Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

[Willis Gravning]

Sigh. I will post this one last time hoping that a glimmer of light will get into your head. Pasteur showed that life has to come from life. Dr. Wald got that point, which he why he referenced Pasteur. Whether we are dealing with origins or maggots on meat, we are still talking about where life comes from. There is a Law that tells us. In science a law means it is true 100% of times. The Law of Biogenesis tells us that life only comes from life. Flies don't spontaneous generate from dead meat. Life can't spontaneously generate from some mythical primal pond or whatever. Life comes from life. And btw 100% of the times we see that it comes from life of the same kind.

You think abiogenesis is possible? That takes a lot of....faith. Sorry, I don't have enough faith to believe that in the misty murky conveniently invisible "billions of years ago" somehow, some way - though we've never seen any such thing happen ever - some chemicals arranged themselves into living material. It doesn't happen now. It didn't happen then. But hey if you want to believe that, have fun. I just wish you wouldn't call it science. But that's up to you. I call it religion, personally, you know, faith in the unseen.

But, hey, what do you care what I think? You like to believe us creationists are just running around intentionally bending the truth. Sigh again.

You get the 2nd to the last word if you want it. The truth always gets the last word though.

I think the correct term for the assembly of organic from non-organic molecules is 'biopoesis' rather than 'abiogenesis'. I agree with you one one point, that life comes from life because there does not appear to be a clear line between life and non-life. The definition accepted by common concensus has some serious consistency problems and by definition is an 'argument by common concensus' logical fallacy. I think it is all life.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your martyr's complex is showing. He was put in jail because a jury found him guilty of offences (plural) relating to tax.

People get up to three years for income tax evasion. Not up to 10 years as he received. http://www.tax-whistleblower.com/tax-fraud/

 

[lesliedellow]

From LoricLady's list of scientists who support creationism:

"When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.
(John Polkinghorne, University of Cambridge)"

That one is priceless. She clearly does not know who the Rev. John Polkinghorne KBE FRS is, or what his views are. A classic piece of quote mining you might say. He is certainly no creationist, except in the very broad sense that all Christians are creationists (God was the originator of all that is). She might want to buy herself a copy of one of his books:

http://www.amazon.com/Questions-Tru...1439170828&sr=8-1&keywords=questions+of+truth

or pay a visit to his website:

http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/


Oh and another one:

"Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe."

That one is from Charles H Townes, also not a YEC, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[MikeEnders]

And yet the founders of (those who established) the three most relevant branches of physics that are used to describe this universe were *not* even Christians, let alone supporters of Genesis or creationism

Dude do you really think people cannot see through your distortions and misrepresentations You trying to change my saying most to now your claim of most relevant?

You've been moving the goal posts continuously since then, and now you're even backpeddling form your "most" commentary.

have not moved it once. Don't need to Anyone that does even the most rudimentary study of the history of science will see that the ton load of sciences in our life today trace their establishment back to the 1500s-1800s during a time when for the most part genesis one being literal was still the overwhelming majority

Science of Physics establishment in modern times??

Galileo - Creationist
Newton - creationist

to name but two. go do some science history and go learn what the establishment of a science means. Apparently you never have anything without begging that your distortions and misrepresentations are factual

 

[LoricaLady]

I think the correct term for the assembly of organic from non-organic molecules is 'biopoesis' rather than 'abiogenesis'. I agree with you one one point, that life comes from life because there does not appear to be a clear line between life and non-life. The definition accepted by common concensus has some serious consistency problems and by definition is an 'argument by common concensus' logical fallacy. I think it is all life.

Please Google the definition of abiogenesis and you will see: "The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."

You say there does not appear to be a clear line between life and non-life. Is that right? Is a bacteria alive or not? Are you alive or not? If you say you are alive, golly, does that mean you are falling under the "common consensus" logical fallacy? Let's say you see someone get shot dead and you are asked to testify in court. Something tells me (I hope!) you wouldn't say, "Welllll, that body pictured lying on the floor there in the photo... I think it's all life. You know there doesn't seem to be a clear line between life and nonlife!" I bet that would go over real big.

But what does it matter in a way? You haven't got a shred of evidence that non-life ever led to life. You apparently want to push something like the primal pond as a possibility but, again, you haven't got a shred of evidence that any such thing ever happened. I've got tons of evidence, you know like what is used in real science, to show that life comes only from life. I've got evidence that there is such a thing as life and such a things as non life! You can gaze into your navel and say, "Yes, but not everyone agrees on what life is, so let's all believe in what happened in the invisible and unverifiable past while we ignore what really has happened and is happening all the time."

