Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

LOL! I'm not a miracle worker, 6days religious pride forbids him from making any such concession EVER! He really does think that the problem is science and not the Bronze Age worldview of the kind of unassailable people who killed Jesus. The Jews are above reproach, just because nothing like their spectacular history has ever happened in recorded history means nothing to the faith part of the brain.

Caino,

You only Wish and Hope that 6days is wrong. He's not, and if it comes to pass that he is wrong about something, he will acknowledge it with an apology, just like myself. You act as if you are talking behind his back. LOL.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I have to say it's a mystery to me why people do it, or how they even can get so emotionally attached to these belief systems. I saw a guy on youtube say, if the Bible said that 2+2 = 5 he would believe it and then try to work it out. How could anyone be so bewitched by a book?! Or any mythology that requires permanent suspension of disbelief.

Nature all by itself is so very interesting and wondrous without the addition of none falsifiable supernatural embellishments. There are so many of them and the only thing they have in common is a lack of sound, testable evidence. If we want to know more about the world we live in and the reality we share there is a method that appears to work well, and it doesn't require yielding ones natural mind to some belief system or other. Question everything, especially things you have an emotional attachment to. And if you find something about what you believe in question then seek evidence, not apologetics. If it passes that test you should be able to demonstrate it to others without engaging in mental gymnastics and murky apologetics.

There is nothing wrong with open minded scepticism or withholding belief if you're not convinced. Scepticism is at the very heart of the scientific method but it's much more than that. Scepticism a little fail safe that protects us from all sorts of social ills....... :think:

But it won't help protect you when God is passing out new homes.

 

[Tyrathca]

Because inheritance is done with cells which you've learned are chock full of messages.

Oh Yorz it's cute when you think you've proved a point that was never in dispute. When did I ever say there aren't messages in the cell? Or especially that there are no messages to which we can apply Shannon information to?

Unfortunately you seem to have some gaps in your reasoning of messages in the cell -> Shannon information can apply to some -> ?????? -> Shannon information can apply to inheritance and DNA and tell us something meaningful.

My car is full of messages too but you don't see me trying to apply Shannon information to explain combustion do you?

Because you stopped using Shannon in your examples.

Not my fault your silly example didn't make sense when shoehorning inheritance into it. What I did was the closest I could come to an application of Shannon given your preconditions.

Maybe someone who claims to know what Shannon information tells us could do a better job? Someone who doesn't think the application here is inappropriate? But where could we find such a person?....

If more information is provided by noise, then we would invite noise in radio signals just to get more information.

Sometimes we do, they are called radio-telescopes.

When your radio is getting lots of static that is because it is getting lots of extra information, only problem is its not the information you want! You only want the information that contains the song, not the information about the pulsar billions of light years away or the electrical transformer you drove past etc. Thus everything but the song is called "noise"

Shannon states that the amount of information from the sent message cannot be exceeded by the decoded message

If you assume that the information you originally sent is the only information you want then yes by definition any change from what you started with is a loss.

But if you don't care what the original message was as long as what you received works then Shannon kind of falls apart. Doesn't it?

by stating that bigger proteins contain more or less information relative to each other, you've left the context of Shannon information which only compares the amount of information between the encoded message and the decoded message.

So it has more information except when it doesn't?

Anyway if we are going to be a stickler about encoding and decoding then when CAN we measure the information content of DNA? When is this encoding and decoding happening (remembering that it never changes code/medium from anything other than DNA)? I maintain that no such (non-arbitrary) points in time exist therefore you can't apply Shannon anyway properly. This was the very thing you handwaved away and would never answer originally (and I gave up asking and followed you down this rabbit hole to see it ends where we started) so I'm curious as to the answer obviously.


I predict more hot air stating your conclusions as fact again and never actually trying to show what an actual application of shannon information would look like. The phrase "Put up or shut up" comes to mind

 

[gcthomas]

I merely restated what you said.

Hmm, let's see...
I said:

... although this picture does not apply to DNA. There is no reason, beyond a religious one, to claim that DNA started perfect, so treating mutations as noise is arbitrary and incorrect.

And you said:

So unless a radio signal is "perfect" you don't bother about noise? That's what you are saying here.

Do you see? I made a statement about DNA mutations and you said I was talking about radio noise. That you doubled down on your deceit doesn't say much about your ethics.

