed anything to science.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:04 AM
his statement covered more than creationism

It only honestly covered creationism. Anybody with half a brain can figure out that evolutionary theory has contributed a great deal to science and to our technology and pharmaceuticals in existence today

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:04 AM
his statement covered more than creationism

Sure, he also claimed the same about evolution. But given how his claim about evolution is directly contradicted by the data, it's not worth a thing. OTOH, since his claim about creationism is consistent with the data and we both agree to it, it's worth a bit more.

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:05 AM
Sure, he also claimed the same about evolution.

so you're willing to distort his statement?

6days
October 14th, 2015, 10:06 AM
his statement covered more than creationism

Haha... yes it did.
I find this thread amusing. :)

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:09 AM
so you're willing to distort his statement?

Um.......what? :idunno:

bybee
October 14th, 2015, 10:12 AM
That's right....creationism is just a belief, not a science, and hasn't contributed anything to science. Now, before any of you creationists get upset at me for saying this, you should know that 6days is the one who said it.

CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4485775&postcount=65)

I guess we found something we can agree on! :up:

Of course it isn't science! For me, that isn't the point.

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:12 AM
Um.......what? :idunno:

allow me to demonstrate:


... creationism is consistent with the data ....


...creationism is ... science...




now, shall i start a thread saying that Jose Fly accepts creationism?

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 10:14 AM
:mock: Jose Fly

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:22 AM
allow me to demonstrate:

now, shall i start a thread saying that Jose Fly accepts creationism?

???????? Where did I do anything like that at all? :idunno:

You guys are kinda struggling with this, aren't you? One of your own has given up the game and admitted that creationism isn't science and hasn't contributed to science, and some of you creationists don't know what to do with that.

This is fun. :chuckle:

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:23 AM
Of course it isn't science! For me, that isn't the point.

So we have two creationists who agree that creationism isn't science. Any others?

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:35 AM
???????? Where did I do anything like that at all? :idunno:


in the quotes by you that i provided



You guys are kinda struggling with this, aren't you?

struggling with the fact that you're misrepresenting what 6days said?

not at all

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:37 AM
in the quotes by you that i provided

struggling with the fact that you're misrepresenting what 6days said?

not at all

Again, in which post did I misrepresent what 6days said?

6days
October 14th, 2015, 04:09 PM
Again, in which post did I misrepresent what 6days said?
Jose... its called quote mining ..."The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage"

Here is the complete quote..As you know... evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science... Actually, it can be argued that evolutionism has harmed medical progress in some situations with evolutionists making false assumptions based on their belief system.

BTW... Christianity has contributed a great deal to modern science, and the betterment of our world.

1Mind1Spirit
October 14th, 2015, 04:18 PM
Jose... its called quote mining ..."The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage"

Here is the complete quote..As you know... evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science... Actually, it can be argued that evolutionism has harmed medical progress in some situations with evolutionists making false assumptions based on their belief system.

BTW... Christianity has contributed a great deal to modern science, and the betterment of our world.

What he dudn't realize is, that every time he does it he skewers himself.

Nasty little critter he is.:chuckle:

genuineoriginal
October 14th, 2015, 04:25 PM
It only honestly covered creationism. Anybody with half a brain can figure out that evolutionary theory has contributed a great deal to science and to our technology and pharmaceuticals in existence today

Yes, only people with half a brain think that evolutionary theory has contributed anything to science.

genuineoriginal
October 14th, 2015, 04:26 PM
So we have two creationists who agree that creationism isn't science. Any others?

I am sure you can find lots of people that agree that evolutionism is not science.

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 04:32 PM
Jose... its called quote mining ..."The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage"

Yeah, I've been around creationists long enough to know what quote mining is.


Here is the complete quote..As you know... evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science... Actually, it can be argued that evolutionism has harmed medical progress in some situations with evolutionists making false assumptions based on their belief system.

Yes, and that's exactly what I linked to in the OP and have since discussed. To reiterate...

You and I both agree that creationism is a belief and not a science, and doesn't contribute anything to science. That's what the OP was about.

You also believe the same about evolution. I disagree, and point to the fact that evolution is, and has been for over 150 years, the central framework for the life sciences, as well as the various discoveries and innovations that result from the evolutionary framework (e.g., discerning genetic function, and the OP in the elephant thread).

So no quote mining or distortion on my part. I didn't alter anything you posted, nor did I misrepresent it in any way.

Now, back to the topic at hand. :up:

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 04:34 PM
What he dudn't realize is, that every time he does it he skewers himself.

Nasty little critter he is.:chuckle:

Does what? :idunno:

1Mind1Spirit
October 14th, 2015, 10:01 PM
Does what? :idunno:

Quote mining.

Eric h
October 15th, 2015, 12:29 AM
???????? Where did I do anything like that at all? :idunno:

You guys are kinda struggling with this, aren't you? One of your own has given up the game and admitted that creationism isn't science and hasn't contributed to science, and some of you creationists don't know what to do with that.