And in case you didn't know it, the same laws of physics, all the laws of nature, have operated in the past just as they operate now!

It's not a matter of "common consensus". It's a matter of scientific fact. Learn to use logical fallacies as they were intended to be used, to help reveal truth, not obscure it.

 

[Cearbhall]

I really think there is a lot of evidence to support creation, it's just a matter of putting it all together, backing it up with proper research, and presenting it professionally... then maybe, just maybe, it might be taken seriously by mainstream scientists!

Do you Agree? Disagree? What do you think?

It was accepted by many scientists before we knew better...

 

[lesliedellow]

You say there does not appear to be a clear line between life and non-life. Is that right?

Yep. That's right. It is debated whether a virus can be classified as life or not.

 

[LoricaLady]

s

Yep. That's right. It is debated whether a virus can be classified as life or not.

Call me overly sensitive, or whatever, but I prefer not to post to people who use what seems to me to be, mho, verbal abuse. It just seems so, well, distasteful to be the object of that. Remember I did mention that when you accused creationists of deliberately wanting to bend the truth? There are so many other people on this website. Perhaps you would prefer to debate with them? I won't be responding to anything you say so why waste your precious time and mine? As I also said earlier, I have found that those who use personal insults tend to escalate such with time. That makes me skittish.

Bye and blessings!

 

[MikeEnders]

You say there does not appear to be a clear line between life and non-life. Is that right? Is a bacteria alive or not? Are you alive or not?

Lorica I haven't been following this line of conversation but just in case they are trying to sell you on there being no hard and fast line between life and inorganic material/non life based on viruses do not buy it for a minute. The origins of viruses are unclear and one of the more likely origins of viruses is that they are break aways from exiting life DNA

obviously if viruses are nothing more than escape material (to put it simply) from life then they really have nothing to say bout abiogenesis or any divide between life and non life having originated from life not non life.

again don't know if that was the argument but spent too much time in this thread to go read through that but just in case pointing this out for you. if that was the point then please let me know because then we will really know who has been bending the truth

 

[The Cadet]

have not moved it once. Don't need to Anyone that does even the most rudimentary study of the history of science will see that the ton load of sciences in our life today trace their establishment back to the 1500s-1800s during a time when for the most part genesis one being literal was still the overwhelming majority

Science of Physics establishment in modern times??

Galileo - Creationist
Newton - creationist

to name but two. go do some science history and go learn what the establishment of a science means. Apparently you never have anything without begging that your distortions and misrepresentations are factual

Genesis was taken as literal because none of the evidence collected seemed to contradict it yet. Neither Newton nor Galileo lived through the boom in archaeology or biology in the 1700s and 1800s respectively that led to our understanding that the Genesis fable was, well, a fable. They lived in a society where the Bible was considered almost universally to be completely true, and neither their discoveries nor the discoveries of their compatriots did anything to show otherwise. It wasn't until long after their deaths that we found out that the bible was wrong about a lot of things. It's not reasonable to point to scientists living before an advancement of science and say, "See, these bright minds didn't accept that progress!" They had no access to the mountains of evidence we have today. It's just as dishonest as claiming that Pasteur proved abiogenesis to be impossible.

You say there does not appear to be a clear line between life and non-life. Is that right? Is a bacteria alive or not? Are you alive or not?

Is a virus alive or not? Is a self-replicating string of nucleotide bases in a lipid shell alive or not? Your examples are poorly chosen. There may not be a clear line between "competitive" and "non-competitive" but that doesn't change the fact that Tic-Tac-Toe is clearly not a competitive game while chess clearly is. Your examples are poorly chosen, as we all understand that regardless of where you draw the line, or if you draw it at all, humans and bacteria clearly must be alive in order for the term to have any meaning.

 

[lesliedellow]

Remember I did mention that when you accused creationists of deliberately wanting to bend the truth?

That list you posted is a good example of that. I know for a fact that at least two of the (Christian) physicists on it would hotly dispute that anything they said was inimical to evolution. Not to mention the atheists on the list. If similar lists which have been posted by creationists in the past are anything to go by, a good many of the others on it would as well.

One such list dropped a clanger by having Michael Behe on it. It is no secret that he holds views which would be contested by mainstream science, but even he would regard himself as an evolutionist.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2555

You can please yourself whether or not you reply to this.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for review.

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

Staff has decided that this thread will remain permanently closed.

Please remember not to flame others -- address the content of the post and not the poster themselves!

Also, if Christians want to discuss creation in terms of scripture, Origins Theology in General Theology is the place to do that

MOD HAT OFF​