How many dozens of Christians did creationism drive away this past hour?

[bhsmte]

Which is why we can't totally separate religion, science, politics and money for each other.

Well, you can always verify the thoughts of the mind, with objective external evidence, that is independent of the mind.

 

[Smidlee]

Well, you can always verify the thoughts of the mind, with objective external evidence, that is independent of the mind.

You can't do anything or know anything that is independent of the mind.

 

[bhsmte]

You can't do anything or know anything that is independent of the mind.

Of course, all our thoughts are from the mind.

And, the mind is quite capable of exploring external objective evidence and digest the same, to form or verify our thoughts.

 

[driewerf]

When we are told that bacteria led to jelly fish and sponges and then to us by Richard Dawkins, well, real science should be able to give us some data to show that any bacteria have ever turned into non bacteria.

Well Loricalady, here is somethin to read:
Experimental evolution of multicellularity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277146/

http://www.mpg.de/8738984/evolution-of-multicellularity
Experimental Evolution of Multicellular Complexity in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae
http://www.ratclifflab.biology.gatech.edu/index_htm_files/Bioscience Overview.pdf

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How do you define; "real science" and please give us some specific examples.

All dogs are dogs - just different variations or breeds of the same basic Kind. Same with cats - same with every single dinosaur fossil ever found. NEVER in the entire fossil record is a T-Rex (or any other Kind) seen to begin to morph into something different, despite claims of evolutionists that this must have occurred on a continuing basis to create speciation. "Real science" would recognize this and quit pretending the opposite of what we actually observe is reality.

Another example of "real science"? How about using what we know happens to bones as creatures age to determine species so you stop incorrectly classifying 2 of every 3 as separate species?


"Real science" would accept what we know happens to bones during the aging cycle - that they become more dense as creatures age and stop ignoring it over egos and theory.

"Real science" would admit that the finding of soft tissue indicates a much younger age than they believe to be the case.

"Real science" would admit their beliefs on layering is totally at odds with the real world in which ruins 1,000 years old are buried up to 10 feet when supposedly such takes hundreds of thousands of years to form. That same science would then understand why no weathering is found between these layers that supposedly take this long stretch of time to form. Would realize that the earth is comprised of 75% sedimentary rock even if weathering of rock is to take ages - yet almost every dinosaur bones found exist buried in these sedimentary rocks. A process which must have occurred almost instantly to preserve any soft tissue at all, let alone begin the fossilization process and not be subject to decay. Just as occured in those few found in volcanic ash deposits. An instant of time - not millions of years.

The difference is that "millions" of creatures die every day - and their bones do not start to fossilize, nor does soft tissue last more than a few months, unless instantly buried under huge amounts of soil. From flooding or volcanic eruptions of course.

"Real science" would admit what real scientists already know - that mutations reach variation limits encoded within genomes and nothing new is then ever produced. Nor are mutations capable of producing anything new, just re-writing what already exists within the genome (transcription) or through dominance and recessive means.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

"Real scientists" have all but given up on this as a cause for anything. Only those lost in theory and divorced from the "real world" still "believe."

"Real science" has shown that E coli after billions of generations and billions of mutations are still E coli - with not even the hint of evolutionary change. Just different variations or breeds or infraspecific taxa of the same exact Kind.

"Real science" would admit their entire classification system is at odds with what they preach. The first life must have been a species - which would make every other life afterwords - according to evolution - merely infraspecific taxa, formae, or breeds of the same species - not lead to a multitude of separate species, in violation again of what they preach. The first form of life was a species in its own right - not a domain or Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

 

[LoricaLady]

bhstme I believe I did give you a definition for science. I said that science is the search for truth whatever it is. I gave examples of how real science should be applied with the examples of mutations and bacteria, where claims were being made but with no supporting data.

Here is an online definition of science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

That definition is actually not so hot. Particularly in the area of origins, experiment is not always possible. Even observation is not possible. All you can see are the effects that were left behind, like the fossil record for example.

Also that definition talks about "the natural world." In evolution the supernatural world is excluded. Here we see a perfect example of how that works:
In Sept. 1999 in Nature Magazine Dr. Scott Todd said, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Of course the data he referred to was of this world, from nature. Again, I believe that science is the search for truth wherever it may be, and certainly is not "real" when it excludes data that points to a super, supernatural, intelligence.

Now I have answered your Qs. So far you have followed the pattern I predicted, i.e. don't answer any of my question, but change the subject.

Why don't you give an example of "real science" and do just that? After you have taken your turn (but of course that won't happen because evolution has no answers) and done that I will take a turn again and answer your Qs. But I don't have time to keep chasing after a lot of red herrings. Sorry.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course, all our thoughts are from the mind.