This is fun. :chuckle:

Evolution is not a big deal one way or the other, I really believe that if it happened, it would need the guiding hand of God. Life is too complex for evolution to be a total explanation of life. There is lots of guess work as to how life begun, but no science to prove it

Our universe is here today, meaning that something had to come from nothing, or something had no beginning, science cannot offer an explanation, it defies logic.

Evolution adds no meaning or purpose to my life, God does, and there is no science of God.

Ask Mr. Religion
October 15th, 2015, 01:31 AM
:)
I hope everyone checks your link!

Which would be more easily rendered as:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4485775#post4485775

When posting links, best not to use the form:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4485775&postcount=65

When you get to that link, a stand alone post (#65), rather than using it always click the thread title immediately above it. That link shows the entire thread in context for the particular post in context, versus just a single post.

20522
[click to enlarge]

AMR

Ask Mr. Religion
October 15th, 2015, 01:33 AM
:)
I hope everyone checks your link!Me, too!

The post is more effectively rendered as:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4485775#post4485775

When posting links, best not to use the form:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4485775&postcount=65

When you get to that link, a stand alone post (#65), rather than using it always click the thread title immediately above it (see pix below). That thread title link shows the entire thread in context for the particular post, versus just a link to a single post. This way the less than technically savvy user is not stuck on a page wondering what else has been said about the topic at hand and how to escape the page.

20522
[click to enlarge]

AMR

SabathMoon
October 15th, 2015, 05:11 AM
I do too, because it's good to know that at the very least, we've agreed to the fact that creationism is a belief, not science, and hasn't contributed anything to science.What has Charles Darwin contributed to science other than ideas from other people? Origin of The Species is total junk.

jzeidler
October 15th, 2015, 05:13 AM
Hahaha this guy can't read :p

jzeidler
October 15th, 2015, 05:22 AM
Sure, he also claimed the same about evolution. But given how his claim about evolution is directly contradicted by the data, it's not worth a thing. OTOH, since his claim about creationism is consistent with the data and we both agree to it, it's worth a bit more.


So there's no belief in evolution?

How did the Big Bang happen?
How did nothing explode into everything? And why?
How did life come from non-life?
Why is there music?
Why do humans find things beautiful?
Why is there morality?

I can keep going. But I think this suffices to show that there is belief in evolution and that evolution doesn't explain much.

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 09:44 AM
Quote mining.

Where did I do that? Or is this going to be yet another time where creationists wait until the thread is 6 pages long, and then claim "We already answered"?

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 09:46 AM
Evolution is not a big deal one way or the other, I really believe that if it happened, it would need the guiding hand of God. Life is too complex for evolution to be a total explanation of life.

Do you believe God guided evolution to create complex things like the smallpox virus, ebola, and the malaria parasite?


There is lots of guess work as to how life begun, but no science to prove it

Do you understand how there's a lot of gray area between "guess work" and "completely proven"?


Our universe is here today, meaning that something had to come from nothing, or something had no beginning, science cannot offer an explanation, it defies logic.

Yes it does. Read the latest work from Stephen Hawking.

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 09:47 AM
So there's no belief in evolution?

How did the Big Bang happen?
How did nothing explode into everything? And why?
How did life come from non-life?
Why is there music?
Why do humans find things beautiful?
Why is there morality?

I can keep going. But I think this suffices to show that there is belief in evolution and that evolution doesn't explain much.

Um.........yeah. When you get anywhere near a coherent point, let us know. :rolleyes:

jeffblue101
October 15th, 2015, 09:55 AM
That's right....creationism is just a belief, not a science, and hasn't contributed anything to science. Now, before any of you creationists get upset at me for saying this, you should know that 6days is the one who said it.

CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4485775&postcount=65)

I guess we found something we can agree on! :up:


If you are not quote mining then do you agree with his justification that "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science"?

jeffblue101
October 15th, 2015, 10:00 AM
Do you believe God guided evolution to create complex things like the smallpox virus, ebola, and the malaria parasite?


since you labeled me a tribalist, plz clarify how your leading question is not an argument for neo Darwinian evolution being atheistic.

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 10:12 AM
If you are not quote mining then do you agree with his justification that "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science"?

??????????? I don't think 6days said beliefs about the past contribute nothing to science. If he did, he's even more delusional than I thought.


plz clarify how your leading question is not an argument for neo Darwinian evolution being atheistic.

It is an argument for non-theistic evolution...not a scientific one (it's philosophical), but an argument nonetheless.

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 10:13 AM
That's right....creationism is just a belief, not a science, and hasn't contributed anything to science. Now, before any of you creationists get upset at me for saying this, you should know that 6days is the one who said it.

CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4485775&postcount=65)

I guess we found something we can agree on! :up:




There are people who come across as creationists as though the only thing they have in support is a belief. That is not what I'm referring to. Every day we walk in a setting that is extremely fine-tuned for our existence, and for which the improbability of its existence as such is almost infinite. That is the evidence. "In Him, we live, move and have our being"--ancient Greek poet, Acts 17.

