Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[TheBear]

The kind in your overactive imagination...why?

It was a question. I was just curious how plant life could survive those harsh conditions. Please explain how that would be possible. Thanks.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So far, every time we check the past, things worked just as they do now.

There is always a slight variation. Now only exists in a moment of time and that moment can never be perfectly repeated.

I don't think you get it, yet. It's not that everything happens exactly as it did before. It's that the evidence shows that all the laws we know were the same as far back as we can see.

 

[The Barbarian]

Even though the theory is in a state of flux and constant change.

It must seem like cheating to creationists, who are locked into their new doctrine, unable to change. Meanwhile, science modifies theories as facts indicate a need for it. However, evolution has not been put into doubt if it turns out that neutral mutations have a role in phylogenesis. And so far, Darwin's four points are as solid as ever.

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
So far, every time we check the past, things worked just as they do now....

So never ever at all then. OK

 

[dad]

It must seem like cheating to creationists, who are locked into their new doctrine, unable to change. Meanwhile, science modifies theories as facts indicate a need for it. However, evolution has not been put into doubt if it turns out that neutral mutations have a role in phylogenesis. And so far, Darwin's four points are as solid as ever.

What were the 4 points? Demon possession, unbelief, being long dead, and delusion?

 

[dad]

It was a question. I was just curious how plant life could survive those harsh conditions. Please explain how that would be possible. Thanks.

Easy, God and His Light was there, like it will be in New Jerusalem. Lovely.

 

[TheBear]

Easy, God and His Light was there, like it will be in New Jerusalem. Lovely.

Okay. Thanks. I'm guessing that God provided the right temperature too. I mean, too hot or too cold and plants couldn't survive.

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

 

[Smidlee]

Your error is that you are using a false test. Of course a child could tell the difference between humans and other apes. And as to reason, you are making a typical creationist type of all or nothing error. You seem to think that because we only know more than apes that we still cannot know whether some actions are right or wrong. We have a much stronger ability to think and to rationalize than other apes, but if you think that apes do not have a sense of right and wrong then you are terribly ignorant about them too.

And you do not understand why the writer of that article did not like calling himself an ape. He agrees with me that you are descended from apes. But he uses the incorrect English definition of an ape rather than a consistent biological definition of ape. It is not all that bright to use an article for support that agrees with your foe. His argument is only one based on semantic and does not dispute the fact that we have a common ancestor with other apes.

So you agree now human are not ape?

A dog can have a sense of right and wrong because of the influence of man. That's been known for thousands of years. We have dogs that kills and we have dogs that are more friendly and harmless. Other animals including apes can be influenced by man.
Again evolutionist has to believe in evolution yet they have completely failed to prove it. They tried their best to change a fruitfly but failed. Developmental biologists have recently learn we they can't change a fruitfly ... it requires a serious amount of "rewiring" of dGRN which is intolerant to change. It's their faith in the principle of continuity that drive then to continue believe evolution. They never question that this could be false.
Again evolutionist has to believe in fairy tale that "Ape" can play chess, and sing "I did it my way" without any evidence it's mechanically possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you agree now human are not ape?

No. It depends upon how you define an ape. If you make a reasonable definition, one based upon cladistics, we are apes.

A dog can have a sense of right and wrong because of the influence of man. That's been known for thousands of years. We have dogs that kills and we have dogs that are more friendly and harmless. Other animals including apes can be influenced by man.

Wrong, a dog may have a human sense of right and wrong because of the influence of man, they will always have an inherent sense of right and wrong. And other animals have their own sense of right and wrong. Man is not the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. Nature actually is.

Again evolutionist has to believe in evolution yet they have completely failed to prove it.

Wrong. There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence that supports the idea of creationism. Things are not "proved" in science, but if you take the legal concept of prove, that is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then by all means evolution has been "proven". The fact that you are terribly ignorant of science does not make your claim true.

They tried their best to change a fruitfly but failed.

No, they succeeded and you just showed your terrible ignorance of what the theory of evolution says again. I will have to remind you to ask questions politely when you do not understand. The point of the various mutation experiments on fruit flies was never to make another species of fruit flies.

Developmental biologists have recently learn we they can't change a fruitfly ... it requires a serious amount of "rewiring" of dGRN which is intolerant to change. It's their faith in the principle of continuity that drive then to continue believe evolution. They never question that this could be false.

One suggestion, you need to quit getting your nonsense from lying creationist sources. They have no fear of lying. Sadly when you get your ideas from them you end up looking less than honest. I am sure that you don't want to be perceived that way.

Again evolutionist has to believe in fairy tale that "Ape" can play chess, and sing "I did it my way" without any evidence it's mechanically possible.

No one believes that. This is a terrible strawman on your part. Once again, when you don't understand you need to ask questions.

 

[Smidlee]

No. It depends upon how you define an ape. If you make a reasonable definition, one based upon cladistics, we are apes.



Wrong, a dog may have a human sense of right and wrong because of the influence of man, they will always have an inherent sense of right and wrong. And other animals have their own sense of right and wrong. Man is not the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. Nature actually is.

It's man that determine right and wrong. You can't determine what good and evil from nature. I agree 100% that man is not the final arbiter of what right and wrong... That would be God.

Wrong. There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence that supports the idea of creationism. Things are not "proved" in science, but if you take the legal concept of prove, that is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then by all means evolution has been "proven". The fact that you are terribly ignorant of science does not make your claim true.

