Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

When does science help us understand God?

29 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?

Wow.  Some pretty good history revisionism, there.   Galileo was a Chrstian who opposed the science of his day.  The geocentric view was not the religious view.  It was a scientist and Christian, a young earther, btw  who had the nerve to say that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.  

 

The Church embraced the science of the day.  It was men like Galieleo and Copernicus who told the scientific community they were wrong and paid a heavy price for that.   Even now, the scientific community is demanding that Christians acquiese to Evolution and what is considered 'science' and it ridicules those who don't bow the knee to the perceived infallibility of the scientific community.

 

What evidence would it take to convince me of Evolution??  It would take the kind of evidence that evolutionists can't provide, like completely step by step line of transitional fossils.  Darwin said the evidence for evolution would be in the fossil record.  So far, short of a few hoaxes and dry runs, the Evolutionary community hasn't turned up squat.  Evolution isn't science.  it is an unteseted hypothesis and a bad hypothesis at that.  If I were falling down drunk and stoned out of my gourd at the same time, I might be dumbed down enough to believe in junk science like evolution.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?

Wow.  Some pretty good history revisionism, there.   Galileo was a Chrstian who opposed the science of his day.  The geocentric view was not the religious view.  It was a scientist and Christian, a young earther, btw  who had the nerve to say that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.  

 

The Church embraced the science of the day.  It was men like Galieleo and Copernicus who told the scientific community they were wrong and paid a heavy price for that.   Even now, the scientific community is demanding that Christians acquiese to Evolution and what is considered 'science' and it ridicules those who don't bow the knee to the perceived infallibility of the scientific community.

 

What evidence would it take to convince me of Evolution??  It would take the kind of evidence that evolutionists can't provide, like completely step by step line of transitional fossils.  Darwin said the evidence for evolution would be in the fossil record.  So far, short of a few hoaxes and dry runs, the Evolutionary community hasn't turned up squat.  Evolution isn't science.  it is an unteseted hypothesis and a bad hypothesis at that.  If I were falling down drunk and stoned out of my gourd at the same time, I might be dumbed down enough to believe in junk science like evolution.

 

so, are you saying that the likes of Galileo and Copernicus made their breakthroughs based on the bible, or did they make them based on observation?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?

Wow.  Some pretty good history revisionism, there.   Galileo was a Chrstian who opposed the science of his day.  The geocentric view was not the religious view.  It was a scientist and Christian, a young earther, btw  who had the nerve to say that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.  

 

The Church embraced the science of the day.  It was men like Galieleo and Copernicus who told the scientific community they were wrong and paid a heavy price for that.   Even now, the scientific community is demanding that Christians acquiese to Evolution and what is considered 'science' and it ridicules those who don't bow the knee to the perceived infallibility of the scientific community.

 

What evidence would it take to convince me of Evolution??  It would take the kind of evidence that evolutionists can't provide, like completely step by step line of transitional fossils.  Darwin said the evidence for evolution would be in the fossil record.  So far, short of a few hoaxes and dry runs, the Evolutionary community hasn't turned up squat.  Evolution isn't science.  it is an unteseted hypothesis and a bad hypothesis at that.  If I were falling down drunk and stoned out of my gourd at the same time, I might be dumbed down enough to believe in junk science like evolution.

 

so, are you saying that the likes of Galileo and Copernicus made their breakthroughs based on the bible, or did they make them based on observation?

 

They were Christians who used science.  I realize that is a novel concept to you since you think that being a Christian = being uneducated and stupid.  

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians like Christopher Wren and Robert Boyle who founded the Royal Society and other men like Francis Bacon, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Johanes Kepler and others. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

  It was men like Galieleo and Copernicus who told the scientific community they were wrong and paid a heavy price for that.  

 So, you are saying the scienctific community locked them up and persecuted them?  Could you point me to the history text that states that?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats

 

Wrong.  There is nothing about faith that taints science.   Science is the best means understanding the scope of God's creation.   Having that in your worldview doesn't taint how one does science.

