Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[Greg Jennings]

There was no bang.

In the beginning God created.

That first sentence of the Bible is the most logical... and the most scientific explanation of the evidence.

We know that anything which has begun to exist has a cause. The only logical explanation for the evidence is that something uncaused and that has existed throughout eternity... caused everything. The Creator God of the Bible is the cause.*

Same question I asked Jeffblue

 

[Greg Jennings]

Haha... yes. I was wondering if someone would say that. Perhaps some of the theistic evolutionists would argue that point more vigorously than you did.

Interestingly the Earth is also not a perfect sphere, but more egg-shaped. The Muslim Koran correctly identifies it as such. However you don't put any stock in that book, do you?

 

[6days]

There was no bang.

In the beginning God created.

That first sentence of the Bible is the most logical... and the most scientific explanation of the evidence.

We know that anything which has begun to exist has a cause. The only logical explanation for the evidence is that something uncaused and that has existed throughout eternity... caused everything. The Creator God of the Bible is the cause.

If he came from nothing before then you are simply substituting "God" in for "the Big Bang" and making the exact same argument

No...I don't think you followed.*

I said that anything which begins to exist has a cause. The only logical explanation for the evidence is that something uncaused and that has existed throughout eternity... caused everything. The Creator God of the Bible is the cause.

 

[6days]

Interestingly the Earth is also not a perfect sphere, but more egg-shaped.

You are more egg shaped than the earth.
You need to go on the NASA website.
(Nobody said anything about a perfect sphere)

 

[gcthomas]

I said that anything which begins to exist has a cause.

You haven't proved this statement yet. You've been challenged on it before, but you always avoid it.

Proof?

Also, you assume that things without a beginning DON'T need a cause. Proof?

You assume much, understand little and know less.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you consider simple questions as "attacking Scripture" then you've stumbled across the biggest problem of fundamentalist Christianity all by yourself: Asking questions and seeking answers should be encouraged. If asking those questions leads to uncomfortable truths being revealed, maybe the original position needs to be amended

Asking critical questions is a sign of doubt, and as H.L. Mencken noted about fundamentalists during the Scopes trial, while fundamentalists will put up with people of different faiths, the one thing they won't tolerate is doubt.

 

[George Affleck]

The argument for the existence of all material things, using the big bang, relies upon of the principle of causality.

Why, then, are creationists pressed for proof of causality?

In fact, if science is not about origins, why talk about a big bang at all? Because evolutionists need to supplant creationist doctrine with their own answer to causality.

 

[Alate_One]

God's Word is correct on all matters it touches on, including science.
Your desperate need for His Word to be scientifically inaccurate is clear evidence of you putting yourself on a pedestal.

I have no such need. It would be easier for present day people if everything were scientifically accurate as far as our current understanding. But the problem is "scientifically accurate" is a moving target, it changes over time.

If the Bible had been written with modern science in mind, people for thousands of years would have been confused until science "caught up" with what was written. Again the point of scripture isn't to tell us science it's to illuminate the human condition and the relationship of God and Man.

You are accepting the atheist's premise about scripture and set yourself up for their conclusion.

 

[Alate_One]

You haven't proved this statement yet. You've been challenged on it before, but you always avoid it.

Proof?

Also, you assume that things without a beginning DON'T need a cause. Proof?

It's more like this, there are two options for the universe:

1. There is an actually infinite series of causes
2. There is an uncaused cause at the back of everything.

The only real question is which makes more sense since we may never be able to scientifically distinguish between the two.Now the uncaused cause wouldn't necessarily be God, but it could be. Or you could have an actually infinite series of causes, which I don't think makes any sense. But other people disagree.

Every phenomena we thought didn't have a cause turned out to have one. There are still phenomena we don't fully understand. We don't know about a cause of the Big Bang, that doesn't mean there isn't one or prove that it's God.

But I don't think the idea of an uncaused cause is irrational, or if it is it's no more irrational than an infinite series of causes. And God could still exist and have a cause of some kind. That means arguing God has to have a cause is a bit pointless.

 

[Greg Jennings]

No...I don't think you followed.*

I said that anything which begins to exist has a cause. The only logical explanation for the evidence is that something uncaused and that has existed throughout eternity... caused everything. The Creator God of the Bible is the cause.

And one could say that a process causing the Big Bang existed throughout eternity. Or that the Big Bang itself was the uncaused beginning of everything. That's just as valid as your theory. You can't see that?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are more egg shaped than the earth.
You need to go on the NASA website.
(Nobody said anything about a perfect sphere)

"On the NASA government website we see this description:

Exactly how round is the Earth?

The shape of the Geode, as it is called, is nearly a perfect sphere, but because the earth is spinning, it is about 21.5 kilometers flatter at the poles, and bulged-out at the equator by about the same amount. There are also other ‘higher-order’ shape deviations which make the Earth slightly pear- shaped with a larger southern hemisphere surface area than in the northern hemisphere, but at a level of a kilometer or so in radial girth. The biggest effect, though, is its polar flattening. If you had a basketball to represent the Earth’s spherical average shape, the flattening would be 21/6500 = about 1/300 the radius of the basketball or 1/32 of an inch…give or take. From NASA: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11818.html"

- See more at: http://newsrescue.com/the-earth-is-...quran-ancient-scripture/#sthash.2Oz9l5kL.dpuf


And yes, I have grown rather egg-shaped in my latter years lolz

 

[Greg Jennings]

Asking critical questions is a sign of doubt, and as H.L. Mencken noted about fundamentalists during the Scopes trial, while fundamentalists will put up with people of different faiths, the one thing they won't tolerate is doubt.

