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!

[_ Old Earth _] What Is Science?

Evointrinsic said:
Jason, would you be able to send a link to these claims that atheists are making? The initial creation of a synthetic cell isn't evolution, if however the cell were to reproduce in some manner and have some form of genetic change through the generations, then yes, that would be what evolution describes.
i will look for this.
Pard: You have just gotten a TON of respect from me. I have honestly never seen a creationist (you are a creationist right?) ever state that information other than theirs may possibly be correct.

The "Title Origin of species" doesn't necessarily mean origin of life. It is referencing the occurrence of genetic drift rather than the first thing created :) Tell me, do you believe in Microevolution? just out of curiosity.
 
Evointrinsic said:
Jason, would you be able to send a link to these claims that atheists are making? The initial creation of a synthetic cell isn't evolution, if however the cell were to reproduce in some manner and have some form of genetic change through the generations, then yes, that would be what evolution describes.

Pard: You have just gotten a TON of respect from me. I have honestly never seen a creationist (you are a creationist right?) ever state that information other than theirs may possibly be correct.

The "Title Origin of species" doesn't necessarily mean origin of life. It is referencing the occurrence of genetic drift rather than the first thing created :) Tell me, do you believe in Microevolution? just out of curiosity.

Sure, I am a creationist, tried and true. Actually (its a joke but...) at youth group the name we call ourselves (creationists = "ourselves") is 6-Day'ers

Anyways, I believe in truth and that the Lord is truth, science is the Lord's doing, thus science is truth (actually, science is man's study of the Lord's ways) and of course being a creationist does not make you right all the time, we are human after all!

And that was a joke (the title thing), write it up as creationist humor, if you will.

Microevolution? Sure, it is a scientifically observed phenomenon. I got a poodle... the next door neighbors have a german shepard. Same animal, different genetic code. What I do not believe in is Darwin's "hijacking" (if you will) of microevolution to prove his theory and of course I disregard macroevolution all together, after all, we came from Adam and Eve, not some monkey and not some amoeba.
 
jasoncran said:
Evointrinsic said:
Jason, would you be able to send a link to these claims that atheists are making? The initial creation of a synthetic cell isn't evolution, if however the cell were to reproduce in some manner and have some form of genetic change through the generations, then yes, that would be what evolution describes.
i will look for this.
Pard: You have just gotten a TON of respect from me. I have honestly never seen a creationist (you are a creationist right?) ever state that information other than theirs may possibly be correct.

The "Title Origin of species" doesn't necessarily mean origin of life. It is referencing the occurrence of genetic drift rather than the first thing created :) Tell me, do you believe in Microevolution? just out of curiosity.
here it is viola that idea of using it prove evolution is there( as a means to revive old fossilied cells or discovered dna from so called related species that have transitioned) that is another debate. this is what yahoo says.http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/201 ... aturallife
 
Pard: :) ok, well then what about something like from the domestication of the wolf, to dogs? Is that still acceptable by your means? (I'm not trying to make a connection between apes and humans with wolves and dogs, just to make clear)

Jason: I've read the article, but I dont see anyone saying how the creation of a synthetic cell supports evolution. Could you quote the section you believe someone stated that? I do however see how some paragraphs can be mistaken as saying that. Could you be more specific?

EDIT: But I agree to make a new topic about it, care to do the honors?
 
Evointrinsic said:
Pard: :) ok, well then what about something like from the domestication of the wolf, to dogs? Is that still acceptable by your means? (I'm not trying to make a connection between apes and humans with wolves and dogs, just to make clear)

Jason: I've read the article, but I dont see anyone saying how the creation of a synthetic cell supports evolution. Could you quote the section you believe someone stated that? I do however see how some paragraphs can be mistaken as saying that. Could you be more specific?

EDIT: But I agree to make a new topic about it, care to do the honors?
that was the point it was a mistaken as that it says by the yahoo. but i will make another thread when i feel ready too.
 
Evointrinsic said:
Pard: :) ok, well then what about something like from the domestication of the wolf, to dogs? Is that still acceptable by your means? (I'm not trying to make a connection between apes and humans with wolves and dogs, just to make clear)

I guess? I know people who own wolves, they are still pretty darn wild if you ask me.

Way I see it, domestic animals are on earth for man. The Lord created some animals that would respond positively to man. Dogs, horses, stuff like that.

Horses is a really good one, actually! I always found it amazing that horses were missing teeth in the middle of their mouths, like a bit was meant to go there. And even a wild horse can be broken-in in a single days time, it is amazing how horses enjoy being ridden (true story, many horses will become depressed if they are not taken for a ride enough), how they respond to names (same goes with dogs) and how we can train them how to walk in a new way (show horses). And also how they have different "speeds" (gates), just like a car, or something.