 

 

Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Actually many of those men wrote about their faith.  They didn't merely claim to believe in God.  Their faith enhanced how they did science and modern science is rooted their theories. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats

 

Wrong.  There is nothing about faith that taints science.  

 

Does that go for Islam, Native American Spirituality, Hinduism, Buddhism etc?  There are many people who are have made astounding scientific breakthroughs who are not Christians.  Does their success affirm their religions/spiritualty as well as say someone like Newton?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

The idea that almost everyone believed in a flat earth is a myth invented by American writer Washington Irving in the early 1800s and popularized by atheist Andrew Dickson White, in the late 1800s

 

Most interestingly,....

 

“The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.”

Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, 23 June 2011

 

:24:

 

Now for the Real Laugher....

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece.  http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

 

From above.....Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."

 

Well....

 

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."

(Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

 

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."  

Henry Gee PhD (Senior Editor, Nature) In Search of Deep Time  (2001)  p. 32

 

"Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record."

Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of natural History; The Myths of Human Evolution, (1982)  p.45-46

 

We don't see "slight successive variations" do we??  We see the exact opposite....  Uh Oh, but don't fret.... And Then......AbraCadabra!!  "Another" Ad Hoc Hypothesis Savior:  Punctuated Equilibrium!!  Brought to you by Stephen Gould (See: below) and his Graduate Assistant Dr. Niles Eldridge (See above)

 

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

 

Evolution's "ad hoc" hypothesis: (Punctuated Equilibrium, Convergent Evolution...et al)

 

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

 

"Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing."

Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping magisteria", Natural History, March, 1997.

 

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation and experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html#sthash.o45VB9bA.dpuf

 

In Short, Empirical Scientific Evidence Displays 4 Tenets:

 

Observable

Measurable/Testable

Repeatable

Falsifiable

 

Ask to Show ONE Empirical "Scientific" Evidence of Evolution!! :noidea:  :o  :horse:

 

All they have is an assumption "evolution did it" with Ad Hoc OBSERVATIONS!  The Whole Theory is a classic TEXTBOOK: Affirming the Consequent Logical Fallacy....

 

If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore P.

 

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)

2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)

3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;

2) I feel very full;

3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have eaten Baby Short Back Ribs??  :huh:

 

toe is an Unverified /Untestable Hypothesis; hence, Unfalsifiable Assumption ... and as we have discovered (SEE: above in TOTO), is actually a Pseudo-science wrapped inside a Logical Fallacy which is propagated by Science "Priests" with an a priori commitment to a fairytale.  Plain and Simple!!

 

13th Century Alchemy has more Respectable Tenets.

 

 

Mutations/DNA/Irreducible Complexity et al, makes the above scenario Look Like "Real Science"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats

 

Wrong.  There is nothing about faith that taints science.  

 

Does that go for Islam, Native American Spirituality, Hinduism, Buddhism etc?  There are many people who are have made astounding scientific breakthroughs who are not Christians.  Does their success affirm their religions/spiritualty as well as say someone like Newton?

 

In context, I was was referring only to the Christian faith.  I know of no other faith that makes the unique claims about God that the Bible does, particularly as it relates to His relationship with creation.

 

The point I am making is that history proves that being a Christian and being a creationist has never, ever been a hindrance to one also being a scientist.  The notion that one must leave their faith at the door when they enter the lab is a ridiculous notion and not one that should be respected or taken seriously.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

 

Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God?  Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

 

Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God?  Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus.

 

That's the point.  The point is that being a Christian didn't hinder his ability to do science.  The argument being made is NOT that being a Christian makes one a better scientist.  The point is that Christianity isn't an impediment to science.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

 

Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God?  Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus.

