Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

But aren't you begging the question of the 'one creator god'? And Zeus will still have an overseeing role no matter the historical order of events....

That's silly Stuu.
If there was evidence of Zeus, then it should be considered. Of course there is no evidence, and no scientist considers it.
However there is evidence of one Creator God, and it should be considered. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to follow evidence that leads to our Creator.

 

[6days]

Dear 6days,

Where ya' been?? How are you doing?? I hope that all is fine with you and that you are healthy. I chatted with Alwight/Alan the other day and they are going to try Radiation Therapy on him. I hope it does the trick. He's terminal without many months to live, so hopefully this radiation and my prayers to God will help out. I beat my cancer so far. I see that everyone here is busy with each other so I don't butt in...yet. I'm proud of everyone, because they are learning. Hey. whatever happened to Hedshaker? I haven't heard from him in a while. He's probably glad about Britain's cessation from the EU. Most likely keeping busy with that for now. I think that Texas wants to succeed from us. Texas would be a country, like Mexico. Heeeheeeeh!! Too funny!! Well, it's getting late and slumber calls. It's been a day. Will chat with you again later!!

Much Love & A Visit From The Holy Ghost Would Be Precious And SOOO Welcome!!

Michael

Pass on greetings to Alwight.

 

[DavisBJ]

Wooooo.....
We disagree. There is nobody who is a blank slate when it comes to origins. Everyone starts with a bias. C14 dates that don't give expected results are rejected, and tried to be understood within that bias view.

Amazing. You admit that your fanatical devotion to your creation myth would, if you had worked for my company, caused you to put human lives in danger.

 

[Stripe]

I think Stipe gets some kind of perverse emotional satisfaction every time he calls someone a troll.

You ask questions when you know full well the answer while ignoring obvious errors in those on your side.

I call you a troll with reason.

 

[DavisBJ]

I call you a troll with reason.

Considering how often you call people trolls, the reason must be the deep emotional satisfaction it gives you.

 

[Stripe]

Considering how often you call people trolls, the reason must be the deep emotional satisfaction it gives you.

Confirmation bias is another logical fallacy.

Your Darwinism is blinding you to a sensible conversation.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why did you choose to frequent a theology forum? The very nature of the site, "Theology" means the study of God. You are on a crusade to declare there is no God with religious-like fervor.

Ah, well there's your mistake. If you'll notice, I don't go around "declaring there is no God" here at all, let alone with any sort of fervor. In fact, I very rarely get into theological discussions at all here.

Regardless, to answer your question, you are doing a disservice to the institution of science. You are confusing (atheist/humanist) philosophy and calling that science.

How so?

What you claim hasn't been proven by experimentation, nor does it contribute to technology, and it does not further useful research.

What claim is that?

But overall you didn't answer my question. I basically asked why it's so important for folks like you and 6days to keep repeating "science agrees with the Bible" over and over, like it's some mantra.

Maybe you can answer this question....does it matter to you whether the scientific community supports/agrees with your young-earth creationist beliefs?

 

[Jose Fly]

They don't seek validation

6days sure seems to. He keeps repeating "science confirms the Biblical account" over and over and over. He does it so often and regularly it's pretty clear by now that he's saying it to himself more than to us.

And that makes me wonder....why? Why does he need to keep telling himself that? IMO the obvious conclusion is he really, really wants it to be true because he realizes how important and authoritative science is in today's society. So he craves that "scientifically valid" label for his religious beliefs.

IOW, he's conceded that science is far more persuasive than religion.

They don't want their children being taught that chance rather than God made man.

I'm not sure how repeating a mantra anonymously in an internet forum accomplishes that. :idunno:

 

[6days]

6days sure seems to. He keeps repeating "science confirms the Biblical account" over and over and over.

Science does help confirm the Biblical account. Science helps to confirm the historical accuracy of many of the Bibles places, people and events. Science helps dispel many of the evolutionary myths. Science helps us see the truth in simple things such as there really was a beginning...or that there are paths in the sea...or that stars are as uncountable as sands of the sea shore...ETC.

 

[Mark M]

There never was a time of only two humans, or eight humans, or any number lower than about 1000.

There had to be a time when there was a first human, and then a second. In any case there were less than 1,000 at some point.

 

[gcthomas]

There had to be a time when there was a first human, and then a second. In any case there were less than 1,000 at some point.

It is more subtle than you think — it is populations that change, not individuals. The whole population becomes human at the same time.

 

[Mark M]

It is more subtle than you think — it is populations that change, not individuals. The whole population becomes human at the same time.