Same goes with dogs, they respond to names, they LOVE to be scratched and rubbed (in the wild it is proven that dogs don't do this)... They can show restraint, I believe it must be God's hand at work.

Not sure what you mean by wolves to dogs, though I think wolves and dogs were both created separately and man tried to bring them together (FYI, it doesn't work, even a dog with wolf four generations back is still part wild [experience talking here])

If you like asking me questions, another topic would probably be needed... lol
 
Jason: I'll continue the discussion there then :)

Pard: It was going somewhere until you answered in the way you did. so let's skip the wolf/dog thing to get back on track then.

All the book offers is the explanation of changes in successive generations, not necessarily what created the first generation.

But back to the topic anyways. Do all of my answers suffice? or do you not agree with them?
 
So Evo,

you agree that it doesn't matter the source, so long as it is a accurate source?
 
yes. That is precisely what I am saying, and how science is suppose to work. If a source is presented, and it has numerous, rather amateur mistakes in even the most simple parts of a scientific topic, it most likely isn't going to be all that helpful in an argument. Providing a source that does have an extensive and positive record with it's information both in it's present and in it's history, is much more valuable to ones argument. It has no effect what so ever what the sources writers belief system is, as long as the source and it's writer are credible and accurate. This goes for any debate, not just a scientific one.
 
Evointrinsic said:
yes. That is precisely what I am saying, and how science is suppose to work. If a source is presented, and it has numerous, rather amateur mistakes in even the most simple parts of a scientific topic, it most likely isn't going to be all that helpful in an argument. Providing a source that does have an extensive and positive record with it's information both in it's present and in it's history, is much more valuable to ones argument. It has no effect what so ever what the sources writers belief system is, as long as the source and it's writer are credible and accurate. This goes for any debate, not just a scientific one.
that's fine. but some here will disagree and i leave them to answer on that.
 
OK this is the appropriate thread to address some of the wild accusations that have been made against creationists.
First of all...

Evo made the following remark...
I'm not quite sure we can simply quote the ICR, let's just look at their track record.
Then went onto quote an ardent evolutionist...
Professor Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, has criticized ICR for professing to present the same science as that taught in secular universities while at the same time requiring students and faculty to sign a statement of faith to ICR's fundamentalist religious mission, most notably in affirming conformity in all its work to Biblical doctrine.

As though this were some kind of evidence to show creationists scientists are incapable of performing honest scientific tasks.
It’s so ironic that evolutionists such as evo can’t recognise they also have their own biases.
He continues the quote...
Pigliucci notes that any research conducted within the ICR's policy framework is prescribed at the outset by Biblical literalism, and thus antithetical to the methods and framework used by scientists. As examples, Pigliucci cites ICR scientist Harold Slusher resorting to non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel to reconcile the vast distances light travels in space with the brief timescale given in young earth creationism, and the association adopted by the ICR between the second principle of thermodynamics and the Bible's account of the fall of Adam. Pigliucci further claimed that "some of the historical claims found in the ICR museum are also stunning and show how easily ideology gets the better of accuracy."

Here again, the evolutionists are so arrogant that they can’t understand they base their conclusions on their own presuppositions and assumptions.
At least creation scientists are able to understand this fact. I don’t see creationists complaining because evolutionists framework is prescribed at the outset by atheistic literalism and thus antithetical to the methods and framework used by scientists.

So Pigliucci has a huge problem with ICR scientist Harold Slusher resorting to non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel to reconcile the vast distances light travels in space with the brief timescale given in young earth creationism!

Imagine that? This scientists had the nerve not to agree with an evolutionist!
This is a real shame and really underlines the depth we have sunk in North American freedom of thought and ideas. How are we supposed to reach truth if one side suppresses open thought and different ideas?

Take a closer look at the end comment...
Pigliucci further claimed that "some of the historical claims found in the ICR museum are also stunning and show how easily ideology gets the better of accuracy."

Evolutionists are also incapable of understanding atheism is also an ideology.
Here’s some propaganda which evo seems to have accepted out of hand...

Duane Gish himself, the former vice president of the ICR, stated that "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation" If this is correct, than Creationist logic cannot be used in a scientific debate.

Let’s see what Gish is really all about and then we can decide if this “quote†makes sense.
Dr. Gish may be best known as creation's main defender in formal creation/evolution debates. While all of us debate sometimes, Duane has debated over 350 times, and seemingly has "won" them all. Many have been convinced of creation through his efforts.

What evolutionists fail to understand is that Gish was correct. Neither evolution nor creation are actually “scientific theoriesâ€. They are hypothesis at best. Creationists assert that the evidence best fits the creation model as opposed to the evolution model.