 

For him, it seems that his belief in God was a motivator for his doing science. Was that a necessary condition for Newton's doing the physics he did? I can't say either way.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 The argument being made is NOT that being a Christian makes one a better scientist.  The point is that Christianity isn't an impediment to science.

 

And I would say religion in science is unnecessary altogether.  There is no field of science that is benefited by believing in the God of the Bible – or any god for that matter.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

Mutations/DNA/Irreducible Complexity et al, makes the above scenario Look Like "Real Science"

 

Looks can be deceiving.  I find an overabundance of emoticons is compensation for a lack of of substance.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think Galileo's faith was a little more nuanced than those in authority in his day, and even now as the battle wages on in faith and science.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 The argument being made is NOT that being a Christian makes one a better scientist.  The point is that Christianity isn't an impediment to science.

 

And I would say religion in science is unnecessary altogether.  There is no field of science that is benefited by believing in the God of the Bible – or any god for that matter.

 

I would echo Einstein's words:  Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In the past, religion was in control over science, that is, science would have to give way if it violated a religious concept. This is no longer the situation. It is even in the very contrary that science is now in control over religion, that is, if a religious concept violates a scientific concept, people will demand the religion to give way. In the case, we need to review whether the "science" in this situation is actually a new religion advocating a "flat earth" then force it over an old religion.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?

 

All I can say is that you posses a twisted concept about what science that your fallacious concept is never convincing. You can be convincing only when you are capable of possessing a correct concept of what science is.

 

A true science doesn't rely on evidence to convince people. A true is to discover the set of rules behind a repeating behavior (phenomenon). We can predict this behavior as it repeats.

 

=======

There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing.

For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment". If your this prediction shall failed, you can get a Nobel Prize because this is the way how the formula is falsified. You make predictions which will never fail (or else you can get a Nobel Prize), this is what the nature of science is. A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions will never fail.

This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability.

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is.

However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science.

You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion.

Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.

=======

The "science" in the mouth of the atheists won't attain the same accuracy as a true science does in detecting a truth. Worst still, they can no longer tell what is a truth beyond doubt and what is an assumption requiring faith. They are the true religionists who believe whatever being called "science".

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hi Jerry, you said; “We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth”

 

That is the propaganda. In reality, there is no evidence whatsoever that any Bible-believing community has ever thought the earth to be flat – let alone killed people for their disagreement. This is a classic Strawman fallacy. A lie about an opponent’s beliefs is presented for the purpose of claiming that the church has been wrong in the past, so maybe they should redeem themselves by adhering to evolution (i.e. not making the same mistake again). The unfortunate implication of this misrepresentation is that its presenter is either ignorant or dishonest.

 

And no-one has ever been killed by Christianity for their heliocentric views. Certainly not Galileo; who a) was not “put to death”, and b) blamed the Ptolemy/Aristotle-believing, academia for pressuring the church into prosecuting him (see his “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina”, 1615).

 

 

 

“In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us”

 

This is simply more unsubstantiated propaganda.

 

Claiming that the Christian church (or pre-Christian, Hebrew orthodoxy) ever taught that the earth was flat is a demonstrable lie – traceable to the fictitious claims of Washington Irving in his book “The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus” (1828); where he claimed that flat earth believing Christians tried to dissuade Columbus for fear he would sail off the end of the world.

 

The irony of the heliocentric issue is that it was 2 devout and studied Christians (first Copernicus, then Galileo) using scientific observations to question the prevailing (non-Christian) paradigm of their time. Framing these issues as science vs. religion is therefore logically specious.

 

 

 

“For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?”

 

I’m going to henceforth ignore the “round-earther” reference because the premise has no basis in reality.