And, the mind is quite capable of exploring external objective evidence and digest the same, to form or verify our thoughts.

It's also capable of living in fantasy, ignoring evidence in favor of bias and belief. To flights of fancy and rejecting any data that does not meet with pre-concieved beliefs. It's quite capable of deluding itself to keep one's beliefs intact - as is the case with evolution in which the facts are totally at odds with the "belief."

 

[bhsmte]

It's also capable of living in fantasy, ignoring evidence in favor of bias and belief. To flights of fancy and rejecting any data that does not meet with pre-concieved beliefs. It's quite capable of deluding itself to keep one's beliefs intact - as is the case with evolution in which the facts are totally at odds with the "belief."

Completely agree!!!

Except for your comment about evolution.

 

[LoricaLady]

driewerf Look at your sources again. Really look at them. This is what you will see: Changes in snowflake yeast, for ex.....that stay snowflake yeast. You have to connect the invisible dotted lines to the invisible past and have great faith that somehow those changes led to some big climb up Darwin's Tree, eventually. We are told, for ex., that bacteria which become resistant to antibiotics are showing evolution. Nope. Some people are resistant to measles or mumps. Does that mean they are any less human than anyone else? Does that mean they are evolving into super humans? Nope again.

What all those changes are really showing is that change does NOT lead to evolution, since nowhere in those articles do you see a non-whatever coming into existence and climbing up Darwin's so called Tree. And....please don't post links. Use YOUR mind and YOUR words. If you can't articulate something for yourself, you don't really understand it and are operating on faith. Notice in my list of Qs I simply stated what is factual. Though I added some YT vids thereafter, they are just icing on the cake.

Also, Craig Ventner has claimed to have created life. Bull. He used a living cell to start and simply changed it. Of course even the change was due to - tah dah! - intelligent design, and in an intelligently designed high tech lab. Evolution excludes intelligent design and high tech anything.

Again, please don't paste links. Use your words and your mind to articulate answers to those Qs.

 

[LoricaLady]

dreiwerf I confess I did not really look over your sites because I already know what kinds of things will be there and it is tedious and time consuming to read through all the stuff. Plus as I said, you should articulate things for yourself.

I will take the time with your first link, though, to show you what is going on:

Here are some quotes that are totally typical of evolutionary literature: " its initial evolution remains poorly understood. Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly.... because the first steps in this process occurred in the deep past (>200 million years ago) (9, 10). As a result, transitional forms have been lost to extinction [That's the real evidence - no transitional forms. How do you tell missing links from non existent links? You gotta have faith, brother!], and little is known about the physiology, ecology, and evolutionary processes of incipient multicellularity....The fossil record shows that long periods of stasis are often punctuated by bursts of rapid evolution(42), presumably due to shifts in selective conditions and dramatic evolutionary responses."

Here again we see the Presuming Omniscience Fallacy about the past, , i.e. the faith factor rules, i.e. evolution just hasta be true so if we don't see the evidence it either happened too fast, or in some cases too slow!

The most important thing that everyone seem to not notice though, is that this is a study about snowflake yeast that........stayed snowflake yeast!

 

[justlookinla]

Now I have answered your Qs. So far you have followed the pattern I predicted, i.e. don't answer any of my question, but change the subject.

Why don't you give an example of "real science" and do just that? After you have taken your turn (but of course that won't happen because evolution has no answers) and done that I will take a turn again and answer your Qs. But I don't have time to keep chasing after a lot of red herrings. Sorry.

driewerf Look at your sources again. Really look at them. This is what you will see: Changes in bacteria....that stay bacteria. You have to connect the invisible dotted lines to the invisible past and have great faith that somehow those changes led to....you, eventually. We are told, for ex., that bacteria which become resistant to antibiotics are showing evolution. Nope. Some people are resistant to measles or mumps. Does that mean they are any less human than anyone else? Does that mean they are evolving into super humans? Nope again.

What all those changes are really showing is that change does NOT lead to evolution, since nowhere in those articles do you see a non bacteria coming into existence and climbing up Darwin's so called Tree. And....please don't post links. Use YOUR mind and YOUR words. If you can't articulate something for yourself, you don't really understand it and are operating on faith. Notice in my list of Qs I simply stated what is factual. Though I added some YT vids thereafter, they are just icing on the cake.

Also, Craig Ventner has claimed to have created life. Bull. He used a living cell to start and simply changed it. Of course even the change was due to - tah dah! - intelligent design, and in an intelligently designed high tech lab. Evolution excludes intelligent design and high tech anything.