Evo goes onto make serious accusations, as others have, especially after they lose a debate.
Furthermore, Duane Gish has made a profession of repeated accounts of plagiarism
It is very easy to vilify a person when you do not give him an opportunity to defend himself. This is not communist Russia my friends.
Gish is used to these kinds of unsubstantiated attacks. Please read the following...
http://www.icr.org/article/debates-generate-vigorous-response/

I won’t waste my time or efforts ploughing through the many examples of evolutionary dishonesty and mistakes.Who knows though, perhaps I might if I felt my beliefs didn't have any scientific evidence to debate with. As it is, I prefer to let the science do the talking.

John
 
Evointrinsic said:
yes. That is precisely what I am saying, and how science is suppose to work. If a source is presented, and it has numerous, rather amateur mistakes in even the most simple parts of a scientific topic, it most likely isn't going to be all that helpful in an argument. Providing a source that does have an extensive and positive record with it's information both in it's present and in it's history, is much more valuable to ones argument. It has no effect what so ever what the sources writers belief system is, as long as the source and it's writer are credible and accurate. This goes for any debate, not just a scientific one.

Do you agree that (like in math) we have certain things that come as "pre-defined truths" (like 1+1=2 or gravity pulls, it doesn't push)?

If you agree to this than can you agree (hypothetically, you being an atheist and all...) that for a Christian (Sees the Bible for the WHOLE and complete truth) scientist it is understandable to accept that the account in Genesis is the truth and work from there to further build upon it?

I ask this because many evolutionists will argue that creationists are wrong from the git-go simply because they derive they "pre-defined truths" from the Word of God, and then require creationists to prove that we were created by someone rather than a fluke in nature. (I am aware that this works the other way as well, with ooze and stuff, except atheists don't have a truth set in stone, like the Bible.)
 
Bronzesnake: Your misrepresenting what is meant by the first quotations. You see, Those weren't meant to show how the ICR are incapable of producing accurate scientific evidence. It shows how the ICR is incapable of gathering information without looking through biblical scripture to insure it goes without blaspheme. In a sense altering evidence to make sure they stay correct.

You see, Creation science and science are simply two different things.

In Creation, It can't afford to be incorrect, or else it's literal view of the bible can be accidentally contradicted. If biblical literalism is your lens, then you cannot gather information without altering the facts. You don't believe that the earth is flat do you? That's an actual question as I cannot tell if you do or don't.

In Science, It is always better to find evidence that a specific hypothesis or theory is incorrect. If evidence is found to show that a theory or hypothesis is incorrect, then a more accurate theory/hypothesis can be formed to explain a natural phenomenon.

You state at the end of your post that your not willing to bother and find evidence for your claims, but instead your just comfortable making them. So, could you perhaps defend your claims by giving us some evidence behind the ones such as:

~evolutionists are so arrogant that they can’t understand they base their conclusions on their own presuppositions and assumptions.

Bronzesnake said:
I don’t see creationists complaining because evolutionists framework is prescribed at the outset by atheistic literalism and thus antithetical to the methods and framework used by scientists.

You don't see this because there is no such thing as "Atheistic literalism", literalism of what exactly? There is no defining book of atheism. There is nothing that atheists deem sacred or unquestionable. The only thing that makes an atheist an atheist is his/her disbelief in a deity. This is a laughable excuse for an argument Bronze...


Bronzesnake said:
Evolutionists are also incapable of understanding atheism is also an ideology.
HAHAHA, this one really made me laugh. Here's an nice quote that couldn't be stated any better than this...

Atheism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology: it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone anywhere. The same would be true if we defined atheism narrowly as denial of the existence of gods: that single belief is not a system of principles. As with ideology, atheism can be part of a philosophy.
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm

I also like how you put quotation marks around "quote", as if it wasn't a real quote.
Bronzesnake said:
Evointrinsic said:
Duane Gish himself, the former vice president of the ICR, stated that "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation" If this is correct, than Creationist logic cannot be used in a scientific debate.

Let’s see what Gish is really all about and then we can decide if this “quote†makes sense.

This is what Gish really said, look under The Nature of Theories on Origins http://www.icr.org/article/391/

Notice how this is under "Theories on Origins" where Gish himself states:

Gish said:
On the other hand, the theory of creation and the theory of evolution are attempts to explain the origin of the universe and of its inhabitants.

This is the very first sentence, and already he makes a misconception that "The Theory Of Evolution describes the origin of the universe and of its inhabitants". Um no... The Theory Of Evolution describes the genetic changes through successive generations to life that already exists. You start to wonder just how Gish acquired a PhD in Biochemistry if he could make such a remarkably simple yet drastically wrong claim about a intensely known Scientific Theory.

If Gish read even the first paragraph, let alone the first chapter of Darwin's book "On The Origin of Species" he would have known this. Just incase you havent, this is what the first few words say.

I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre existing forms.

How can a person with a PhD In Biochemistry make such a ridiculous claim?

It's like me saying that the Bible never said anything about how the universe, galaxy, sun and stars, and earth came into existence. That is the equivalent mistake that Duane Gish just made. Except it wasn't a mistake, he actually believes this as he states this claim over and over again.