 

Galileo’s presentation in 1610 was initially well received by the church (including by the man who would have him prosecuted after becoming pope). By 1615, Galileo became aware of hostility to his ideas; that “academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors” (“Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina”, 1615) who subsequently “had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from their very pulpits with unwonted confidence, thus doing impious and inconsiderate injury not only to that doctrine and its followers but to all mathematics and mathematicians in general”. Then, after a series of trials (defended by Jesuits), Galileo was finally, successfully prosecuted in 1633 (i.e. 23 years after presenting his initial, heliocentric findings). There are many more details and issues contributing to Galileo’s ultimate undoing, but your impression of the church immediately “railing” against the prospect of a heliocentric paradigm is utterly false.

 

 

 

“What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?”

 

Firstly, I would need to know what you mean by “evolution”.

I, as a YEC, have no issue with Natural Selection.

I, as a YEC, have no issue with speciation (through isolation and Natural Selection).

I, as a YEC, have no issue with genetic mutations (even rarely beneficial mutations).

I, as a YEC, have no issue with changes of allele frequencies occurring in populations.

As a YEC, the only issue I have with “evolution” is when it is defined to mean Common Ancestry – the proposal that all life on earth is related through a series of ancestors common to all current living forms. [since the only antagonism is between creationism and Common Ancestry, the following assumes that by “evolution”, you mean Common Ancestry.]

 

Secondly, your framing of this question presupposes the truth of Common Ancestry – as though it had been verified beyond question. Science is supposed to be objective. A legitimately scientific question does not presuppose the answer, but uses critical thinking to subject all claims to equal scrutiny. If evidence could show Common Ancestry to be unequivocal, then there would be no need for debate. But it cannot. Therefore I have every rational (and scientific) right to subject Common Ancestry to scrutiny. The job of science is NOT to “convince” me of the ultimate truth of any claim, but to demonstrate the rational plausibility of that claim (yet I already consider Common Ancestry to be a viable explanation – given the naturalistic faith assumption). So what will it take for you to give fair consideration to actual creationist arguments/interpretations/explanations of the evidence? I understand that I can never “convince” you of my position without changing your faith perspective – but that doesn’t mean you can’t objectively analyse the logical consistency of my position (i.e. whether the conclusions and arguments are logically consistent with the premise within which they were formulated).

 

Third, in reality, science derives confidence through observations and repeated testing. But we are debating claims about the unobserved/untested past. We cannot go back in time to make the necessary scientific observations and tests required to justify scientific confidence in these claims. Therefore all claims regarding the past (both theistic and naturalistic) are unfalsifiable. There is no weight of evidence which could force a surrendering of any of these ideas. Even directly contrary evidence could just be a case of "we haven't yet figured out how this evidence fits our hypotheses"; which itself is a logical possibility – but a possibility which allows us to prefer a paradigm in spite of the facts.

 

Fourthly, the creationist position is that all of the very same facts which have been interpreted to support naturalistic models (such as Common Ancestry), can be alternatively interpreted to support the Biblical model of reality. So, grandiose claims and Innuendo regarding the amounts of evidence (even supposed “overwhelming evidence”) supporting Common Ancestry are meaningless in the context of this testable claim.

 

So to your question, no evidence can “convince”, but certain evidences could make the Common Ancestry model more rationally viable;

 

1)

Any single fact which could only, exclusively be interpreted to be consistent with naturalistic models, to the detriment of the Biblical model of reality. That is, there would have to be no logical way to render the fact(s) consistent with the static aspects of the Bible-based model. But if I can interpret the fact to be consistent with the Biblical model, then its existence does not logically favour one position over the other – it goes back to an issue of faith preference.

 

2)

As someone studying genetics, to make Common Ancestry plausible to me, I would have to observe of all of the following in a single example;

* Genetic information (a new gene) which is novel in quantity (in an additive sense) – i.e. an addition to the number of actual nucleotides in the organism’s genome (not just a change to existing information). A transposon insertion or gene duplication may accomplish this.

* Genetic information which is novel in quality – i.e. information in the new gene that demonstrates a function which is brand new to the organism. In this case, we would have to figure out how the new gene mutated to such a degree that it transcribes a new function, whilst leaving other genes conserved.

