Is evolution or creation science?

[nChrist]

Beloved, The Trouble With Scientism

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Scientism is a strange philosophy that states that science is the only way you can know something, I know of no one who actually subscribes to this philosophy. The problem here is that I'm not talking about scientism, but regular old science.

Joe, can you honestly work from a methodological naturalistic standpoint, and not rely on biblical authority to ascertain the truth about the physical world?

Joe can speak for himself, but I'll say for me that the Holy Bible is the Authority - the measurement of all truth. I suspect that you'll get the same answer from most real Christians. God's Word gives a Creation account, and there you have the TRUTH.

[Isaiah 6:8]

You did say that Niagara Falls is evidence of a young earth, but yes, it only tells you that the Falls themselves are 6,000 years old and gives you a lower limit for the age of the Earth, something you seem to disagree with. What if I showed you a geological structure that was 400 years old, is that evidence the world is only 400 years old? According to your logic the answer is yes. Take it to the extreme, if I showed you a structure that was a day old, it is evidence that the world is only a day old according to your above logic.

No I never said that. Read again, I even put in bold and underlined the IF. this time I'll make it big, red and capital as well so you do not miss it. I never said that was proof. I said IF is said it was there would be other possible explanations. I am saying you have taken even weaker evidence, (missing gas) to claim that it was evidence for a lifeforms unknown and never observed. You are attacking an idea of evidence I never presented as fact or true. You however has offered weaker evidence then that as fact, with out even offering other possible explanations. You then defended it as "But it is evidence" I can not find the thread I'll have to dig it up, however you show your true colors when I have repeated that I did not make such a statement and you keep arguing about a point I did not make.

Sorry I did miss that I was not clear about that, I am sorry about that. However I have seen you state minimal evidence to ascertain something that we have never seen is possible. A lack of one gas on a moon or a planet I can not remember which. You stated that just because one gas was not found that it was evidence of silicon based lifeforms.

If I said a much stronger thing about evolution being wrong, you would tell me the evidence was too weak. Such the fact that it would only have taken Niagara falls 6,000 years to wear down to its current shape from water erosion was evidence of the earth being young. You would state that it was only evidence of the fall themselves being only 6000 years old. you see there are many options to why this is true however if I state that as evidence you would say it was not based on other possible explanations. So yes it is evidence but not a fact. You have shown you choose to belive what evidence you will and ignore other possibility.

As for the ERV'S..

With the ERV thing, viruses insert part of their DNA into the host at a random site, only their decedents are going to have this ERV insertion, and we can look at this ERV insertion to deduce common ancestry. What the creationists present, or at least that article you brought up, is a straw-man talking about ERVs as junk DNA, and since there is function in some of these ERVs than evolution is false. Well, that has absolutely nothing to do with the evidence of common ancestry, it simply doesn't address the data. It doesn't matter if all the ERVs are functional or functionless, it doesn't change the data for common ancestry. It isn't about which model best fits the data, one model doesn't even address the data. I know of no creationist model that attempts to account for the ERV data.

The fact that you disagree is one thing. The fact that they have another explanation is my point. A point you refuse to take. You keep trying to argue the data, when I am stating that there is two points of view on the same data. You can argue all you want why the other view is invalid, but you refuse to admit there are two points of view on the same data, and that is my point.

I'm sure my emotion has gotten the best of me on several occasions, however my stance on evolution as a whole is not emotionally charged, it is based on me studying up on the issue through school and on my own. I can't help it that creationist arguments are flawed and out of date. I can't help it that creationism doesn't produce research, or doesn't get published in science journals, or that they don't try to convince the scientific community but the general public instead. Creationism has all the hallmarks of a pseudoscience and then some, while evolution has been a widely successful scientific theory. We can go into details if you'd like.

Yet you keep ignoring or pushing a statement I have made. Also evolution has so many holes in it, but yet you refuse to look at them. Logical holes but yet you over look them or claim that God did work in that matter.