It is very easy to vilify a person when you do not give him an opportunity to defend himself. This is not communist Russia my friends.

There is no need for him to defend himself because he has outright lied and plagiarized. it's been proven many times before.





Pard: That is by far a different thing. Gravity and mathematics can be tested, where is Genesis can not. Simply because I believe in something doesn't make it acceptable within scientific discussion. If you have evidence, however, about whatever you believe in, then it is acceptable within scientific discussion (depending on what the evidence actually is and what the scientific discussion is). Unfortunately the evidence we have in all sorts of scientific fields outweigh the evidence for many biblical literalistic claims.

There are Christian scientists, however, that do not take the bible to a literal level, and there for are still capable of discovering incredible scientific information, and still holding their faith.

We can't simply say "creationist" though, as there are Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists, both with radically different thoughts, claims, believes and so on. When debating a certain topic, though, one or the other may possibly be wrong off the start simply because of the evidence we already have discovered. Not only that, but there are a variety of different young earth creationists, as well as a variety of Old Earth Creationists. So even grouping one or the other together has its issues.

So I am torn between yes and no for the "git-go" statement. but that really applies to a lot of other things as well.
 
Evo seems to be handling this very well. I'll drop in and comment if there's something I'd like to add. But I don't see a need just now.
 
The Barbarian said:
Evo seems to be handling this very well. I'll drop in and comment if there's something I'd like to add. But I don't see a need just now.

Except... Evo is an atheist... I'd figure an atheist and a professing Catholic ought to have different views... unless...
 
Except... Evo is an atheist... I'd figure an atheist and a professing Catholic ought to have different views... unless...

Unless he's discussing science. Then faith has nothing to do with it. This is why Christians, Muslims, Jewish people, athiests, etc. can do science.

The truth is what it is, and who says it doesn't change the truth.
 
The Barbarian said:
Except... Evo is an atheist... I'd figure an atheist and a professing Catholic ought to have different views... unless...

Unless he's discussing science. Then faith has nothing to do with it. This is why Christians, Muslims, Jewish people, athiests, etc. can do science.

The truth is what it is, and who says it doesn't change the truth.


Thank you, I don't know why but it didn't let me finish that unless sentence. You did nail it almost on the head though, I was going to say something else, but I forget.

Though I'd have to disagree on the faith having nothing to do with science. Science is man's study of God's creation. I believe all truthful scientific claims answer to the power and awesomeness of the Lord's creation. The problem I have is when science tries to obscure the truth so that they can disprove the Bible.
 
Pard said:
Though I'd have to disagree on the faith having nothing to do with science. Science is man's study of God's creation. I believe all truthful scientific claims answer to the power and awesomeness of the Lord's creation. The problem I have is when science tries to obscure the truth so that they can disprove the Bible.

If biblical faith was integrated in science, science would cease to exist in the sense that we know it now. When faith was integrated with science, bad things occur.

Life_Span_Chart2.jpg


From about 200 years ago, this is when modern science and the separation of faith and science began.

darkages.gif


The above is when faith and science conjoined. (it's not as accurate unfortunately as the original graph, but i cant seem to find it)

Science never obscures the truth so it can disprove the Bible, it just so happens to do that on it's own if you take the bible literally.

You may believe that science is man's study of God's creation, but the vast, vast, vaaaaast majority of scientists do not believe in god. So it can't really add to the whole faith additive.
 
Well, since there is a God (I know, we were talking last night) and science is man's attempt at understanding the world around us (ok, not the real def. but you get the point) and God made that world, well... obviously science IS man's study of God's creation. '

Those charts may mean something to me, except a) that was the Catholic church (and I cannot stand the catholic church, they are manipulative to no end) and b) it also happens that the same spike in age and scientific discover coincides with the founding of America (the first free society without any kings or such)(go read 500 Year Leap, the first bit covers what I am talking about). So I'd have to interpret that graph as spiking due to America, not a division between science and faith. (I do acknowledge the catholic church sure did limit science, but... like I said, the evil catholics did that)

Also, America had no division between science and faith until the 1920s when the progressives got in and changed began to "separate" the church from everything else.
 
I realize you feel this way, but the scientific community doesn't, there for the relation of science and any god (remember, Zues, Thor, Krishna, and Ra are all gods that "exist" and all their believers "know" this as well) has no relevance to the scientists use of religious faith. (I dont mean to say your god doesn't exist, It's just that you can't rule out all the other ones that say the same thing)

As for the graphs, I don't mean to specify on any religion, more so on the fact that that is when medicine and faith coexisted.

So you think that America is what made all the medicine and advancement in food/living and all that stuff, not science...? I am sorry, but America is not why the average life span is nearly three times as much as it is 200 years ago.
 
Back
Top