* The new gene would have to be selectively beneficial to the organism/population.

* The new gene would have to be heritable.

* And all would have to be observed in exclusively eukaryotic organisms/populations.

 

None of these would come close to justifying the currently expressed confidence (often certainty) in Common Ancestry – however, they would at least provide a plausible starting point for such confidence.

 

 

 

“Google Flat Earth Society – Index”

 

Ironically, Daniel Shenton, the current president of the Flat Earth society is a professed evolutionist.

 

 

 

“If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener”

 

Until our opponents can provide a rational defence of their position, or a rational argument outlaying the logical weaknesses of our position – then they have given us no reason to respect their “views”. Appeal to Consensus is a logical fallacy because the popular position is not necessarily correct. Appeals to Ridicule and Innuendo are logical fallacies because they rely on unsupported insinuation rather than rational argument.

 

I have a “science education”. If the “views” expressed against my position are expressed outside of the context of a rational argument, then those views have no rational merit. If all my opponents have to offer is empty rhetoric and logical fallacies, then I have all-the-more reason to be confident in my position.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)".

No, sorry, that is not how it works.  Evolutionary science has already shown how a cat has evolved from a single cell with much help from the fact that cats exist. 

 

In evolution, predictive often means we will be able to predict what a cat ancestor we don't know of now will look like based on an older example and a current example.  If you don't understand this, you probably have an issue with the meaning of scientific theory - i.e. delve more into science definitions...

 

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. 

 

Are we to give up because we have only had the scientific method unconstrained by religion for a few hundred years when some of these processes take hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of years? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There's a lot of dumb assumptions being made here.  Because I'm a Creationist, I think ALL science is bad and wrong?  That's not correct.  I just don't sit back and believe that science is 100% true and every theory it professes to be correct actually is.  I believe alternate theories and it is NOT the same as saying the earth is flat even though it has been proven not to be.  You are essentially insulting us by lumping us in with those who think the earth is flat. 

 

What is wrong with having alternate theories?  The theory of evolution has NO physical evidence to back it up.  It remains only a theory.  So the difference between observable evidence and un-observable evidence is one will always be a theory.  You can't prove things that you suppose happened billions or millions of years ago.  No one was there to observe it happening.  No one has ever observed macro-evolution (or one species evolving into something different).  Even in the fossil record we are missing millions of transitional forms. 

 

There are plenty of PhDs who have their own theories and are creationists and to me it makes sense and fits with my worldview.  You don't have to be a total idiot to accept creationism so stop with the assumptions. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?

 

 

In my (Baha'i) opinion, science cannot answer questions about religion, just like religion is not supposed to solve scientific problems. Both science and religion must support each other, like two wings of a bird, because with one wing alone, no bird can fly. Science teaches us *how* the world is, but religion teaches us *why* it is. Science without religion will become empty materialism, but religion without science becomes mere superstition.

 

I don't think the descriptions in the Bible should be confused with science. They're often symbolical and mythological descriptions of what happened.

 

For example, I believe when science proves there was a "big bang" or something, that's how God created the world. Science helps us to understand *how* God did that. But it will never teach us *why* God did it, for which purpose, or what is right and wrong. Science only knows true and false, which is why we need religion.

 

Baha'u'llah (whom Baha'i consider a divine prophet) confirmed Adam was the first man. But he also says, in the next sentence, that there were divine prophets even before Adam. How is that possible? Many Baha'i, including myself, believe that to mean that evolution is true and Adam was a symbolical person, the first person the moment man had crossed the evolutionary line between animal and human.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's a good thing there's no hungry people out there that need feed or prisoners that need comforting, and doubly good that all the souls we see in our daily lives are saved and bound for paradise. Now we can concentrate on the important things, like determining whether atheists are pagans, polytheists, or witches, and deciding if the earth is six thousand or ten thousand years old. I am so disenchanted.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0