The US Constitution is based on rights endowed by our Creator. Given the fact that the more the international Left and Islam show themselves to be abject failures, and everyone wants to be someplace in or like the US, it is an enormous success, based on a direct, personal connection to our Creator.

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 10:15 AM
since you labeled me a tribalist, plz clarify how your leading question is not an argument for neo Darwinian evolution being atheistic.



Rachel Carlson is responsible for massive malaria death because she fought the use of DDT.

jzeidler
October 15th, 2015, 10:27 AM
Um.........yeah. When you get anywhere near a coherent point, let us know. :rolleyes:


My point is that evolution can't answer those questions therefore you need to take it on faith.

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 10:30 AM
My point is that evolution can't answer those questions therefore you need to take it on faith.

So you pose a series of questions that have nothing to do with evolution, and conclude that since evolution doesn't answer them, it's all faith?

And you think that makes sense? :think:

jzeidler
October 15th, 2015, 10:36 AM
So you pose a series of questions that have nothing to do with evolution, and conclude that since evolution doesn't answer them, it's all faith?



And you think that makes sense? :think:


Those have everything to do with evolution. It's not my fault you don't understand that. I guess I should t be surprised by this since you don't even understand when you're quote mining.

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 10:36 AM
Evolution cannot be separated from the classic questions of cosmology and metaphysics, and therefore those questions have to do with evolution. It was imposed by the desires of T. Huxley and other British elites when they realized the depth of the American Revolution was not just military but philosophical, and against centralized (Royal, imperial) government. The only way to fight it after the Revolution was to dismantle the philosophic based by 1000s of reps of pure, naive nonsense in the sciences. That is how we got to the point where people actually believed Obama at Glacier Ice Fields this summer. Bludgeoning by reps.

jzeidler
October 15th, 2015, 10:40 AM
Evolution cannot be separated from the classic questions of cosmology and metaphysics, and therefore those questions have to do with evolution. It was imposed by the desires of T. Huxley and other British elites when they realized the depth of the American Revolution was not just military but philosophical, and against centralized (Royal, imperial) government. The only way to fight it after the Revolution was to dismantle the philosophic based by 1000s of reps of pure, naive nonsense in the sciences. That is how we got to the point where people actually believed Obama at Glacier Ice Fields this summer. Bludgeoning by reps.


You're exactly correct.

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 10:42 AM
Those have everything to do with evolution.

No they don't.


It's not my fault you don't understand that. I guess I should t be surprised by this since you don't even understand when you're quote mining.

I'm predicting that despite all these accusations of quote mining, not a single person will bother to even try and show where I've done so.

Like I've said....it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 10:45 AM
Lyell was a dishonest scientist himself, Jose. He said he was doing what he was doing to get rid of Moses. A very stupid thing to say as a 'scientist' and intellectually dishonest. The overkill of this kind is what has made it almost impossible for people to see the sense and provenance of Gen 1-11.

In the historical and political context of his day, that was his 'war' on the US Constitution, about which the British Empire was scared spitless at that point.

6days
October 15th, 2015, 11:19 AM
Evolution is not a big deal one way or the other, I really believe that if it happened, it would need the guiding hand of God. Life is too complex for evolution to be a total explanation of life. There is lots of guess work as to how life begun, but no science to prove it
I with agree...sort of.

Common ancestry would not be a problem for Christians if God had created that way.*

However God did not create through an evolutionary process according to His Word. Trying to squeeze millions of years and common ancestry into the Bible leads to two major problems.
1. Believing in physical death existing before "first Adam" sinned, destroys the gospel and defeats the purpose of "Last Adam" defeating physical death.*

2. Believing that Genesis 1 is allegorical leads young people to a buffet type Christianity, where they pick and choose what to believe from God's Word.*

ok doser
October 15th, 2015, 11:41 AM
Evolution by its very nature requires there to be more death, degradation and destruction than improvement in species

I have yet to see a cogent argument that this would be a process deliberately designed by a loving God

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 11:41 AM
I with agree...sort of.

Common ancestry would not be a problem for Christians if God had created that way.*

However God did not create through an evolutionary process according to His Word. Trying to squeeze millions of years and common ancestry into the Bible leads to two major problems.
1. Believing in physical death existing before "first Adam" sinned, destroys the gospel and defeats the purpose of "Last Adam" defeating physical death.*

2. Believing that Genesis 1 is allegorical leads young people to a buffet type Christianity, where they pick and choose what to believe from God's Word.*



#1 is not true because Adam's sin has to do with those downstream from him. Evil was already in the universe. Adam's sin has to do with the realm or sphere downstream from him.

#2 is quite true. But saying the day might have been the thousand years that several passages allow is not an allegory. An allegory of Gen 1 would be:
'the unformed earth refers to Israel in captivity in Egypt;
the earth after creation refers to Israel in Canaan after the 1st generation;
the 'deep' refers to the Red Sea... etc., ad nauseum.
That's allegory as practiced in medieval theology. Paul did make an allegory out of one incident: the two wives and children of Abraham referred to the Gospel group vs Judaism.

