Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[__ Science __ ] Evolution Is a Scientific Law?
- Thread starter AIG.com
- Start date
Barbarian
Member
A law is less than a theory. This is middle school science. What's wrong with those guys?
A scientific law is what scientists expect to see under certain circumstances. It predicts things, but does not explain them.
Newton's laws of motion, for example. They predict what we see, but do not explain why.
Newton's Theory of Gravitation is a complete theory; it predicts things, but also explains why. Kepler's laws of planetary motion make the same predictions as Newton's theory. But Newton's theory explains why it happens and therefore extends the usefulness of gravitation from planets to moons to spacecraft, to apples falling from trees.
Laws are weaker things than theories.
You would think these guys would spend a little time learning about science so they could talk about it without making errors like this.
Why would laws be weaker things than theories?
Barbarian
Member
See above. Kepler's Laws predict planetary motions. Newton's theory of gravity predicts and explains the planetary motions.
Laws merely predict things. Theories predict and explain things.
Barbarian
Member
That's not all that's wrong with the AIG article...
"For Christians, evolution almost always conjures images of protoplasm turning into people over billions of years."
Most Christians know better than this, if they were paying attention in biology class. Christians aren't more ignorant than other people.
"This is the definition that directly contradicts Scripture."
Actually, it doesn't. But it does contradict science; evolution isn't about the beginning of cellular life. It's always possible that the writer just doesn't know what "protoplasm" means. But still...
"Thankfully, the authors supplied and elaborated on their term evolution by natural selection. In short, in their minds, evolution by natural selection is the process by which organisms reproduce, pass on variable traits, and compete for resources.3 It’s very similar to the definition I learned for the “process of evolution” in my college Biology 102 course. It’s also readily observable."
Precisely, it's a change in allele frequencies in a population of living things. So yes, a fact that's directly observed.
"Uh oh. "
It's been a tough few decades for AIG. They do now admit the evolution of new species and genera, but that's not really going to help much.
" Wrong. Why? Because evolution means different things in different contexts."
What matters is what it means in science. What AIG dreams up and calls "evolution" is of no consequence outside of the religion of YE creationism. Here's some more confusion...
"The most basic criterion of scientific fact is observation. It’s a bit difficult to advance something as a scientific fact when it fails to meet this fundamental standard."
Once, I had to learn to do fire investigations. Even if an investigator was not there to watch the building burn, his observation of evidence left behind tells him what actually happened. That's how science works. Which seems to be a mystery to AIG.
'“Why don’t more people accept what you’re saying? Why doesn’t the mainstream scientific community believe you?” It’s a common question. With a little reflection, it’s also easy to answer. For most scientists, the mainstream education system bends over backward to ensure that students—from kindergarten through graduate school—are never exposed to creationist thinking, evidences, and discoveries.'
The first thing a cult tells you, is "everyone else is lying."
"For Christians, evolution almost always conjures images of protoplasm turning into people over billions of years."
Most Christians know better than this, if they were paying attention in biology class. Christians aren't more ignorant than other people.
"This is the definition that directly contradicts Scripture."
Actually, it doesn't. But it does contradict science; evolution isn't about the beginning of cellular life. It's always possible that the writer just doesn't know what "protoplasm" means. But still...
"Thankfully, the authors supplied and elaborated on their term evolution by natural selection. In short, in their minds, evolution by natural selection is the process by which organisms reproduce, pass on variable traits, and compete for resources.3 It’s very similar to the definition I learned for the “process of evolution” in my college Biology 102 course. It’s also readily observable."
Precisely, it's a change in allele frequencies in a population of living things. So yes, a fact that's directly observed.
"Uh oh. "
It's been a tough few decades for AIG. They do now admit the evolution of new species and genera, but that's not really going to help much.
" Wrong. Why? Because evolution means different things in different contexts."
What matters is what it means in science. What AIG dreams up and calls "evolution" is of no consequence outside of the religion of YE creationism. Here's some more confusion...
"The most basic criterion of scientific fact is observation. It’s a bit difficult to advance something as a scientific fact when it fails to meet this fundamental standard."
Once, I had to learn to do fire investigations. Even if an investigator was not there to watch the building burn, his observation of evidence left behind tells him what actually happened. That's how science works. Which seems to be a mystery to AIG.
'“Why don’t more people accept what you’re saying? Why doesn’t the mainstream scientific community believe you?” It’s a common question. With a little reflection, it’s also easy to answer. For most scientists, the mainstream education system bends over backward to ensure that students—from kindergarten through graduate school—are never exposed to creationist thinking, evidences, and discoveries.'