Next:

You've set up an Aunt Sally, here.
Again, you missed answering the question. So you think that DNA was perfect originally and that mutations cannot be beneficial?

This is why laymen don't trust the experts. Even laymen know according to Shannon the message is defined as perfect before it is transmitted.

I answered it. Directly and completely. Go back and re-read my answer and try again.

Do you see? I wrote about DNA specifically, and you answered about Shannon communications instead, again. Not clear at all.

So you are convinced that DNA started as perfect and therefore mutations can only harm the message. Correct?

But the scientific description starts with DNA encoding little information, but increasing over time due to mutations in the population being selected in to or out of the gene pool.

No wonder you are getting confused, when you are assuming your conclusions before you start, using your preconceptions to argue against the science instead of using science.

 

[alwight]

Your eyes have already glazed over on this topic. When you've come out of your catatonic state let us know.

You have shown yourself to be well worthy of glazing anyone's eyes over Yorzhick.
Clearly trying to claim that Shannon's methods of restricting information to what it originally was somehow nevertheless applies to a world of occasional un-corrected chance random mutations, natural selection, gene duplication and genetic drift is for a YEC agenda either a deliberate obfuscation and misdirection or at best a misunderstanding and misapplication of science.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's interesting to watch creationists like Yorzhik paint a picture where the main reason YEC's can't make any headway into the sciences is because of a vast conspiracy among the scientific community to lock them out. But what Yorzhik seems to be missing is that science is a "put up or shut up" endeavor, where the main thing that matters are the results you generate. And that brings up two points against this conspiracy theory mindset.

First, we know for a fact that YEC organizations bring in millions of dollars per year via their "museums", DVD's, book sales, donations, etc. So that leads to an obvious question...if YEC is the correct version of reality, what exactly is stopping YEC's from producing real, tangible scientific results that are based on YEC? It's not lack of resources, so what is it? I'd really like to see Yorzhik answer this question.

Second, even if one believes that academia and the scientific journals are part of this conspiracy, that doesn't account for industry. Two examples I can think of are the oil exploration and biotech industries. Both operate under the old-earth, common descent frameworks, which they use to generate real, profitable results. How is that so if YEC is actually the correct version of reality? And if YEC is correct, shouldn't it be trivially easy for YEC's to demonstrate it to these industries? They don't care about ideologies, conspiracies, or dogma. Show them your framework can make them more money and they'll jump on board. Yet YEC's have never done anything like this at all.

Why not?

 

[Hedshaker]

But it won't help protect you when God is passing out new homes.

I don't believe in your God so posting this is pointless. And no, I won't be taking your word for it, so please refrain from preaching at me, thanks.

 

[DavisBJ]

‘nuff bragaddocio, off with the gloves

‘nuff bragaddocio, off with the gloves

To be sure, living in a world where smart people, such as yourself, will teach bad science as the norm is a problem.

Now I am confused. Only a post or so ago, you described me as someone who plugs his ears and says “Lalalalala.” Now I am one of the “smart” people? Consistency is a virtue that you should try to cultivate.

As to “bad science”, I am amenable to being corrected. You think you can do it?

We deal with it by having the kids argue with common descentists and pursue truth while they are young. Fortunately, there are very few new arguments coming from the common descentist side so even a high schooler will most likely see through most common descent arguments. Unfortunately, most kids are raised in public school and don't get the benefit of learning to think. So you will keep consensus I think for a long time.

If I were a YEC, I would be genuinely concerned about how to assure an in-depth and quality education for youngsters, at a level I don’t sense in your response. You allude to home-schooled high-school students triumphing over their public-school peers. I have spent substantial time taking college classes, and in support functions in the collegiate environment, and teaching. On rare occasions have I seen YEC arguments propounded in class, and never have I seen a YEC student that could come close to holding their own against the teacher. Not because the teacher demands the student concede, but rather because pitifully few home-school environments come even remotely close to the depth and breadth of relevant knowledge that the teacher picked up in their years of graduate school. Years ago, in private communication I had a teacher at a fundamentalist college admit that he discourages students from transferring from the fundamentalist college to a major university simply because they have such a horrendous attrition rate away from YEC dogma.

