The origins of abiotic species

[gcthomas]

Neither of them have a state funded laboratory. What do you expect them to present?

6Days claims that the evidence that is out there supports his wilder claims, but he declines to give robust arguments to link the evidence to the claims.

I thought it was obvious.

Unnecessary sarcasm.

If you have read what he claims, you'd see that it was entirely necessary.

 

[6days]

Just because he used a singularity , doesn't mean he didn't create.

If He used a singularity... then He is a liar.
The God of the Bible tells us He created everything in six days. Not 6,000 years.... not in billions of years.
He tells us He created light before the sun. He tells us that earth was originally covered in water (not a hot molten blob). He created man from the dust of the earth (not stardust). He created woman from mans rib. He tells us that death, pain and suffering entered our world because of man's sin. His Word tells us that Last Adam died to defeat physical death that resulted from first Adam's sin. ETC

The gospel is not based on allegorical tales, and mythical geneaologies. The gospel is destroyed and Christ's death becomes meaningless if evolutionism is true.

 

[ClimateSanity]

God did not say be created everything in the physical dimension in six earthly days. He could have spent six days in heaven creating everything. No one knows how much h time passed on earth during that time?

 

[6days]

God did not say be created everything in the physical dimension in six earthly days. He could have spent six days in heaven creating everything. No one knows how much h time passed on earth during that time?

If you apply that logic to the language in scripture it becomes meaningless. And, yes He does say He completed everything in six earthly days.

 

[6days]

Let's see.....I am a scientist

You have not demonstrated a knowledge of what science is. Instead you resort to your education... the fallacy of authority..... or " The Appeal to Self Authority...when someone uses themselves as an authority, it is known as Ipse dixit " (rationalwiki).

What you are advocating is religion.... not science. Science is being willing to follow the evidence anywhere...even if it leads you to the Creator God of the Bible.Science is knowledge. Science is the search for truth.
Science is the application/implementation of the scientific method. Science is not starting with your conclusion.

You essentially treat science like a game where the only rule is to shoehorn every explanation to fit the religion of materialism. Prof. Todd Scott (evolutionist) admits to this 'game' when he said " Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"

Jose..... where you are partially correct is that operational science deals only with repeatable and observable processes. Biblical creationist scientists agree with that.

 

[ClimateSanity]

If you apply that logic to the language in scripture it becomes meaningless. And, yes He does say He completed everything in six earthly days.

That's a lie.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have not demonstrated a knowledge of what science is. Instead you resort to your education... the fallacy of authority..... or " The Appeal to Self Authority...when someone uses themselves as an authority, it is known as Ipse dixit " (rationalwiki).

Again, the position I'm advocating ("Goddidit" is not an acceptable scientific answer) is the position of the entire scientific community, and has been for at least 200 years.

Suddenly an anonymous fundamentalist Christian going by the pseudonym "6days" says "Nuh uh....Goddidit is an acceptable scientific answer".

Please explain why your baseless, empty say-so should carry any weight at all, let alone overturn how science has been practiced across all fields for at least 200 years.

What you are advocating is religion.... not science.

LOL! From the guy complaining about "Goddidit" not being an accepted explanation in science. Hilarious.

Science is being willing to follow the evidence anywhere...even if it leads you to the Creator God of the Bible.

Please explain how we would scientifically test and investigate God.

You essentially treat science like a game where the only rule is to shoehorn every explanation to fit the religion of materialism.

Do you understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? If so, please explain.

Prof. Todd Scott (evolutionist) admits to this 'game' when he said " Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"

If you disagree, please explain how we can test and investigate God.

 

[User Name]

The gospel is not based on allegorical tales...

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (Gal 4:24)

 

[6days]

That's a lie.

Sorry... What is a lie? Its a lie that the days of creation are 24 hour days?

 

[6days]

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (Gal 4:24)

We were talking about creation.... the Genesis account.
Actually almost every historian mixes allegory into his writings.
Example... A report from the battlefield in 1917:
"So today began another titanic conflict which the world will hold its breath to watch because of all that hangs upon it. I have seen the fury of this beginning, and all the sky on fire with it...."
Its easy to discern a real battle is being described with metaphors. isn't it?

The Genesis account is written as real history..... real people and genealogies connecting first Adam to Last Adam. Various Bible authors referred to Genesis as true history. Christ referred to humans at beginning of creation...etc etc. Evolutionists want God's Word just to metaphors where they can pick and choose what to believe. Atheists sometimes make fun of Christian evolutionists and their inconsistent approach to scripture. For example, atheists point out on Jerry Coynes website that Biologos is inconsistent in how it picks and chooses what to believe. They say both the virgin birth and the creation account are written as a factual account...Both events require a miracle....yet Biologos picks only one as true. When you write off the foundation to the Gospel as allegorical, you invite young people to also reject virgin birth and the physical resurrection as just another story.

 

[6days]

If you disagree, please explain how we can test and investigate God.

For starters.... you need to be willing to follow the evidence. If something appears designed, and contains complex sophisticated information..... it is evidence of a designer.
Are you willing to follow evidence that leads to the Creator God of the Bible? You admit you are unwilling, and start with your conclusion.