The first thing a cult tells you, is "everyone else is lying."
Last edited:
Sounds like the Usa public education is a cult then, since they work hard to keep students in a BioEvo Bubble.
Barbarian
Member
Actually, I don't remember every being taught evolution in high school. Kind of a conservative area, and I guess they just decided it wasn't worth the hassle. I knew about evolution from reading in the library. And no one there ever told me that creationists were lying. But of course, I've heard YE creationists accuse everyone else of lying many, many times.
Which is the point, after all. AIG, being a cult, accuses everyone else of lying. It's how we know.
Do you really think that is all there is to whether something is a cult?
And besides, tell me where they accused "EVERYONE" else.
Barbarian
Member
It's the first thing a cult will tell you. Diagnostic for cults. And so they declare that public schools and universities, and scientists and scholars are all lying to us to keep us in an "evobubble."
It's what cults do.
The public schools dont need to lie, they can simply keep the competition out.
They dont need to lie to keep the competition out either.
Barbarian
Member
That's the second thing cults say "Oh, they're suppressing the truth."
It would be kinda contrary to the whole idea of education to promote ignorance.
Where did you get your "List of Cult Activities" from? This is ironic given cults tend to do the same thing.
Communist China and other dictatorships did and do such things. Cult belief or fact? Fact.
The Great Firewall (GFW; simplified Chinese: 防火长城; traditional Chinese: 防火長城; pinyin: Fánghuǒ Chángchéng) is the combination of legislative actions and technologies enforced by the People's Republic of China to regulate the Internet domestically.[1] Its role in internet censorship in China is to block access to selected foreign websites and to slow down cross-border internet traffic.
src: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall
Wikipedia, THE VERY SITE THAT ASSERTED PEOPLE AND CHIMPS ARE IN THE "SAME FAMILY" is saying "Oh, they're suppressing the truth."
So either Evolutionpedia is a cult or I'm simply stating a fact.
Perhaps cults say it without evidence, but here's me giving some evidence: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193
"Retraction
Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.
Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.
The editors apologize to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process."
Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living
Hand coordination can allow humans to have dexterous control with many degrees of freedom to perform various tasks in daily living. An important contributing factor to this important ability is the complex biomechanical architecture of the human hand. However, drawing a clear functional link...
journals.plos.org
Evolutionist's censoring of Christians is real. Not cult belief.
If evolution REALLY is "creation" (ironic given the debate's name) then please explain this.
Got any reasons you think AIG is a "cult" besides that list that you got from somewhere?
Tell me the link of the article they acused "everyone else" of lying. Not just F2F-Evolution-believers, but "Everyone".
Do you actually think that the Evolution Crowd will just let YEC spread the Truth?
As you saw, the evolution believers jumped at the word "Creator".
Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living
Hand coordination can allow humans to have dexterous control with many degrees of freedom to perform various tasks in daily living. An important contributing factor to this important ability is the complex biomechanical architecture of the human hand. However, drawing a clear functional link...
web.archive.org
Got enough evidence that Christianity and F2FE do NOT coherently mix?
Well, that's what we (the USA) get when non-Christians take over the system.
Romans 3:11
"THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;"
Christian parents should be the teachers, they should teach BOTH Biblical and contraBiblical things, and give arguments and Scripture refuting the contraBiblical and backing the Biblical.
Unlike Big Evo which just censors the other side, in many cases.
Barbarian
Member
It would be kinda contrary to the whole idea of education to promote ignorance.
For the obvious reasons.
What public school system requires that non-Christians administer it? That sounds like a delusion to me.
Speak for yourself.
We are. But in public school, we can't demand that only Christians be teachers, just as others can't demand that only non-Christians be teachers. It's America; that kind of thing is prohibited.
Big Astro, too. So they don't teach flat Earth stuff or geocentrism. They don't teach phrenology or voodoo, either.
For the obvious reasons.
Barbarian
Member
Which is the point, after all. AIG, being a cult, accuses everyone else of lying.
And it appears that the Authors' error in using creator is due to their lack of English proficiency...
We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript. We apologize for any troubles may have caused by this misunderstanding.
Looks like a language issue to me. The authors certainly said so. But I wouldn't put it past AIG to declare "THEY ARE ALL LYING!!"
Incidentally, the evidence shows that human hand anatomy evolved to fit the environment...
Nature, Published: 26 November 2020
That's a pretty good tip-off, isn't it? It's what cults do.
Most other Christians, for example. Most of the world's Christians belong to denominations that admit that evolution is consistent with Christian belief.