Again, please don't paste links. Use your words and your mind to articulate answers to those Qs.

It'll be interesting to watch the responses to this.

 

[bhsmte]

bhstme I believe I did give you a definition for science. I said that science is the search for truth whatever it is. I gave examples of how real science should be applied with the examples of mutations and bacteria, where claims were being made but with no supporting data.

Here is an online definition of science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

That definition is actually not so hot. Particularly in the area of origins, experiment is not always possible. Even observation is not possible. All you can see are the effects that were left behind, like the fossil record for example.

Also that definition talks about "the natural world." In evolution the supernatural world is excluded. Here we see a perfect example of how that works:
In Sept. 1999 in Nature Magazine Dr. Scott Todd said, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Of course the data he referred to was of this world, from nature. Again, I believe that science is the search for truth wherever it may be, and certainly is not "real" when it excludes data that points to a super, supernatural, intelligence.

Now I have answered your Qs. So far you have followed the pattern I predicted, i.e. don't answer any of my question, but change the subject.

Why don't you give an example of "real science" and do just that? After you have taken your turn (but of course that won't happen because evolution has no answers) and done that I will take a turn again and answer your Qs. But I don't have time to keep chasing after a lot of red herrings. Sorry.

Providing a definition of science or telling me real science should search for the truth, is not an example of real science.

I asked you to give me a specific example of real science and you have not done so, with any specifics as to why it is real science.

Science utilizes theories and I am sure you would agree. So, why don't you give me an example of a scientific theory that you would consider real science and explain why it is real science. Of course, if you consider all scientific theories to be false, then just say so.

 

[Merlin]

Over time, religious beliefs have had to adapt to science, and science does not have to factor in religion in how it goes about its work.

For example, decades ago many fewer people agreed with theory of evolution. Today, with education and the acknowledgment of all the evidence, most Christians agree with the theory.

My Bible has not changed, nor has my church.
Other churches have changed. They are the ones now in decline in numbers.

 

[bhsmte]

My Bible has not changed, nor has my church.
Other churches have changed. They are the ones now in decline in numbers.

As I stated, people who are religious, have had to alter their beliefs as they have accepted well evidenced science. Science has not had to alter it's work, based on the bible.

 

[Smidlee]

driewerf Look at your sources again. Really look at them. This is what you will see: Changes in bacteria....that stay bacteria. You have to connect the invisible dotted lines to the invisible past and have great faith that somehow those changes led to....you, eventually. We are told, for ex., that bacteria which become resistant to antibiotics are showing evolution. Nope. Some people are resistant to measles or mumps. Does that mean they are any less human than anyone else? Does that mean they are evolving into super humans? Nope again.
.

From the beginning it assumes that all life came from a single unknown living cell. If you believe "In the Beginning all life came from Frankencell" then the most logical conclusion will be that somehow that Frankencell learned how to become a scientist who believes that all life came from Frankencell. This article deals with one of the steps required for Frankencell to rise to become a scientist.

 

[LoricaLady]

bhstme No matter what I say, no matter what definitions I give, what legitimate examples I offer, what sources from science literature I quote, you are not going to answer those questions but will keep changing the subject. As I said, I don't have time for endless red herrings. Bye and blessings!

 

[Willtor]

As I stated, people who are religious, have had to alter their beliefs as they have accepted well evidenced science. Science has not had to alter it's work, based on the bible.

To be fair, it could not have done so even if creationism were right. Science has no way of integrating knowledge from revelation under any circumstances.

I'm not disagreeing, mind you. Just, your statement doesn't say as much as people are likely to interpret from it.

 

[bhsmte]

bhstme No matter what I say, no matter what definitions I give, what legitimate examples I offer, what sources from science literature I quote, you are not going to answer those questions but will keep changing the subject. As I said, I don't have time for endless red herrings. Bye and blessings!

You have not answered the question I asked you initially.

I have yet to see you give a specific example of what real science is and why you believe it is real science. Which scientific theories do you believe are real science and why?

 

[bhsmte]

To be fair, it could not have done so even if creationism were right. Science has no way of integrating knowledge from revelation under any circumstances.

I'm not disagreeing, mind you. Just, your statement doesn't say as much as people are likely to interpret from it.

Yes. My point was, religious folks have adapted their beliefs over time based on science.

 

[Willtor]

Yes. My point was, religious folks have adapted their beliefs over time based on science.

That's certainly true. Evolution wasn't the first thing and it won't be the last.

 

[bhsmte]

That's certainly true. Evolution wasn't the first thing and it won't be the last.

I agree.

Education and being open to new knowledge, has clearly had an impact on religious beliefs over many decades.