Aw, come on now. I corrected you once in this thread already, I never said that there isn't evidence to how sexual reproduction came about - rather that we don't know the exact pathway for which it was developed, big difference. We know the genes for meiosis, the sexual reproduction genes, came from the mitosis genes, regular cell division, for example.

Where did that gene come from? You see there is no proof, no evidence outside of it exists. How would two separate beings just so happen to evolve the perfect equal but opposite organs to reproduce at the same time, and be mutually compatible? What are the odds. This fly's in the face of logic yet you embrace it with open arms.

It really doesn't matter for the validity of evolution how life got here, it could have come about via abiogenesis, God, both, or some other mechanism. Biological evolution is about how life, once it is here, changes over time. It doesn't attempt to explain how life got here. This goes back to the very first thing I said in this thread, there is no super theory of evolution that combines the various scientific theories that have the word "evolution" in it; abiogenesis being dubbed "chemical evolution" here. I really don't back away from it. I have talked about the two and how they are connected several times on this site and others. For my basic position on the matter refer to this post: I'm willing to talk about abiogenesis, however most people don't want to talk about it beyond broad claims on how it is part of biological evolution and such, rarely do they want to discuss the science involved.

I read it, very circular logic.

Yes you like to point to the development of everything from a single cell creature. This is improbable at the best impossible at the worst. I'll start another thread later showing how they are all linked.

Well, not philosophical naturalism, but methodological naturalism, yes. I thought that was implicit. But yes, in order for it to be science it must coincide with methodological naturalism which precludes all supernatural explanations. It has to do with the philosophy of science in that supernatural explanations, by definition, cannot be evaluated under the scientific method. This really does highlight the tension between science and a lot of creationist's mentality. If you really believe that methodological naturalism is antithetical to Christianity, than science and Christianity are diametrically in opposition in your view. This is, in part, what I mean by creationists not really liking science if they understood the philosophy/methodology behind it.

Ah, In other words, you say we should leave God out of science completely. That is fine, however then you need to leave out all other bias as well, and that is what I am speaking of. I have admitted creationists have issues with leaving God out of it. I am stating that evolutionists have an issue of leaving out there pre-conceived Ideas out of it. When they don't know, they need to simply say they do not know but they fill in the gaps with lots of "Time" or stating "it must have happened this way" they say that all the time when they have no evidence of such.

You can certainly learn all sorts of stuff provided by the scientific method without accepting every facet of it. But don't confuse personal belief with the science itself. I am not saying that you can't be a Christian and do science, only that science and faith are two different things and must not impede on each other lest you corrupt both. You can certainly get inspiration from God, religion, spirituality, and what else have you, the distinction is that your faith doesn't get in the way of science. As I said before, in science you must forgo religious authority, you just cannot take God's word for it, you have to work from a methodological naturalistic standpoint. These are not always easy things to brush off to the side while doing science, but it is necessary. Even Newton fell victim to this, and ultimately decided that the planetary orbits must be sustained supernaturally by God half way through his life, never to return to the problem. Of course, the french astronomer Laplace with a little more discovery into calculus was able to solve Newton's problem with an entirely natural mechanism free from supernatural intervention.

I am not talking about accepting or not accepting evolution here, nor accepting or rejecting God. Only the requirements for the conduction of science. Notice how all of those people you mentioned above worked from a methodological naturalistic perspective whenever they increased our scientific knowledge? They never substituted a scientific explanation with a supernatural explanation and got anywhere, not even Newton.

Yes your right, however you tend to not do the same? Your assertion is that God used evolution. How does that Gel with your Idea of keeping God out of it?

Yes, Pasture showed that spontaneous generation of life from trash is not correct, lucky for abiogenesis it doesn't say this. What Pasture showed was that flies don't sprout up out of old food, it really has no bearing on modern abiogenesis.

And yet why do you suppose a history of microbiology left out Pasture?

You don't need to be a philosophical naturalist, no one is suggesting such, only that you need to accept methodological naturalism to conduct science. I'm not being emotional, just pointing out the requirements of science. If you are emotional when discussing what does and doesn't constitute science, I dare say that there is more tension between science and yourself than you let on to be, or possibly even aware of.