None of the creative acts of God seem to have any time-duration to them. But there might be time between them. And they would not need to have time-duration. See Lewis on the difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural' miracles on that. We have to notice that Ps 90 (see v4) is 'a prayer of Moses...'

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 11:54 AM
It's nice to see all of you illustrating, and thereby confirming, 6days' point about creationism being a belief that doesn't contribute anything to science. :up:

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 11:56 AM
It's nice to see all of you illustrating, and thereby confirming, 6days' point about creationism being a belief that doesn't contribute anything to science. :up:



More creationists than U'ists are contributing to the literature about catastrophism in general and catastrophic plate tectonics in particular. If you are wondering why they don't contribute to a U'ist view of the world, that is a moot question, isn't it?

Silvestru writes that in all his years in U'ism, no one talked about Monterey Canyon. Oard shows that U'ists generally ignore the thousands of mammoths frozen upright in Siberia and the global north.

6days
October 15th, 2015, 12:06 PM
However God did not create through an evolutionary process according to His Word. Trying to squeeze millions of years and common ancestry into the Bible leads to two major problems.
1. Believing in physical death existing before "first Adam" sinned, destroys the gospel and defeats the purpose of "Last Adam" defeating physical death.

2. Believing that Genesis 1 is allegorical leads young people to a buffet type Christianity, where they pick and choose what to believe from God's Word.
#1 is not true because Adam's sin has to do with those downstream from him. Evil was already in the universe. Adam's sin has to do with the realm or sphere downstream from him.

No... you destroy the reason why Christ went to Calvary suffering physical death. After Adam sinned, God pronounced a curse upon His creation. Part of that curse was death to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

But Hugh Ross and other theistic evolutionists seem to think that physical death already existed before sin.
The following comment from another thread, a TOL member reasons..."The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. If God is always truthful, the death that the Fall brought to us, was not physical."
However..... If you believe physical death was part of God's "very good" creation (Gen.1:31), then I would argue the Gospel is compromised, if not destroyed.*

I will start with reasons why physical death was part of the curse...*
1. Genesis 2:17 in the KJV reads "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

A few examples from other translations...
Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world.

(Sad side note... The story of Charles Templeton...amazing evangelist...but he compromised on the matter death before sin, and he eventually turned away from God)

4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

5. To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, is refuted in Genesis 3:19 (Using KJV again) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4


None of the creative acts of God seem to have any time-duration to them. ....
God 'suggests' otherwise in Genesis 1.

Eric h
October 15th, 2015, 03:16 PM
Do you believe God guided evolution to create complex things like the smallpox virus, ebola, and the malaria parasite?


God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, I personally do not believe that God is the evolver of all that is seen and unseen.

We all die, so death is not the problem, but with God, there is the chance of eternal life afterwards.


Yes it does. Read the latest work from Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawkins might be flattered, but he does not claim to know the origin of the universe or the origin of life.


Stephen Hawkins
So it seems we are on our way to understanding the origin of the universe, though much more work will be needed.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Eric h
October 15th, 2015, 03:24 PM
Common ancestry would not be a problem for Christians if God had created that way.*

However God did not create through an evolutionary process according to His Word.



Agreed.

I believe the theory of evolution is a very good explanation as to how life adjusts and adapts. But the theory fails when you try and extrapolate back 3.8 billion years to the first life, it cannot be the explanation for complexity through a natural process.

jeffblue101
October 15th, 2015, 03:31 PM
??????????? I don't think 6days said beliefs about the past contribute nothing to science. If he did, he's even more delusional than I thought.

imo, it looks like he was making a point on historical vs experimental science. Nonetheless, if you disregard his justification as written like you just did in your reply then how is that not a quote mine?


It is an argument for non-theistic evolution...not a scientific one (it's philosophical), but an argument nonetheless.
I asked since the most common argument that I hear on these forum from evolutionists is that neo Darwian evolution is compatible with theism. Are you okay with non-scientific philosophical arguments that prove existence of God and His influence on the world or does it only run one way for you?

jeffblue101
October 15th, 2015, 03:53 PM
Like I've said....it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

and how exactly in an evolutionary worldview is honesty being a good or bad thing relevant?

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 04:18 PM
God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, I personally do not believe that God is the evolver of all that is seen and unseen.

We all die, so death is not the problem, but with God, there is the chance of eternal life afterwards.

I'm not clear on what your answer is. You've argued that evolution alone can't account for biological complexity (you just posted, "the theory fails when you try and extrapolate back 3.8 billion years to the first life, it cannot be the explanation for complexity through a natural process.)". Parasites, viruses, bacteria, and similar things all use quite complex biochemical pathways and structures to cause their diseases and afflictions. So if we grant your argument that only evolution guided by God can account for biological complexity, doesn't that mean God deliberately guided evolution to produce all the parasites, viruses, bacteria, and other things that have caused untold suffering?