I won’t dispute that there are public school teachers, and even whole schools and districts that do a pretty poor job. When that happens, parents need to take decisive action. If no other good option is available, then home schooling is fine. But when home schooling is driven more by a desire to defend religious views than to provide a good education, then the student is crippled thereby. When teaching science is involved, if dogma is first and only evidence that fits that dogma is allowed, then that is not science at all.

So as to your bravado that home-schooled high-schoolers can dominate in defeating common descent claims, well, as I say, that is just what it is – bravado. Since the fully qualified scientists in your camp have been pretty impotent at defeating common descent, then I don’t expect school kids to prevail where your heroes have faltered.

The problem might be that despite being a good student, there are a lot of common descent professors and teachers that don't tolerate dissent from common descent and will fail a student because they disagree with them.

As I say, I haven’t seen that in my experience. I have seen when a student dissents from common descent, then the professor will show why the student is in error. If the student, in emulation of the parents, is unwilling to be corrected even when shown why they are wrong, then yes, they belong in a seminary, not a science class.

Yes, they'll slam the door in my face when I tell them I'm YEC. That's why we need you to put some of your reputation on the line and introduce me so I can get a word in edgewise.

You asserted, back in post 16585, that you would be “direct and honest” in approaching the Hubble Deep Field folks. But now you ask me to buffer your introduction to the HDF people, so as to mask the real purpose of getting you, a YEC, into the door. I have never entered a conversation or situation under false pretenses, and I will not be party to helping you do so. “Direct and honest”, huh?

If you were interested in the topic at all you would have known.

I openly admit that researching who got canned for what reason just isn’t very high on my priority list. I find science itself fascinating enough that I haven’t got much time to spend investigating claims of martyrdom.

Maybe you've never heard that your side has consensus, but I doubt it. I think you've heard stories like this for a long time. And if you have, and was (sic – “were”) seeking after truth, then you would realize that your consensus is manufactured and you would have looked into the most obvious examples of the claim.

I saw a few weeks ago where there was a flurry of posts in this thread that dealt with “consensus”. I was too busy at that time, so I didn’t participate in that exchange. Let me touch lightly on my take on “consensus” now (realizing I may be replowing ground that was turned over a few weeks ago).

Generally, I trust consensus. I don’t mean consensus in the sense of simply an agreed-to position that everyone agrees to support. I mean consensus that is arrived at by the overwhelming majority in a group of experts as the end product of intensive study, discussion, research, and often even arguments. I accept the consensus view of biological common descent primarily for that reason. I am not a biologist, but I am a scientist. If biologists do science properly, then I have no reason to question their data, and I am not qualified to dispute the conclusions they arrive at from that data.

In the case of YECism, however, I am not relegated to just relying on consensus from the mainstream biology community. In addition to biology, YEC also challenges the correctness of several disciplines within physics and astronomy and cosmology, and flies in the face of geology and geophysics. In some of those I fields I find YECism to be bereft of credibility. So if I ignore my respect for consensus within biology altogether, YEC is still a sad example of what religious extremism can do to otherwise decent folks.

I think the reason you dislike consensus is because you know you have lost the race before the starting gun has fired if consensus is permitted. And indeed, for the majority of the scientists I work with, that is almost their attitude – that arguing with creationists is arguing over things that the scientific community has long since already accepted. But your only hope is that every crackpot’s ideas be given equal weight, so as to assure your favored off-beat ideas are deemed as credible as the ones mainstream science has accepted. Sore losers routinely claim their opponents are cowards, when the opponents opt to go forward in their studies rather than wasting time engaging an interminable line of religiously motivated amateurs.

Then again, if you aren't interested in the truth of the claim, then you could ignore all the stories at your will. I believe this is the real reason.

If your psyche is mollified by demonizing my motives, then you have my pity, and you lose my respect. Far better to understand and deal with what really is important to me, than to rely on tactics like poisoning the well.

So you are saying that irreducible complexity is a point in favor of YEC, but a weak argument.

Weak argument, yes. Weak enough that I don’t see how that counts as a point in your favor. Is IC the best argument you have for why you like YEC?

Correct, not much credibility. But enough to make it worth my time, and enough to let the kids read over and learn.

Is this an indication I am now once again classified as an ear-plugging ‘Lalalala” singer, and no longer a “smart” person?

I note your self-perception as a role model for the YEC youth. You got a Goliath complex?

Looking into truth is what changed me. Sternberg was a tiny piece of evidence. … The point being that I wasn't motivated to change because of my Christian convictions. Reading the bible and understanding what it said about creation came later.