Yet you have repeatedly argued with me about a point I never made. You fill in all gaps of evolution by faith and faith alone, that is emotional.

[Guest]

You don't need to be a philosophical naturalist, no one is suggesting such, only that you need to accept methodological naturalism to conduct science. I'm not being emotional, just pointing out the requirements of science. If you are emotional when discussing what does and doesn't constitute science, I dare say that there is more tension between science and yourself than you let on to be, or possibly even aware of.

Yet you have repeatedly argued with me about a point I never made. You fill in all gaps of evolution by faith and faith alone, that is emotional.

Beloved

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 1 Peter 2:9

Scientism Is The Core

Yea, hath God said Genesis 1:©

Of The Religious Myth Called Evolution

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Romans 1:20-23

A Leavened Poison Dished Up As Science Without Proof

The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords. Psalms 55:21

The One Unifying Dogma Seems To Use "Science" To Deny The Lordship Of Christ

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

But Jesus Is The Reason I Have No Fear For The Salvation Of My Brothers Still Stuck In This Evolutionary Mythos

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10:8-11

And For Thirty Years Or So I Too "Believed" In The Evolution Myth While At The Same Time I KNEW The Holy Bible Was God's Own Truth

And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Deuteronomy 8:3

Then As Many Of My Favorite Writers Published More And More Vitriolic Rhetoric Squarely Aimed At My LORD And Savior

They make the king glad with their wickedness, and the princes with their lies.

They are all adulterers, as an oven heated by the baker, who ceaseth from raising after he hath kneeded the dough, until it be leavened.

In the day of our king the princes have made him sick with bottles of wine; he stretched out his hand with scorners.

For they have made ready their heart like an oven, whiles they lie in wait: their baker sleepeth all the night; in the morning it burneth as a flaming fire.

They are all hot as an oven, and have devoured their judges; all their kings are fallen: there is none among them that calleth unto me. Hosea 7:3-7

I Turned Back To The Bible Determined To Lay To Rest Any Question Left In My Mind

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:19-21

The Question Of Nature Versus Creation

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

To Know Once And For All, The Truth

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

And God Was Good

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17

And Now I KNOW The Truth Of Creation And His Name Is Jesus

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

And I Truly Weep For The Little Children Who Must Suffer The Arrows And Slings Of The Cackling Evolutionist

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

Those Cruel And Heartless Creatures

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:36

Stalking The Kids

For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak. Psalms 59:12

Calling Away, Yet

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. Jeremiah 17:5

Jesus Is Able

Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. Jeremiah 17:7

Oh So Able

And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?

And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Mark 10:26-27

____________

_________

______

___

May You Seek His Face

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

And Truly Know Your Creator

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

And Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Guest]

Beloved, The Trouble With Scientism

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Scientism is a strange philosophy that states that science is the only way you can know something, I know of no one who actually subscribes to this philosophy. The problem here is that I'm not talking about scientism, but regular old science.

Joe, can you honestly work from a methodological naturalistic standpoint, and not rely on biblical authority to ascertain the truth about the physical world?

Joe can speak for himself, but I'll say for me that the Holy Bible is the Authority - the measurement of all truth. I suspect that you'll get the same answer from most real Christians. God's Word gives a Creation account, and there you have the TRUTH.

[Guest]

Have You Seen My Jesus

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

____________

_________

______

___

I'll say for me that the Holy Bible is the Authority - the measurement of all truth. I suspect that you'll get the same answer from most real Christians. God's Word gives a Creation account, and there you have the TRUTH.

I think your statement clearly shows that creationism is faith based. On the other hand, science is based on logic. Thus, the opening question is neatly answered.

Dear Sam I Think You Are Right On Your First Assessment, True Knowledge (Science) Is Based On Trust In The Creator

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

And Sam, You Are Wrong To Place Your Faith In Man's Science, Trusting It As Your Source Of Knowledge Of The Important Things In Life

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Psalms 19:1-3

And Astonishing Foolish To Place Your Eternal Life Into The Puny Power Of The Mind Of Men

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:12-14

____________

_________

______

___

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[Isaiah 6:8]

I'll say for me that the Holy Bible is the Authority - the measurement of all truth. I suspect that you'll get the same answer from most real Christians. God's Word gives a Creation account, and there you have the TRUTH.