Stephen Hawkins might be flattered, but he does not claim to know the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

You had posted that "science cannot offer an explanation" for the origin of the universe. That's demonstrably false, as Hawking's (and others) work shows. Like I conveyed before, there's a lot of room between "no explanation" and "100% complete explanation".

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 04:25 PM
imo, it looks like he was making a point on historical vs experimental science.

I thought his statement was very clear. He said that creationism is a belief, not science, and doesn't contribute anything to science. He and I both agree on that point.


Nonetheless, if you disregard his justification as written like you just did in your reply then how is that not a quote mine?

What exactly are you talking about? Quit dragging this out until the thread is long enough for you to hide behind "I already answered". If you think I've misrepresented what 6days posted, then...

1) Copy what 6days posted,

2) Copy what I posted that you think misrepresents #1, and

3) Explain how I misrepresented.

Anyone can just say "You quote mined"; it doesn't become anything more than a baseless accusation until you put some actual substance behind it.


I asked since the most common argument that I hear on these forum from evolutionists is that neo Darwian evolution is compatible with theism

And it is. Everything is compatible with theism. All you have to do is say "God did it that way" and you're done.


Are you okay with non-scientific philosophical arguments that prove existence of God and His influence on the world or does it only run one way for you?

Hard to say until you specify what you're talking about.


and how exactly in an evolutionary worldview is honesty being a good or bad thing relevant?

It always cracks me up when creationists think that an "evolutionary worldview" means "do whatever you want". All that does is show just how ignorant of evolution you are (hint: social structure and order is important for the survival of social organisms, such as humans).

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 04:29 PM
No... you destroy the reason why Christ went to Calvary suffering physical death. After Adam sinned, God pronounced a curse upon His creation. Part of that curse was death to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

But Hugh Ross and other theistic evolutionists seem to think that physical death already existed before sin.
The following comment from another thread, a TOL member reasons..."The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. If God is always truthful, the death that the Fall brought to us, was not physical."
However..... If you believe physical death was part of God's "very good" creation (Gen.1:31), then I would argue the Gospel is compromised, if not destroyed.*

I will start with reasons why physical death was part of the curse...*
1. Genesis 2:17 in the KJV reads "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

A few examples from other translations...
Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world.

(Sad side note... The story of Charles Templeton...amazing evangelist...but he compromised on the matter death before sin, and he eventually turned away from God)

4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

5. To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, is refuted in Genesis 3:19 (Using KJV again) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4


God 'suggests' otherwise in Genesis 1.



re the time duration, show me. I'm saying they were done quickly. I thought that would be something you could agree about. What I don't know about the amount of time or not necessary between them.

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 04:35 PM
No... you destroy the reason why Christ went to Calvary suffering physical death. After Adam sinned, God pronounced a curse upon His creation. Part of that curse was death to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

But Hugh Ross and other theistic evolutionists seem to think that physical death already existed before sin.
The following comment from another thread, a TOL member reasons..."The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. If God is always truthful, the death that the Fall brought to us, was not physical."
However..... If you believe physical death was part of God's "very good" creation (Gen.1:31), then I would argue the Gospel is compromised, if not destroyed.*

I will start with reasons why physical death was part of the curse...*
1. Genesis 2:17 in the KJV reads "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

A few examples from other translations...
Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world.

(Sad side note... The story of Charles Templeton...amazing evangelist...but he compromised on the matter death before sin, and he eventually turned away from God)

4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

5. To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, is refuted in Genesis 3:19 (Using KJV again) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4





God 'suggests' otherwise in Genesis 1.





re the realm of the curse: you are not dealing with the people affected. I don't know if this is an attention span thing or what, but you are not speaking to my question, so don't pretend that you are.
There was evil before Adam's sin. There was the effect of evil--the chaos of unfilled and unformed, which is from God's judgement on something. Job 38 says there was a cleansing. The model of the flood applied retroactively to the creation also shows that. But it was other evil than Adams until Adam sinned and participated.

You keep pasting a set of answers to things I'm not asking about.

The Gospel of Christ is still absolutely necessary for justification from sins (Rom 3 and Acts 13), and the whole universe will be swept clean when the NHNE is made.

jeffblue101
October 15th, 2015, 04:55 PM
I thought his statement was very clear. He said that creationism is a belief, not science, and doesn't contribute anything to science. He and I both agree on that point.
and again do you agree with his justification, ignoring or disregarding someones justification is indeed a quote mine. Here is a clear cut definition from a pro evolutionary source
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying.



What exactly are you talking about? Quit dragging this out until the thread is long enough for you to hide behind "I already answered". If you think I've misrepresented what 6days posted, then...

1) Copy what 6days posted,

2) Copy what I posted that you think misrepresents #1, and

3) Explain how I misrepresented.

Anyone can just say "You quote mined"; it doesn't become anything more than a baseless accusation until you put some actual substance behind it.

and i haven't avoided anything and did provide proof, instead you are the one avoiding the question on his justification.


And it is. Everything is compatible with theism. All you have to do is say "God did it that way" and you're done.
take that up with the various theistic evolutionists on this forum.



