a challenge for creationists

Athlon4all · #21 26th July 2002, 04:20 PM

I just posted Sinai. npetreley, Is that comment necessary? Please try not to make comments like that.

sbbqb7n16 · #22 28th July 2002, 01:42 AM

The Bibles does say that it took God "a day" to make all creatures on earth. But it never specifies how long a day was or what time of that day each was created....plants were on a whole different day

Cantuar · #23 28th July 2002, 02:17 AM

In any case, even if there was all the "scientific" or "worldly" "evidence" for evolution, I wouldn't believe it because the word of God is truth, not man's opinion's and man's research.

Why not? If there was all that evidence for it (which there is, by the way) obtained by the same techniques used to obtain information about treating disease and predicting the weather (techniques I assume you don't object to and results which you're happy to use in your daily life), why would that evidence be wrong and the other evidence right? And if there's a chance that the evidence is right, then you're denying God's creation by refusing to accept the evidence of it. Really, if God spoke from heaven and said "I used evolution! Why is that so hard for you to understand?", He'd be met with all these shouts of, "but that's not what it says in the Bible!"

But, true science evidence points to creation, not microbes-to-man evolution.

Apparently true science and real science aren't the same thing.

npetreley · #24 28th July 2002, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Cantuar
Why not? If there was all that evidence for it (which there is, by the way) obtained by the same techniques used to obtain information about treating disease and predicting the weather (techniques I assume you don't object to and results which you're happy to use in your daily life)

I'm amazed that you folks continue to use this argument.

First of all, there is only one technique upon which evolution is based: IMAGINATION. Evolutionists use scientific techniques that are related to their imaginary evolution, such as genetics and biology, but those techniques would be identical whether or not evolution were true (and it isn't).

Second, the same scientific techniques that you are ascribing to evolution are also used to create super-diseases and other harmful agents for biological warfare, some of which may even be responsible for some of the horrible diseases we have to deal with today. So if you want to take credit for anything good, you'll also have to take the blame for all the bad.

LiveFreeOrDie · #25 28th July 2002, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by npetreley
First of all, there is only one technique upon which evolution is based: IMAGINATION.

Really?
Is the fundamental unity of life imaginary?
Is the nested hierarchy of species organization imaginary?
Is the independent convergence on a true phylogeny imaginary?
Is the morphology of common ancestors imaginary?
Is the chronology of common ancestors imaginary?
Are anatomical vestigial structures imaginary?
Are atavisms imaginary?
Are molecular vestigial structures imaginary?
Is ontogeny and developmental biology imaginary?
Is present biogeography imaginary?
Is past biogeography imaginary?
Is anatomical paralogy imaginary?
Is molecular paralogy imaginary?
Is anatomical convergence imaginary?
Is molecular convergence imaginary?
Is anatomical suboptimal function imaginary?
Is molecular suboptimal function imaginary?
Is protein redundancy imaginary?
Is DNA redundancy imaginary?
Are transposons imaginary?
Are endogenous retroviruses imaginary?
Is genetic change imaginary?
Is morphological change imagainary?
Is functional change imaginary?
Is the observed change over time in the fossil record imaginary?
Is speciation imaginary?
Are observed morphological rates of change imaginary?
Are observed genetic rates of change imaginary?

Clearly the only thing here that is imaginary is your understanding of evolutionary theory.

Second, the same scientific techniques that you are ascribing to evolution are also used to create super-diseases and other harmful agents for biological warfare, some of which may even be responsible for some of the horrible diseases we have to deal with today. So if you want to take credit for anything good, you'll also have to take the blame for all the bad.

No one made any moral claims for science, Nick. We only claim that it works. How people choose to use it is another matter.

Athlon4all · #26 28th July 2002, 02:08 PM

[qupte]Apparently true science and real science aren't the same thing.[/quote]You've got that right. Your "science" is taking advantage of what the public views science as totally unbiased, and people only seeking the truth).