I think your statement clearly shows that creationism is faith based. On the other hand, science is based on logic. Thus, the opening question is neatly answered.

Yes we know Creationism is faith based. So is evolution. There is always the magic of "Time" to fix any holes in the theory. Yet the holes remain.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Joe can speak for himself, but I'll say for me that the Holy Bible is the Authority - the measurement of all truth. I suspect that you'll get the same answer from most real Christians. God's Word gives a Creation account, and there you have the TRUTH.

This is, in part, why I say that there is tension between the scientific method and creationists/Christians, and while many value the products of science they don't always like the methodology of science. In science you cannot use biblical authority, this doesn't mean you have to relinquish your position on biblical authority in an ultimate sense, rather it has no place in science and that is something many Christians are just unable or unwilling to do.

Actually since Christians Wrote most of the methodology we have no problem with it. It not being applied we have issue with. They do not apply it to evolution, they do but in part and when something comes up they do not want to face they ignore science for there own guess.

[nChrist]

I'll say for me that the Holy Bible is the Authority - the measurement of all truth. I suspect that you'll get the same answer from most real Christians. God's Word gives a Creation account, and there you have the TRUTH.

I think your statement clearly shows that creationism is faith based. On the other hand, science is based on logic. Thus, the opening question is neatly answered.

Negative, it's a matter of logic also. I've seen the proof of the Holy Bible being the TRUTH, and the Creation account is part of that truth. The Holy Bible proves itself in countless ways. God's Creation account in the Holy Bible makes perfect sense and is quite logical. What's not logical is trying to find an alternative story about Creation that has some semblance of common sense.

It takes much more faith to believe the ridiculous thought that man evolved from monkeys. That defies common sense and should be dismissed as SILLY.

[nChrist]

Joe can speak for himself, but I'll say for me that the Holy Bible is the Authority - the measurement of all truth. I suspect that you'll get the same answer from most real Christians. God's Word gives a Creation account, and there you have the TRUTH.

This is, in part, why I say that there is tension between the scientific method and creationists/Christians, and while many value the products of science they don't always like the methodology of science. In science you cannot use biblical authority, this doesn't mean you have to relinquish your position on biblical authority in an ultimate sense, rather it has no place in science and that is something many Christians are just unable or unwilling to do.

Man evolving from monkeys is a recent theory that just makes no sense at all, not to mention the fraud, hoaxes, and deception that the theory is based on. As a contrast, the TRUTH of God's Word has been with us for thousands of years. I'll take the evidence, logic, and common sense of the Holy Bible over the silly theory of evolution anytime.

[Exaeus]

Yes we know Creationism is faith based. So is evolution. There is always the magic of "Time" to fix any holes in the theory. Yet the holes remain.

Isaiah, to be honest you give the impression of a very frustrated, angry individual trying to drag science down to the level of religion so you can feel better about your beliefs.

Do you think it's possible to phrase your arguments in a more specific manner so that a useful reply can be made to them, or is your aim here simply to vent your bitterness?

Negative, it's a matter of logic also. I've seen the proof of the Holy Bible being the TRUTH, and the Creation account is part of that truth. The Holy Bible proves itself in countless ways. God's Creation account in the Holy Bible makes perfect sense and is quite logical. What's not logical is trying to find an alternative story about Creation that has some semblance of common sense.

It takes much more faith to believe the ridiculous thought that man evolved from monkeys. That defies common sense and should be dismissed as SILLY.

nChrist, I'm sure this must have been pointed out numerous times already, but the modern evolutionary synthesis claims that humans and primates share a common ancestor, not that man evolved from monkeys. You are dismissing evolution because you apparently have some very wrong ideas indeed about it, which is understandable since as far as I can tell, most creationist claims are based on misrepresenting science. Have you tried to study evolution from credible scientific sources, instead of simply believing what you've been told about it by Christian sources?