It always cracks me up when creationists think that an "evolutionary worldview" means "do whatever you want". All that does is show just how ignorant of evolution you are (hint: social structure and order is important for the survival of social organisms, such as humans).I said how is honesty being a good or bad thing even relevant in evolutionary worldview. so a more accurate rephrasing would be "do whatever you want" as long it gives a reproductive advantage.

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 05:06 PM
and again do you agree with his justification

What justification are you talking about? Be specific (copy it or cite a post #).


Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying.

And I haven't done any of that. 6days posted that creationism is a belief, not science, and doesn't contribute to science. I agree.

He said the same thing about evolution, and I already addressed that in this thread (post #3 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4486322&postcount=8)).


and i haven't avoided anything and did provide proof

And here we go again. Where did you "provide proof"? See above how I backed up what I said with a post # and link to where I said it? Do that.


instead you are the one avoiding the question on his justification.

Again, what justification are you talking about?


I said how is honesty being a good or bad thing even relevant in evolutionary worldview. so a more accurate rephrasing would be "do whatever you want" as long it gives a reproductive advantage.

And "maintaining a social order" confers a reproductive advantage on the population that manages to do it. Do you deny that or something?

jeffblue101
October 15th, 2015, 05:15 PM
Hard to say until you specify what you're talking about.


my question is pretty clear. Are you willing to accept non scientific philosophical arguments that prove God's existence or does it only run in the opposite direction for you?

jeffblue101
October 15th, 2015, 05:35 PM
What justification are you talking about? Be specific (copy it or cite a post #).
already cited "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science"



And I haven't done any of that. 6days posted that creationism is a belief, not science, and doesn't contribute to science. I agree.

He said the same thing about evolution, and I already addressed that in this thread (post #3 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4486322&postcount=8)).

"Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science" is not the same and does not have the same impact on the mind as "creationism and evolutionism are not a science and hasn't contributed to a science" because "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science". leaving out context to create a false agreement is quote mining.



and "maintaining a social order" confers a reproductive advantage on the population that manages to do it. Do you deny that or something? And I don't exactly see how "maintaining social order" is the exclusive domain of honesty.

6days
October 15th, 2015, 06:45 PM
There was evil before Adam's sin.There was the effect of evil--the chaos of unfilled and unformed, which is from God's judgement on something.
That perhaps is in the new chapters you want to add to the Bible.*

Genesis 1 tells how God formed and filled the earth over 6 days. There was no chaos...no death... no mention of evil. God called it "very good".*


The Gospel of Christ is still absolutely necessary for justification from sins ...

Yes. Perhaps I'm wrong but you don't seem to understand the Gospel. *Why did Christ have to physically die? Both OT and NT teach that death / shedding of blood is the penalty of sin. Christ, the Last Adam suffered physical death at the cross to pay for sin and defeat death caused by the first Adam.*

You destroy the Gospel inserting death, evil and chaos before sin entered our world. If death evil and chaos existed before sin, then the sacrifice of our sinless Savior becomes unecessary.

6days
October 15th, 2015, 06:52 PM
"Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science" is not the same and does not have the same impact on the mind as "creationism and evolutionism are not a science and hasn't contributed to a science" because "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science". leaving out context to create a false agreement is quote mining.
What is interesting is the impact Christianity has had on science, and how Christianity had had such a positive impact on our world.

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 08:00 PM
6days wrote:
That perhaps is in the new chapters you want to add to the Bible.*

Genesis 1 tells how God formed and filled the earth over 6 days. There was no chaos...no death... no mention of evil. God called it "very good".*


No! Job 38. Jer 4. God did not call 'formless and void' good ever! Not if you are paying attention Gen 1, which I am not sure of. The formless and void stage had some time to it. It was not the act of creation. The act of creation was forming that into a habitable place.

There is no connection between other death or evil and the first Man's! You are a nuisance on this. The death of Christ is the sacrifice of atonement for mankind's sins. It does not atone for any other entities out there--principalities and powers. They will be vanished, but not atoned for. God has mercy only on frail children of dust.

I did not add Job 38 to the Bible!!! You are insidious about this.

jzeidler
October 15th, 2015, 08:04 PM
It is interesting that evolution hasn't contributed anything to science. But let's look at what it has contributed to the world. I.e. Germicide, abortion, eugenics, Colombian shooting, etc. great legacy.

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 08:20 PM
Columbian shooting?

jzeidler
October 16th, 2015, 05:05 AM
Columbian shooting?


The shooters were motivated by evolution and idolized Darwin if I remember correctly.

Jonahdog
October 16th, 2015, 05:19 AM
It is interesting that evolution hasn't contributed anything to science. But let's look at what it has contributed to the world. I.e. Germicide, abortion, eugenics, Colombian shooting, etc. great legacy.

Just to understand, germicides are bad? And abortion only came into being after Darwin? And all eugenics did was provide an inaccurate basis for human tribalism. I'll also bet that your "Columbian" shooters had little understanding of evolution.

But you go right ahead and preach to your choir here.