That sounds like magic or divine intervention.

 

[Lon]

Dear Lon,

From what I've read, I'd have to say that you are right about the matter. I'm no expert of course, but I have to say, the writing is on the wall. I just had to chime in.

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

Yep. :up: I goes like this: "I an atheist like him, so he must have been an atheist too, because I like him and he was kind of hard on Judeo/Christianity." :dizzy: :nono:

Just an interruption... Lon, I'm sure you have your own reasons why you appreciate Einstein. Maybe he was a nice guy, maybe clever, maybe interesting, and he certainly had great hair... but ultimately does it really matter what he thought of atheism and theism in the whole scheme of things? Let me put it this way - Einstein could be atheist or Satanist and it wouldn't affect my belief. Likewise, I am sure that if he was a devout Christian or Jew it wouldn't change any of the humanistic evolutionists minds here either.

Simply saying that the most intelligent man of our generation was against atheism on an intellectual level. The atheist is the one really bothered by this. I'm not bothered that he said things against Judeo-Christianity but atheists for a long time, try very hard to portray themselves as 'intelligent.' Are they? Sure, a few, but there is something mind-killing about being an atheist. It literally cuts off half of a person and denies his/her own soul. They become a parody of flesh that the Bible calls 'brute beast' after the same observation. Is it a slam? No, it is an assessment that stands true and I wish an atheist would pay attention and see what he/she is missing. Gonna happen? Probably not, but I figured Einstein might make an inroad where another of us might fail. Notice it is the atheist and more than one, that were bothered by Einstein's words. They try un-intelligently to embrace him, missing the mark. He was not an atheist and such appraisal is inept.

 

[Rosenritter]

I am going to limit myself to one observation and posing one question.

You say

It appears that your God, in numerous aspects of dealing with this world, seems to have sat back and thought, “If I let nature do its thing, what would happen?” Once He has sufficiently seen how nature by itself would act, He then declares: “That’s the way I am going to do it too.” The laws of physics all by themselves tell us what shape the diffuse rotating nebular cloud must form. But God, who should have the option of setting up orbits in any pattern that pleases His fancy decides to make it look just like nature would have. Which means that God might just as well have been off having tea with Mrs. God and just let nature do the job. He was just a no-value added complication to the process. Occam’s razor, anyone?

Question – can you state in simple, accurate terms what the law of conservation of angular momentum actually says?

Your comment does not seem to match the conversation. Should the solar system (or universe) be consistently spinning in the same direction, it might have made sense, but as we just saw it does not. There are enough exceptions in place to shame your "God was off to tea" theory. It's more suited to "If you ever see out this far don't forget who did this" artistic signature.

If you want a copy and paste definition you can go to Wikipedia or your textbook instead, so I'll opt for the simple route. For our purposes here, it should be enough to say that something that breaks off of a spinning mass continues its spin in the same direction. It doesn't stop and do a reverse on its own. Someone has to act on it to do that. In this example, it helps if you have a planetary-sized wrench.

 

[Jose Fly]

Science does help confirm the Biblical account. Science helps to confirm the historical accuracy of many of the Bibles places, people and events. Science helps dispel many of the evolutionary myths. Science helps us see the truth in simple things such as there really was a beginning...or that there are paths in the sea...or that stars are as uncountable as sands of the sea shore...ETC.

How weird. I describe the behavior, and then you reply by exhibiting that behavior perfectly. Almost like on purpose.....

 

[gcthomas]

That sounds like magic or divine intervention.

Nope, just population genetics.

 

[Stripe]

I very rarely get into theological discussions at all here.

You don't discuss science at all.

You're here to shield your religion from scrutiny.

 

[Stripe]

How weird. I describe the behavior, and then you reply by exhibiting that behavior perfectly. Almost like on purpose.....

Nope.

You made the fundamental error of thinking science requires the validation of men, while 6 spoke about confirming ideas.

Science is the practice of falsifying ideas, with those that survive proper scrutiny gaining credibility. You do everything you can to make sure your religion is held up as science, which means you have to steer as far as possible from proper practice.

 

[Tyrathca]

Science is the practice of falsifying ideas, with those that survive proper scrutiny gaining credibility.

And this is why creationism long lost any semblance of credibility a long time ago.

You do everything you can to make sure your religion is held up as science, which means you have to steer as far as possible from proper practice.

You couldn't have described yourself and 6days better if you tried.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Mark M]

Nope, just population genetics.

So magically, thousands of folks became human all at once? No way