Unfortunately I see this myself. It's too bad, as perhaps I myself would be religious if I didn't get the sense that religion demands a rejection of common sense and science at times

 

[Greg Jennings]

The argument for the existence of all material things, using the big bang, relies upon of the principle of causality.

Why, then, are creationists pressed for proof of causality?

In fact, if science is not about origins, why talk about a big bang at all? Because evolutionists need to supplant creationist doctrine with their own answer to causality.

Not quite, George. We "evolutionists" have never asserted that the only possible explanation for the beginning of the universe and everything is the Big Bang. We accept that we don't and might never know the actual story. On the other hand your fundamentalist friends here have been constantly asserting that the only "logical" or "possible" explanation for the beginning of the universe is an uncaused cause that they attribute to bring God. If this is true then you should be able to show through a logical proof that God is indeed the only option. Therefore I and others here are asking for just that.

A side note: evolution has nothing to with the Big Bang. That is not the realm of biology, but instead of astronomy and physics

 

[Jose Fly]

On the other hand your fundamentalist friends here have been constantly asserting that the only "logical" or "possible" explanation for the beginning of the universe is an uncaused cause that they attribute to bring God. If this is true then you should be able to show through a logical proof that God is indeed the only option. Therefore I and others here are asking for just that.

This is a convenient little game creationists like to play. They argue that creationism is scientifically supported, while simultaneously maintaining that creationism is a belief, not science.

That allows them to jump back and forth between making claims about the scientific validity of their beliefs, but when cornered on specifics, they throw up their hands and declare it to be merely a belief. Then after waiting a bit, they go back to making claims about the scientific validity of their beliefs.

It's funny to watch, but in the end it doesn't really matter. Creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant, and has been for over a century.

 

[Greg Jennings]

This is a convenient little game creationists like to play. They argue that creationism is scientifically supported, while simultaneously maintaining that creationism is a belief, not science.

That allows them to jump back and forth between making claims about the scientific validity of their beliefs, but when cornered on specifics, they throw up their hands and declare it to be merely a belief. Then after waiting a bit, they go back to making claims about the scientific validity of their beliefs.

It's funny to watch, but in the end it doesn't really matter. Creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant, and has been for over a century.

You left out one part that I've noticed: when cornered and they admit that creationism is merely a belief and not science, they claim that "evolutionism" is merely a belief also. Of course this isn't true as evolution is well supported with loads of evidence from many different areas of science while creationism on the other hand is contradicted by many different areas of science. But they cry foul nonetheless

 

[6days]

"On the NASA government website we see this description:

Exactly how round is the Earth?

The shape of the Geode, as it is called, is nearly a perfect sphere, ....

Yes... the shape of a circle.
You are barking at nothing... nobody claimed the earth or it's orbit is a perfect sphere.

 

[Jose Fly]

You left out one part that I've noticed

I also left out another part. Jumping back and forth between "scientifically valid" and "a belief" is how they argue creationism to be scientifically valid, up until they encounter something they can't explain, at which point they invoke a miracle ("God did that").

when cornered and they admit that creationism is merely a belief and not science, they claim that "evolutionism" is merely a belief also.

Oh sure, but really....who cares? So people like 6days and Stripe believe evolutionary biology isn't a science.....so what?

Of course this isn't true as evolution is well supported with loads of evidence from many different areas of science while creationism on the other hand is contradicted by many different areas of science. But they cry foul nonetheless

Yep. IOW, what creationists think about evolutionary biology has no actual bearing on the real world. Thus, the only reason to engage them in the first place is for entertainment (because it's funny).

 

[6days]

God's Word is correct on all matters it touches on, including science.
Your desperate need for His Word to be scientifically inaccurate is clear evidence of you putting yourself on a pedestal.

I have no such need. It would be easier for present day people if everything were scientifically accurate as far as our current understanding. But the problem is "scientifically accurate" is a moving target, it changes over time.

Yes... men's opinions continually shift. But, the Word of our God will stand forever.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yes... the shape of a circle.
You are barking at nothing... nobody claimed the earth or it's orbit is a perfect sphere.

You seemed to miss the part where it goes on to say that the Earth is somewhat "pear-shaped" due to the rotation of the planet. You claimed previously that NASA would not support my assertion that the Earth is slightly egg-shaped, so I showed you that it does.

My original question to you was why, if the Muslim Koran correctly identified the Earth's shape whereas the Bible never did, do you not put stock in the Koran as a book of faith?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Oh sure, but really....who cares? So people like 6days and Stripe believe evolutionary biology isn't a science.....so what?

Of course this is true. I just think the fundamentalist belief system harms the Christian cause, which is a cause that I think has value on a moral level. Jesus's teachings are something that we all can learn from in terms of ethical treatment of others. By denying science (which by all means not every Christian does) they are driving people away from Jesus's message and also from potential conversion