Jonahdog
October 16th, 2015, 05:20 AM
What is interesting is the impact Christianity has had on science, and how Christianity had had such a positive impact on our world.

Such a positive impact on indigenous people throughout the world. Marvelous.

jzeidler
October 16th, 2015, 06:04 AM
Just to understand, germicides are bad? And abortion only came into being after Darwin? And all eugenics did was provide an inaccurate basis for human tribalism. I'll also bet that your "Columbian" shooters had little understanding of evolution.



But you go right ahead and preach to your choir here.


Haha sorry stupid autocorrect. That's been happening to me lately. I meant to say gennoacide.

jzeidler
October 16th, 2015, 06:10 AM
Just to understand, germicides are bad? And abortion only came into being after Darwin? And all eugenics did was provide an inaccurate basis for human tribalism. I'll also bet that your "Columbian" shooters had little understanding of evolution.



But you go right ahead and preach to your choir here.


Also, not saying that evolution started them. But it gave a justification for them. If we are all animals with no purpose why not so these things? Why not commit gennoacide? Besides "they aren't as evolved as us." And why not kill millions of the unborn? After all "they aren't human yet." And why not eugenics? "We need to help evolution along, kill off the weak so we can strengthen the more evolved." And why not do a school shooting? "Kill the Christians they are stupid animals with no purpose and their beliefs must be snuffed out."

See, it didn't start evil, it just gives it justification.

Jose Fly
October 16th, 2015, 09:39 AM
already cited "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science"

You're not making sense.


"Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science" is not the same and does not have the same impact on the mind as "creationism and evolutionism are not a science and hasn't contributed to a science" because "beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science". leaving out context to create a false agreement is quote mining.

Wow. Are you really this desperate to wave away something a fellow creationist said that you don't like?

Basically what you're arguing is that if Joe says "A and B are not round objects" and Steve reads that and says "Joe said A isn't a round object, and I agree. He also said B isn't a round object, but I disagree with that", he is quote mining?

If you really think that's valid, there's something fundamentally wrong with you.


And I don't exactly see how "maintaining social order" is the exclusive domain of honesty.

Well that's good, since I never said that.

Jose Fly
October 16th, 2015, 09:49 AM
It is interesting that evolution hasn't contributed anything to science.

Demonstrably false.


Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics (http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010045)

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy.

It's via evolutionary relatedness that geneticists figure out the functions of genetic sequences.

You can go to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences--the most prestigious scientific journal in the world--and browse through their topic page on evolution and read thousands of ways evolution has contributed (and continues to contribute) to science: CLICK HERE (http://www.pnas.org/content/by/section/Evolution).

Shoot...an entire field of modern science...comparative genomics...is entirely based on evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics#Evolutionary_principles).

Your statement is so wrong, you may as well have said there is no such thing as the moon. :chuckle:


But let's look at what it has contributed to the world. I.e. Germicide, abortion, eugenics, Colombian shooting, etc. great legacy.

Let's assume that any of that is true. That tells me you think the proper way to evaluate something is to examine examples of the worst ways in which people have used it. Would you like to evaluate Christianity by the same measure? :think:

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 10:23 AM
Demonstrably false.


Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics (http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010045)

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy.

It's via evolutionary relatedness that geneticists figure out the functions of genetic sequences.
Since there is no evolutionary relatedness to use, the evolutionary scientists resorted to the standard method of comparing form and function.

Since form and function are used to define the placement in the imaginary phylogenetic tree, the SIFTER program ended up producing the results expected by the evolutionary scientists, but it was not because of the misclassification of relatedness in the imaginary phylogenetic tree, it was due to the form and function of the types of creatures being similar.

It is one of those accidental substitution errors like when someone thinks it is multiplication that should be used instead of addition because they get the same result for 2 x 2 as for 2 + 2.

Jose Fly
October 16th, 2015, 10:28 AM
Since there is no evolutionary relatedness to use

Of course there is. That was the entire basis for their model.


the evolutionary scientists resorted to the standard method of comparing form and function.

No they didn't.


Since form and function are used to define the placement in the imaginary phylogenetic tree

??????? How can it be imaginary, if it actually exists and predicts genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy? :idunno:


the SIFTER program ended up producing the results expected by the evolutionary scientists, but it was not because of the misclassification in the imaginary phylogenetic tree, it was due to the form and function of the types of creatures being similar.

It is one of those accidental substitution errors like when someone thinks it is multiplication that should be used instead of addition because they get the same result for 2 x 2 as for 2 + 2.

This is exactly why I do this. It is soooooooo hilarious to watch you creationists scramble for excuses to deny science that you don't understand at all. "I have no idea what this is.......BUT IT'S WRONG!!!11!!" :chuckle:

ok doser
October 16th, 2015, 10:31 AM
This is exactly why I do this. It is soooooooo hilarious to watch you creationists scramble for excuses to deny science that you don't understand at all. "I have no idea what this is.......BUT IT'S WRONG!!!11!!" :chuckle:



i predict redness in your future


allow me to be the first to say "good riddance" :wave2:

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 11:45 AM
Of course there is. That was the entire basis for their model.
An imaginary phylogenetic tree defining imaginary evolutionary relatedness is the basis for their model?