If you find an arrowhead in a creek, you can assume there was a creator. Can you use that same reasoning on the world around you?

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

 

[Jose Fly]

6D,

You didn't answer any questions. Again...

Please explain why your baseless, empty say-so should carry any weight at all, let alone overturn how science has been practiced across all fields for at least 200 years.

Please explain how we would scientifically test and investigate God.

Do you understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? If so, please explain.

 

[6days]

Please explain how we would scientifically test and investigate God.

Do you understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? If so, please explain.

Hey Jose.....
You are trying to move goal posts.... change the topic.

We were talking about how you don't seem to understand science.....How you are unwilling to follow evidence that leads to the creator.

Your question though is silly. Look at your keyboard..... Does it look like it was designed. Appearance of design that contains information is evidence of a creator. Are you willing to follow evidence that leads to the Creator God of the Bible?

 

[Jose Fly]

Hey Jose.....
You are trying to move goal posts.... change the topic.

So once again you are going to dodge a series of questions? Doesn't that trigger something in your head that says "If I have to keep dodging questions all the time, maybe I should re-think my position"?

We were talking about how you don't seem to understand science.

Which is nothing more than a baseless, empty assertion by you. The scientific approach I've been advocating is the same as what the scientific community has advocated and practiced for at least 200 years. So that leads to the obvious question:

Please explain why your baseless, empty say-so should carry any weight at all, let alone overturn how science has been practiced across all fields for at least 200 years.

How you are unwilling to follow evidence that leads to the creator.

Again we see you argue that "Goddidit" should be an acceptable scientific explanations for things. That leads to the obvious questions:

Please explain how we would scientifically test and investigate God.

Do you understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? If so, please explain.

Are you planning on never answering these questions? If so, just say so now and we can save ourselves some time.

 

[6days]

Are you planning on never answering these questions? If so, just say so now and we can save ourselves some time.

nah..... Your questions were answered, you just didn't like the answers. How about the questions asked of you??
Are you willing to follow evidence that leads to the Creator God of the Bible? Or, or you going to continue to start with your conclusion then shoehorn data to fit?

You are under the mistaken impression that your belief system is science... it is RELIGION!! Science is knowledge...the search for truth...using the scientific method...following the evidence. Evolutionism ....the belief in a common ancestor has never contributed a single thing to scientific progress. No new technology has resulted from your belief system. No medical advancement has ever been made because of a belief in common ancestry.
Some call Richard Dawkins the pope of evolutionism, and he says "They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution, and especially if they never use the concept of the ancestor in thinking about taxonomy. In the same way, a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is not aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees that his nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not need to use this fact in his research. He needs to know a lot about physics and chemistry, but he believes that Darwinism is irrelevant to his day-to-day research on nerve impulses. That is a defensible position.... A physicist certainly doesn’t need Darwinism in order to do physics"

 

[ClimateSanity]

He is saying ..look over here. I'm calling it evidence for God. I am upset because you don't recognize it as evidence .


The problem is that he doesn't know what the definition of evidence is.

 

[ClimateSanity]

6 days. You ask if he is willing to look at the evidence that follows to God. He can look at what you call evidence all day long ,but he might as well be looking at a sack of potatoes and it certainly doesn't lead to God just because you say so.

 

[6days]

6 days. You ask if he is willing to look at the evidence that follows to God. He can look at what you call evidence all day long ,but he might as well be looking at a sack of potatoes and it certainly doesn't lead to God just because you say so.

Haha..... CORRECT!
But, its not 'what I call evidence'..... evidence is evidence is evidence. It does not belong to either side. Both sides use the same universe, same fossils, same genetics, same sedimentary layers etc.

 

[Jose Fly]

nah..... Your questions were answered, you just didn't like the answers.

And there we are....your now standard pattern of dodging questions and later claiming to have already answered them.

Now, if I were the only one who'd ever called you out for doing that, maybe one could argue the problem is on my end. But you've been called out on it sooooo many times by soooo many people, it's clear to all but the delusional that you have a problem.

How about the questions asked of you??

So you dodge and avoid my questions, and then demand I answer yours? Yeah....that seems fair.

Are you willing to follow evidence that leads to the Creator God of the Bible?

I can't say until you explain how we can test and investigate God.

Or, or you going to continue to start with your conclusion then shoehorn data to fit?

And that leads to another question you didn't answer: How do you know how I reached my conclusions?

You are under the mistaken impression that your belief system is science... it is RELIGION!!

And there's that question you won't answer again: Please explain why your baseless, empty say-so should carry any weight at all, let alone overturn how science has been practiced across all fields for at least 200 years.

Evolutionism ....the belief in a common ancestor has never contributed a single thing to scientific progress. No new technology has resulted from your belief system. No medical advancement has ever been made because of a belief in common ancestry.

And now you're back to mindlessly repeating the same falsehoods like a true fundie-bot.

Not much anyone can do with someone like that.

 

[Stripe]

Good to hear that you don't think 'evolutionists' are rejecting God.

Introducing a third logical fallacy when called on two previous ones is par for the course for evolutionists.

Having re-read the thread, it seems that there has been no challenge to the OP.

That's because you hate reading. Let me guess: Evolutionist, right?