New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[HitchSlap]

Is this the HIV?

(HitchSlap International Version)

 

[keith99]

No. Abiogenesis is only an unanswered question at this point in time. Parts of the answer have been found, but not the whole answer.

Huge move of the goal posts AV. Moving the goal posts is a tacit admission that you are wrong.

I don't know about that. If we just read his arrow as meaning leads to.

After all do we call a rock foolish, or an ocean?

Nope without life there is no foolishness.

Now it takes a pretty long time to have life with enough processing power to actually be foolish, so I'd argue for multiple arrows as one typically means leads directly or immediately to and that is not the case.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know about that. If we just read his arrow as meaning leads to.

After all do we call a rock foolish, or an ocean?

Nope without life there is no foolishness.

Now it takes a pretty long time to have life with enough processing power to actually be foolish, so I'd argue for multiple arrows as one typically means leads directly or immediately to and that is not the case.

I used the right arrow to indicate "gives rise to."

Or, in my case, "eventually gives rise to."

Should I have used multiple arrows?

 

[driewerf]

Assuming creation is true is not the opposite of science. That is impossible, since science is the discovery of creation.

Yes, it is the opposition of science. To assume your conclusion before any observation is already at the odds of science. When leading creationist groups like AIG put in their statement of faith that any observation contradicting the bible only shows the human fallability you are indeed at the opposition of science.

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, it is the opposition of science. To assume your conclusion before any observation is already at the odds of science. When leading creationist groups like AIG put in their statement of faith that any observation contradicting the bible only shows the human fallability you are indeed at the opposition of science.

So secular scientists don't first assume a naturalistic process? Then how do they make their conclusions fit the evidence? If they did see intelligent Design they would not admit it because it does not fit their naturalistic presupposition. Plus the other atheist scientists would laugh at them and beat them up.

 

[driewerf]

How sweet. Lethe and LastSeven are having this exchange...

Where do you get the idea that creationists hate science?

Seriously? Have you been following Eternal Dragon or Justatruthseeker's posts the last few days? Not to mention, AV1611Vet.

And Eternal Dragon is serving just a nice example of his hate for science on the same page:

Evolution taken out to where we all have a common ancestor and are all related and apes turned into a man is not science.

That's like taking the fact that it rains to then say given enough time, and conditions, that the rain could create an ice sculpture of the empire state building.

 

[LastSeven]

How idiotic. Nothing in his quote shows a hatred for science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How idiotic. Nothing in his quote shows a hatred for science.

You need to read it again.

Take off your "biblical glasses" first.

 

[HitchSlap]

How idiotic. Nothing in his quote shows a hatred for science.

You haven't read enough of their posts then. They're are constantly projecting their religious shortcomings on science. You can feel their disdain for science and technology and the fact they have to somehow rationalize Bronze Age knowledge and an archaic world view into modern society. It's funny, actually.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, all science is "atheistic". In the sense that it does not assume the existence of any gods.

Science is an attempt to explain the world from observations and experiment. No god would be assumed. Nor is any lack of god assumed. It is solely based upon what the evidence tells us.

"Irreducible complexity" assumes a god. It assumes that certain questions cannot be answered and are therefore evidence for god. There are a couple of problems with that. First it assumes that certain problems cannot be explained. Second, case after case of "irreducible complexity" has been reduced. They have been explained. IDists pick topics on the cutting edge of research and call these problems "Irreducibly Complex'. The problem with problems on the cutting edge is that they are very often solved.

 

[EternalDragon]

You haven't read enough of their posts then. They're are constantly projecting their religious shortcomings on science. You can feel their disdain for science and technology and the fact they have to somehow rationalize Bronze Age knowledge and an archaic world view into modern society. It's funny, actually.

You seem to be confusing a historical account with "Bronze Age knowledge" and disagreeing with Darwinian evolution theory, which does not follow the scientific method, with having a disdain for science and technology.

Most, if not all, Christians have no problem with science or technology.