It is a good thing that they accidentally classified the "evolutionary relatedness" for their "phylogenetic tree" using the form and function needed for their model to work.


How can it be imaginary, if it actually exists and predicts genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy? :idunno:
There is no evolutionary relatedness since the species did not form through the process of evolution.
Since evolutionary relatedness is a product of imagination and not nature, the phylogenetic tree that maps evolutionary relatedness is also a product of imagination.

Since placement in the imaginary phylogenetic tree is based upon similarities and differences in physical or genetic characteristics, it is actually the similar form and function that is allowing the software to work despite the use of a model based on nothing more than human imagination.

Jose Fly
October 16th, 2015, 12:00 PM
An imaginary phylogenetic tree defining imaginary evolutionary relatedness is the basis for their model?

And it just happened to predict genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. But that's merely a coincidence, right?


It is a good thing that they accidentally classified the "evolutionary relatedness" for their "phylogenetic tree" using the form and function needed for their model to work.

How do you know how they developed their tree?


There is no evolutionary relatedness since the species did not form through the process of evolution.
Since evolutionary relatedness is a product of imagination and not nature, the phylogenetic tree that maps evolutionary relatedness is also a product of imagination.

And things are so just because you say they are?

The moon is made of cheese. Now since I said it, it must be so, right?


Since placement in the imaginary phylogenetic tree is based upon similarities and differences in physical or genetic characteristics, it is actually the similar form and function that is allowing the software to work despite the use of a model based on nothing more than human imagination.

Yet it works....extremely well. Oh well...since "genuineoriginal" at Theologyonline says it's imaginary, it must be so. :chuckle:

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 12:29 PM
And it just happened to predict genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. But that's merely a coincidence, right?
Yes, it was a accident that worked out for them.

How do you know how they developed their tree?
They discuss it in their literature.
You, being an evolutionist, must have read up on the literature on how this imaginary phylogenetic tree was developed from the first ones created by Edward Hitchcock and Charles Darwin to the ones we have today.


And things are so just because you say they are?
Things are regardless of whether I say that they are or you say that they aren't.
The phylogenetic tree is a construct of human imagination.
Nothing I say or you say will change that.


The moon is made of cheese. Now since I said it, it must be so, right?
If the moon is made of cheese, it will be so whether you say it or not.
If the moon is not made of cheese, your claim will not make it so.

Jose Fly
October 16th, 2015, 12:37 PM
Yes, it was a accident that worked out for them.

And there ya' have it....the creationist approach to science. When presented with results you don't like, wave 'em away with "Meh....it was just an accident".

This is why creationists are laughed at. :rotfl:

Ben Masada
October 16th, 2015, 12:39 PM
If that's true, what then caused the universe to exist? I am asking based on the concept of Causality that states there is nothing caused without a cause.

6days
October 16th, 2015, 01:04 PM
Demonstrably false.

[INDENT]Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics (http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010045)

Jose...previously you were shown that that 'example' failed.
Creationist geneticists and atheist geneticists use the exact same science..the same procedures....the same scientific method. ..etc. They have different beliefs about the past to which they credit 'relatedness' to.
*The belief in a common ancestor has never resulted in a single medical advancement.
* The belief in common ancestry has never resulted in a single new technology.
* The belief in common ancestry has actually harmed science in some situations .
* Common ancestry beliefs have definetly caused immense suffering in our world through increased racism, genocides, the holocaust and more.

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 01:05 PM
And there ya' have it....the creationist approach to science. When presented with results you don't like, wave 'em away with "Meh....it was just an accident".
I explained how they were able to get accurate results even when they used a model based on a impossibility.

The phylogenetic tree is an impossibility, since there is no evolution from one species to another species and no common ancestors between different species.

However, this impossible model was populated based on assumptions made that animals are related by evolution if they have similar forms and functions.

The similar forms and functions are a fact, and it is this fact that enabled the SIFTER program to produce accurate results.

The presumed ancestral relationship through evolution, being non-existent, has absolutely nothing to do with the results.

Therefore it is not evolution (the presumed ancestral relationships through evolution) that contributed to science, but actual facts of creation (similarity between form and function) that contributed to science.

6days
October 16th, 2015, 01:30 PM
I
The phylogenetic tree is an impossibility, since there is no evolution from one species to another species and no common ancestors between different species.
In all likelihood there are thousands of these trees. IOW... there is no phylogenetic tree. Their imaginary tree continually is changed to meet whatever the current data is, then they often insist this is evidence of good science. You would think after a few thousand failed predictions on their tree they would stop calling it science.

ok doser
October 16th, 2015, 01:32 PM
they have faith that they will eventually get it right :chuckle:

Ben Masada
October 17th, 2015, 12:14 PM
they have faith that they will eventually get it right :chuckle:

Then, when they get it right, they will understand that practice makes one an expert.