It sounds like our paths crossed, with me going from faith to agnosticism, and you in the reverse path. That should give us a substantial amount of common ground. For example, you believe in the Bible, and I recently posted a list of Biblical stories that I deem as scientifically silly. I don’t know if you are actually a scientist, or just a YEC who has familiarized yourself with YEC arguments in a few corners of science. But I will welcome any enlightenment you can bring to show that the scientific areas I am at least minimally qualified in actually support YEC and not OE.

 

[6days]

But what Yorzhik seems to be missing is that science is a "put up or shut up" endeavor, where the main thing that matters are the results you generate.

What Yorzhik understands is that science is knowlege and a search for truth. Science uses observation and testable explanations. Modern science is largely founded upon the belief that God created an orderly universe and discoveries could be made because of that. They believed that if God's Word was true, then our universe had a beginning, and that time was finite.*

...what exactly is stopping YEC's from producing real, tangible scientific results that are based on YEC?
It's not lack of resources, so what is it? I'd really like to see Yorzhik answer this question.

What Yorzhik understands is science. Real tangible scientific results come from repeatable experiments and observation. Like DavisBJ said "Hard-core atheists and Jehovah’s Witnesses and devout Catholics and John Baumgardner can all work together, and even repeat each other’s tests to confirm the data."

 

[Jose Fly]

What Yorzhik understands is that science is knowlege and a search for truth.

And how do we determine what is and isn't true in science?

Science uses observation and testable explanations.

...to generate results. And as has been shown here many times now, evolutionary theory generates results, whereas YEC hasn't generated a single thing.

So to re-ask the question that you conveniently ignored....Why? If YEC is reality, why can't it produce any results?

Modern science is largely founded upon the belief that God created an orderly universe and discoveries could be made because of that. They believed that if God's Word was true, then our universe had a beginning, and that time was finite.*

And the United States was founded on the belief that some people aren't fully human, but we've since moved on from that. So I'm not sure how the above answers my question about why YEC hasn't produced any real, usable results in at least a century.

What Yorzhik understands is science.

Then he can answer the questions (seeing as how you didn't).

Real tangible scientific results come from repeatable experiments and observation.

So why hasn't YEC produced a single real, tangible result in at least a century?

 

[Jose Fly]

I think the reason you dislike consensus is because you know you have lost the race before the starting gun has fired if consensus is permitted. And indeed, for the majority of the scientists I work with, that is almost their attitude – that arguing with creationists is arguing over things that the scientific community has long since already accepted. But your only hope is that every crackpot’s ideas be given equal weight, so as to assure your favored off-beat ideas are deemed as credible as the ones mainstream science has accepted. Sore losers routinely claim their opponents are cowards, when the opponents opt to go forward in their studies rather than wasting time engaging an interminable line of religiously motivated amateurs.

Very well put. :up:

 

[6days]

What Yorzhik understands is that science is knowlege and a search for truth.

Science uses observation and testable explanations.

And how do we determine what is and isn't true in science?

Sort of answered that for you already. Can you observe and do repeatable experiments?

That is why evolutionism is not science..... and it is why science keeps showing evolutionist 'truths' to simply be faulty interpretation of the data.

*If YEC is reality, why can't it produce any results?

It is reality.... unlike evolutionism. *A belief in the Creator has not harmed science (and millions of people) *as has common ancestry beliefs. And of course a belief in the Creator does produce results...modern science, education, universities, art, music. Not only that but scientists, and Biblical creationist scientists especially, perform operational science based on Biblical beliefs in a orderly, designed for purpose creation.... and that it is sustained.

Like Loren Eiseley, famed evolutionary anthropologist says,*‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

Modern science is largely founded upon the belief that God created an orderly universe and discoveries could be made because of that. They believed that if God's Word was true, then our universe had a beginning, and that time was finite.

And the United States was founded on the belief that some people aren't fully human

You are confusing the foundational documents of the USA, with Some of Charles Darwins early beliefs and writings. Yes....fortunately science has proven those beliefs false. Like God's Word tells us, we are all one blood...we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.*

But you do raise an interesting point about roots. It seems to me that as the USA seems to move away from its roots, that we may be witnessing the demise or the fall the the great American empire? (USA friends...feel free to correct me. I am not American, but love your country.). It seems to me that if roots produce a healthy plant, you shouldn't chop the root off.*

Likewise with science. Atheists are eager to rewrite history, or try to distance themselves from the roots of modern science. I like what Marget Thatchet said on this..."I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.