No law against teaching religion. It's just that public schools can't do it. Otherwise O.K.
Seeing as Darwin wrote that the first living things were made by a Creator, I'd say you got that wrong.
And it appears that the Authors' error in using creator is due to their lack of English proficiency...
We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript. We apologize for any troubles may have caused by this misunderstanding.
Looks like a language issue to me. The authors certainly said so. But I wouldn't put it past AIG to declare "THEY ARE ALL LYING!!"
Incidentally, the evidence shows that human hand anatomy evolved to fit the environment...
Nature, Published: 26 November 2020
The implications of thumb movements for Neanderthal and modern human manipulation
Here, we provide a novel perspective on this debate through a 3D geometric morphometric analysis of shape covariation between the trapezial and proximal first metacarpal articular surfaces of Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) in comparison to early and recent humans (Homo sapiens). Results show a distinct pattern of shape covariation in Neanderthals, consistent with more extended and adducted thumb postures that may reflect habitual use of grips commonly used for hafted tools. Both Neanderthals and recent humans demonstrate high intraspecific variation in shape covariation. This intraspecific variation is likely the result of genetic and/or developmental differences, but may also reflect, in part, differing functional requirements imposed by the use of varied tool-kits. These results underscore the importance of holistic joint shape analysis for understanding the functional capabilities and evolution of the modern human thumb.
Last edited:
Oh? I haven't seen astronomers or astronomy publishers censoring other ideas about the Shape of Earth or geocentrism.
Unlike F2FE, globe earth is mathematically proven and prove by NASA live streams on youtube.
I'm pretty sure no F2FE has ever been observed in real time on YT.
Equating the 2 is comparing apples and orange.
So you have no other reasons other than that list.
BTW, you didn't give me the source of list.
except for the the Athiestic religion, along with their origin tales.
I'm not talking about Darwin, but Athiest evolution believers of PLOS one.
Crev.info is right when they report on Athiestic censorship of YEC.
How do you know if Darwin was a Christian, specifically? Did he preach the Gospel? Did he proclaim Biblical Inerrancy? Did he accept the Trinity doctrine?
Romans 1:25
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Nature is the god of these evolution believers in question. Athiesm flows from OEE.
Barbarian
Member
What public school system requires that non-Christians administer it? That sounds like a delusion to me.
Sure seems like you did.
They've deleted all that dreck from science books and science curricula.
As you know, evolution is directly observed. Speciation is a observed fact. Even honest YE creationists admit the evidence indicates common descent:
Evidence for not just one but for allthree of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
But in public school, we can't demand that only Christians be teachers, just as others can't demand that only non-Christians be teachers. It's America; that kind of thing is prohibited.
Atheism can't be taught in public schools, just as religion can't be taught. So it isn't. C'mon. You know this.
It's probably frustrating to some that atheists (your link didn't include any professed atheists) would have the same rights as theists. But as you know, public schools can't profess atheism.
Why would it matter? All that counts in science is that the predictions of his theory have been repeatedly confirmed.
That is a modern error. I don't think Christians of his time had heard of it. As late as the 1940s, most creationists were OE.
Sounds like YE, doesn't it?
Since when was it ever in there?
Because you think Darwin was a Christan... do you?
So you believe God can/does mess up. Not surprising given you think God confuses us by starting His Word with an open ended allegory.
I'll let this speak for itself.
Not in the slightest. It's OEE, with nature allegedly creating itself (evolving).
There seems to be an overwhelming majority of atheists, skeptics, and evolutionists in the “allegory camp”, and for good reason. For the atheist or skeptic to deny the existence of God, she must first deny the historicity of Genesis. If Genesis is not a historical account of creation, then we can all relax and enjoy the pleasures of our lusts. This holds true for the evolutionist as well. Consider Darwin’s own words:
I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian. [1]
Darwin could not accept his own theories on evolution without first dispensing with Genesis. Darwin elevated his novel view of the creation above that of God’s own revelation. Peter spoke directly to modern atheists and skeptics:
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the Day of Judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:3-7 (NASB)
Peter chastised atheists and skeptics (mockers) for failing to give historical credence to the Genesis accounts of the creation and the flood. While we cannot know for certain what motivates every man with solid biblical training to hold an allegorical view of Genesis, unless he has expressed his motivation clearly, we can concern ourselves with the theological implications of an allegorical view for our students and legacy, and in doing so, manifest our own motivations.
Is Genesis Allegory?
A Polemic for the Church “Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” (Titus 3:9 NASB) It only hinders the Gospel to…
apologiaveritas.org