 

[lasthero]

Darwinian evolution theory, which does not follow the scientific methodDarwinian evolution theory, which does not follow the scientific method

Yes, it does.

 

[HitchSlap]

You seem to be confusing a historical account with "Bronze Age knowledge" and disagreeing with Darwinian evolution theory, which does not follow the scientific method, with having a disdain for science and technology.

Most, if not all, Christians have no problem with science or technology.

You seem confused here. Care to try again?

 

[bhsmte]

You seem to be confusing a historical account with "Bronze Age knowledge" and disagreeing with Darwinian evolution theory, which does not follow the scientific method, with having a disdain for science and technology.

Most, if not all, Christians have no problem with science or technology.

You can't be serious?

Most if not all christians have no problem with science?

This site is a prime example of how inaccurate that statement is!

 

[LastSeven]

What you atheists don't seem to understand is that true science can never contradict the truth, which means it can never contradict the Bible. So why would Christians have a problem with science?

If you can show me a quote from any Christian on this forum that says "I hate science" then you may have a valid point but until then, get off your high horse and stop throwing around baseless accusations and labels.

 

[keith99]

What you atheists don't seem to understand is that true science can never contradict the truth, which means it can never contradict the Bible. So why would Christians have a problem with science?

If you can show me a quote from any Christian on this forum that says "I hate science" then you may have a valid point but until then, get off your high horse and stop throwing around baseless accusations and labels.

And here we see the proof that some Christians have a problem with Science.

 

[Lethe]

What you atheists don't seem to understand is that true science can never contradict the truth, which means it can never contradict the Bible. So why would Christians have a problem with science?

So what you're saying is that if the any piece of evidence contradicts the bible, then ipso facto the evidence can't be right?

 

[driewerf]

Yes, it is the opposition of science. To assume your conclusion before any observation is already at the odds of science. When leading creationist groups like AIG put in their statement of faith that any observation contradicting the bible only shows the human fallability you are indeed at the opposition of science.

So secular scientists don't first assume a naturalistic process?

Yes, but they don't assume the results. The age of the Earth is not assumen 4.5 billion years old. That's the conclusion after 200 years research. The genetic similiarity between chimps and humans is not assumed. It is the conclusion after years of research. That's the big difference between scientists and creationists. In the words of Answers in genesis:
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Then how do they make their conclusions fit the evidence?

That is exactly what scientists don't do. That's the creationist way of doing "science". (Though creationists don't have any evidence.) For scientists conclusions are deducted from the evfidence. It is not "make fit".



I

f they did see intelligent Design they would not admit it because it does not fit their naturalistic presupposition.

if intelligent design would be shown beyond reasonable doubt, scientists would accept it. But as was clearly shown in Kitzmiller vs Dover, ID has no evidence.


By the way Lethe mentioned earlier EternalDragon's hate of science. Especially the phrase highlighted in red is another good examlpe of this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you atheists don't seem to understand is that true science can never contradict the truth, which means it can never contradict the Bible. So why would Christians have a problem with science?

If you can show me a quote from any Christian on this forum that says "I hate science" then you may have a valid point but until then, get off your high horse and stop throwing around baseless accusations and labels.

People rarely openly state that they hate something.

That attitude is determined by their actions.

A scientist cannot make false assumptions. In other words he cannot assume something is true without evidence.

You are right that true science can never oppose the truth. What you don't realize is that your God may not be real and if a group assumes that the Christian God is real by definition they cannot do science.


Christian scientists can separate their religious beliefs from their science. The Bible has been reinterpreted many times due to scientific advances. We no longer believe the Earth is flat. The Bible does teach that. We no longer believe that the Sun goes around the Earth. The Bible teaches that.

What is amazing is that Christians will put on blinders to their past errors and deny them.


Some day the same will apply to evolution.

 

[LastSeven]

And here we see the proof that some Christians have a problem with Science.

What??? You're either not reading my posts or you're just incapable of understanding. Come back when you have something intelligent to say. I will no longer respond to these kinds of trolling posts.