“But we must not profess the Christian faith and go to Church simply because we want social reforms and benefits or a better standard of behaviour; but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ expressed so well in the hymn:
“‘When I survey the wondrous Cross, On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride.’”

 

[6days]

What Yorzhik understands is that science is knowlege and a search for truth.

Science uses observation and testable explanations.

And how do we determine what is and isn't true in science?

Sort of answered that for you already. Can you observe and do repeatable experiments? <that is one step>

That is why evolutionism is not science..... and it is why science keeps showing evolutionist 'truths' to simply be faulty interpretation of the data.

*If YEC is reality, why can't it produce any results?

It is reality.... unlike evolutionism. *A belief in the Creator has not harmed science (and millions of people) *as has common ancestry beliefs. And of course a belief in the Creator does produce results...modern science, education, universities, art, music. Not only that but scientists, and Biblical creationist scientists especially, perform operational science based on Biblical beliefs in a orderly, designed for purpose creation.... and that it is sustained.

Like Loren Eiseley, famed evolutionary anthropologist says,*‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

Modern science is largely founded upon the belief that God created an orderly universe and discoveries could be made because of that. They believed that if God's Word was true, then our universe had a beginning, and that time was finite.

And the United States was founded on the belief that some people aren't fully human

You are confusing the foundational documents of the USA, with Some of Charles Darwins early beliefs and writings. Yes....fortunately science has proven those beliefs false. Like God's Word tells us, we are all one blood...we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.*

But you do raise an interesting point about roots. It seems to me that as the USA seems to move away from its roots, that we may be witnessing the demise or the fall the the great American empire? (USA friends...feel free to correct me. I am not American, but love your country.). It seems to me that if roots produce a healthy plant, you shouldn't chop the root off.*

Likewise with science. Atheists are eager to rewrite history, or try to distance themselves from the roots of modern science. I like what Marget Thatchet said on this..."I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.

“But we must not profess the Christian faith and go to Church simply because we want social reforms and benefits or a better standard of behaviour; but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ expressed so well in the hymn:
“‘When I survey the wondrous Cross, On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride.’”

 

[Jose Fly]

Sort of answered that for you already. Can you observe and do repeatable experiments?

That is why evolutionism is not science.

Except for the fact that we can observe evolution in action as it generates new traits, species, and genetic sequences, as well as conduct all sorts of experiments where we observe and study the mechanisms that drive the process.

It is reality.... unlike evolutionism.

Then explain why YEC hasn't produced a single useful, tangible result in over a century.

You are confusing the foundational documents of the USA, with Some of Charles Darwins early beliefs and writings.

?????? The US Constitution originally said that blacks were three fifths of a person.

But again you dodge the point. You're claiming that YEC is actually the correct version of reality. That leads to the obvious question: Why can't YEC's demonstrate that by producing useful, tangible results? Why does industry, which doesn't care one bit about dogma or conspiracies, utilize "billions of years" and common descent in their work to produce results instead of YEC?

 

[6days]

Exept for the fact that we can observe evolution in action as it generates new traits, species, and genetic sequences, as well as conduct all sorts of experiments where we observe and study the mechanisms that drive the process.

Wooooo JOSEFLY!!!... You keep talking like that and we might mistake you for a Biblical creationist. You need to review the rapid adatation thread...the creationist model.

Then explain why YEC hasn't produced a single useful, tangible result in over a century.
*Why can't YEC's demonstrate that by producing useful, tangible results?

You can only think that if deny modern science and history.*

Unlike evolutionism, a belief in the Creator has not harmed science (and millions of people) as has common ancestry beliefs. And of course a belief in the Creator does produce results...modern science, education, universities, art, music. Not only that but scientists, and Biblical creationist scientists especially, perform operational science based on Biblical beliefs in a orderly, designed for purpose creation.... and that it is sustained.

Like Loren Eiseley, famed evolutionary anthropologist says, ‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that*science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

...what exactly is stopping YEC's from producing real, tangible scientific results that are based on YEC?*

It's not lack of resources, so what is it? I'd really like to see Yorzhik answer this question.