Why not? If there was all that evidence for it (which there is, by the way) obtained by the same techniques used to obtain information about treating disease and predicting the weather (techniques I assume you don't object to and results which you're happy to use in your daily life), why would that evidence be wrong and the other evidence right? And if there's a chance that the evidence is right, then you're denying God's creation by refusing to accept the evidence of it. Really, if God spoke from heaven and said "I used evolution! Why is that so hard for you to understand?", He'd be met with all these shouts of, "but that's not what it says in the Bible!"

Why Not? Because the Bible is infallible, and is something the world has come up with contradicts it, then the Bible is true. The Bible is truth, not man's opinions. Again, I have prolly already gone too far when it comes to scientifically evolution vs creation. As I said, all scientist's are biased towards their personal belief's, "science" is only a puppet used by the devil in the evolutionist's to convince the public that they are right.

blader · #27 28th July 2002, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Athlon4all
[qupte]Because the Bible is infallible, and is something the world has come up with contradicts it, then the Bible is true. The Bible is truth, not man's opinions. Again, I have prolly already gone too far when it comes to scientifically evolution vs creation. As I said, all scientist's are biased towards their personal belief's, "science" is only a puppet used by the devil in the evolutionist's to convince the public that they are right.

"All scientists?" Even the Christian ones?

What about your person beliefs? If you think the Bible is to be interpreted 100% literally, then where does that put you? If some one shows you evidence for evolution that contradicts the Bible, what would you do? That's right, the same thing you're doing now: ignore it, because you've already decide that it's just an evil evolutionist lie from Satan. Talk about unscientific.

Athlon4all · #28 28th July 2002, 07:04 PM

Yep. Every person hasw a bias that influences all of their thinking (Including me). What about personal beliefs? They will use all evidence they see to support their belief's. Evolutionist's and Creationist's both have the exact same evidence, they just interperate it according to their personal bias. The Bible is the final authority for Creationist's (and should be for all Christians), while for Evolutionist's man's opinion's and research are the final authority.

Again I think that your "science" is not true science, at least its not my science, which is observing what we can see. But again,, even if creationists and evolutionist's do the same science, they would still be seeing the exact same evidence and would interperate it according to their bias.

You may call me unscientific, but I shall say the same about yourself if "unscientific" means someone who blatently rejects "scientific" evidence in exchange for their personal belief's. The majority of Evolutionist's are no different.

Jerry Smith · #29 28th July 2002, 07:31 PM

You may call me unscientific, but I shall say the same about yourself if "unscientific" means someone who blatently rejects "scientific" evidence in exchange for their personal belief's. The majority of Evolutionist's are no different.

I beg differ. I think that you would see this much differently if you were aware of the scientific evidence.

In fact, I think you might even modify your interpretation of the scripture if you were aware of the scientific evidence. That is what many believers have done, when faced with the evidence. Ask Kenneth Miller, Keith Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Michael Denton, and many others (including people who post to this board) whether or not they feel that a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary, and whether or not a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis conflicts with strong scientific evidence.

Cantuar · #30 28th July 2002, 07:34 PM

I'm amazed that you folks continue to use this argument.

I'm not "you folks"; there's only one of me.

Evolutionists use scientific techniques that are related to their imaginary evolution, such as genetics and biology, but those techniques would be identical whether or not evolution were true (and it isn't).

Of course they wouldn't. Biology (which is a little more than just a technique, by the way) would be quite different without evolution. Since it takes evolution into account and is still producing useful results and verifable (and verified) predictions, that says rather clearly that evolution isn't imagination. Just look at a year's worth of articles from a recent volume of a mainstream journal like Journal of Bacteriology or Molecular and General Genetics, and you'll see how much the work depends on evolution. If the whole of evolution is imaginary, then so is the whole of modern biology, including, which is what you were objecting to, a lot of the work on diseases and their remedies done in the last few decades.

Second, the same scientific techniques that you are ascribing to evolution are also used to create super-diseases and other harmful agents for biological warfare, some of which may even be responsible for some of the horrible diseases we have to deal with today. So if you want to take credit for anything good, you'll also have to take the blame for all the bad.

No problem there.