What Yorzhik understands is science. Real tangible scientific results come from repeatable experiments and observation. Like DavisBJ said "Hard-core atheists and Jehovah’s Witnesses and devout Catholics and John Baumgardner can all work together, and even repeat each other’s tests to confirm the data."

*

 

[Jose Fly]

LOL! All that repetition 6days, and you still can't answer this question...

If YEC is actual reality, why hasn't YEC generated a single useful, tangible scientific outcome in over a century?

And if you can manage to break out of your robot-mode, maybe you can answer another question (GASP)...

Why does industry, which doesn't care one bit about dogma or conspiracies, utilize "billions of years" and common descent in their work to produce results instead of YEC?

 

[6days]

LOL! All that repetition 6days, and you still can't answer this question...

RUBIOFly..... your talking points are false....your questions were answered...

"You can only think that if deny modern science and history.*

Unlike evolutionism, a belief in the Creator has not harmed science (and millions of people) as has common ancestry beliefs. And of course a belief in the Creator does produce results...modern science, education, universities, art, music. Not only that but scientists, and Biblical creationist scientists especially, perform operational science based on Biblical beliefs in a orderly, designed for purpose creation.... and that it is sustained.

Like Loren Eiseley, famed evolutionary anthropologist says, ‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

And if you can manage to break out of your robot-mode, maybe you can answer*another*question (GASP)...
Why does industry, which doesn't care one bit about dogma or conspiracies, utilize "billions of years" and common descent in their work to produce results instead of YEC?

Robot answrrs to robot questions. *

There has never been one new technology...never one advancement in medicime that resulted from a belief in billions of years. *Biologists all use the exact same data but have different beliefs about the past.*

Real tangible scientific results come from repeatable experiments and observation. Like DavisBJ said "Hard-core atheists and Jehovah’s Witnesses and devout Catholics and John Baumgardner can all work together, and even repeat each other’s tests to confirm the data

 

[Jonahdog]

a belief in the Creator has not ...harmed... millions of people

Well if you discount the indigenous peoples on the Americas.

But since you discount scientific facts I guess I am not surprised you can ignore historical fact so easily.

 

[DavisBJ]

The non-scientist – 6days – expounds on science

The non-scientist – 6days – expounds on science

Unlike evolutionism, a belief in the Creator has not harmed science (and millions of people) as has common ancestry beliefs.

Scientists using the ToE certainly made some missteps, but I am not aware the ToE has been the impetus for open attacks on people. In contrast, arguments directly due to beliefs about the Christian God have resulted in several well documented wars resulting in the intentional slaughter of many millions of people. And according to the Genesis legend, had I and many of my friends lived contemporary with Noah, then our beliefs about the Creator would have resulted in our destruction. I would kinda view me getting drowned because of my honest conclusions about the Creator as most definitely harmful to me.

And of course a belief in the Creator does produce results...modern science, education, universities …

And to refresh our memories, please tell us again what those universities teach about how old the universe is, how old the earth is, and whether or not they consider the ToE to not be valid science.

Not only that but scientists, and Biblical creationist scientists especially, perform operational science based on Biblical beliefs in a orderly, designed for purpose creation.... and that it is sustained.

But do those Biblical creationist scientists agree with their peers in the best universities on the core issues in science that I just listed?

There has never been one new technology...never one advancement in medicine that resulted from a belief in billions of years.

What is the fundamental branch of science that allows physicists to predict how fast radioactive substances (widely used in medicine) will decay? Does that same exact branch of science say anything about decays that should take billions of years – and have those predictions undergone laboratory validation? (Pardon me while I put my radioactive sample back on the shelf. I am so humbled when I personally observe the evidence that an atom that has sat dormant for several billions of years decays just at that moment when I am watching. The sample decays just at the rate that theory predicted.)

 

[6days]

Unlike evolutionism, a belief in the Creator has not harmed science (and millions of people) as has common ancestry beliefs.

Well if you discount the indigenous peoples on the Americas.

Mistreatment of indigenous people was caused by believers and unbelievers...It had nothing to do with a belief in the Creator. Some may have tried to justify their actions through various means including religion, or through Darwinian beliefs in "savages" who weren't as highly evolved as white people. But Christians who tried to justify their actions actually rejected what the Bible teaches. We are all one blood and descendants of Adam and Eve.