You like most atheist have ignore what scientist have learned in the last decade. The mountain of evidence totally depends on the principle of continuity is the truth. If it false than so is all your mountain of evidence.

Emperical science is against evolution. The evolutionist mountain of evidence is 99% story telling.

No, they succeeded and you just showed your terrible ignorance of what the theory of evolution says again. I will have to remind you to ask questions politely when you do not understand. The point of the various mutation experiments on fruit flies was never to make another species of fruit flies.

and now they learned why that is so. dGRN resist change which has a huge impact of the development of body plans. In order for evolution to be true they have to believe dGRN were a lot more flexible in the past than today. The evidence shows dGRN has very limited flexibility. When strong powerful evidence contradicts evolution they reject the evidence and make up excuses for the theory. I've learned the best evidence against evolution come from the evolutionist themselves and not creationist.

One suggestion, you need to quit getting your nonsense from lying creationist sources. They have no fear of lying. Sadly when you get your ideas from them you end up looking less than honest. I am sure that you don't want to be perceived that way.





No one believes that. This is a terrible strawman on your part. Once again, when you don't understand you need to ask questions.

Are you claiming that no one believes that an ape can eventually becoming a scientist, musicians, preachers, etc. ?
Evolution is nothing but an adult fairy tale that an ape can eventually become a scientist, a frog into a prince. They tried to hind their silliness with large amount of time since they believe everything is possible with enough time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's man that determine right and wrong. You can't determine what good and evil from nature. I agree 100% that man is not the final arbiter of what right and wrong... That would be God.

No, animals have been shown to have a sense of right and wrong. They will have a different sense of right and wrong than you do, but that does not mean that their sense of right and wrong will be the same as yours:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-Scientists-suggest-just-humans-morals.html

You like most atheist have ignore what scientist have learned in the last decade. The mountain of evidence totally depends on the principle of continuity is the truth. If it false than so is all your mountain of evidence.

This is pure nonsense on your part and you should be ashamed.

Emperical science is against evolution. The evolutionist mountain of evidence is 99% story telling.

Nope, foolish mistake number two in this post. You have no empirical evidence against evolution either.

and now they learned why that is so. dGRN resist change which has a huge impact of the development of body plans. In order for evolution to be true they have to believe dGRN were a lot more flexible in the past than today. The evidence shows dGRN has very limited flexibility. When strong powerful evidence contradicts evolution they reject the evidence and make up excuses for the theory. I've learned the best evidence against evolution come from the evolutionist themselves and not creationist.

Nope, that is not the case either. At best you are misinterpreting the work of others. Link the original work and I will try to help you understand. But odds are that you got this from a source that is known to pass on falsehoods.

Are you claiming that no one believes that an ape can eventually becoming a scientist, musicians, preachers, etc. ?
Evolution is nothing but an adult fairy tale that an ape can eventually become a scientist, a frog into a prince. They tried to hind their silliness with large amount of time since they believe everything is possible with enough time.

Individual apes, no. But since our ancestors were apes the descendants of apes have been shown to become scientists, musicians, preachers, and even your mother. No one tried to hide anything. Please don't make false accusations against others that you cannot support. I suggest that you look at what qualifies as violating the Ninth Commandment.

 

[durangodawood]

To you all:
Are you a mammal?

 

[Edmond Smith]

Yes, I am absolutely sure that evolution is a fact since it is demonstrably true. Something that you cannot say for your own beliefs. I am still rather interested in the science and of course try to learn more every day. Lastly I spend some time each day trying to help the ignorant.

And now a couple of questions for you: How much science education do you have? Do you believe the Noah's Ark story, that the whole world was drowned by water only a very short time ago?

To your question first.
I have an Engineering degree, majoring in Science and biology. So, my science is pretty much up there. Yeah, I even took evolution, because I was curious, and wasn't convinced. It still a hoax.
And yes I do believe in the Ark story.

So by your own definition of how you are about evolution shows that it is a religion. According to Webster dictionary Religion is:
an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.

So evolution is a religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To your question first.
I have an Engineering degree, majoring in Science and biology. So, my science is pretty much up there. Yeah, I even took evolution, because I was curious, and wasn't convinced. It still a hoax.
And yes I do believe in the Ark story.

So by your own definition of how you are about evolution shows that it is a religion. According to Webster dictionary Religion is:
an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.

So evolution is a religion.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. That was not a complete and honest quote of the definition given, you know it and I know it. Please, when you quote you should also link so that others can test your work.

But if you are an engineer then how do you explain over miles of water magically appearing and disappearing from the surface of the Earth and no evidence left behind? As an engineer you may be able to explain this.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nope I'm not an ape. I repeat again evolution is based on the religious idea the principle of continuity.

Without continuity, you would live in a world where nothing can be trusted and nothing can be believed... sounds like a formula for a major neurosis.

 

[Smidlee]

Without continuity, you would live in a world where nothing can be trusted and nothing can be believed... sounds like a formula for a major neurosis.

We are talking about creation especially the creation of man including human reasoning. The universe we live in today is slowly because unglued.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are talking about creation especially the creation of man including human reasoning. The universe we live in today is slowly because unglued.

Nah, just the creationists are becoming unglued. There antics give us hours of entertainment.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We are talking about creation especially the creation of man including human reasoning. The universe we live in today is slowly because unglued.

"We"? What do you mean? I don't know you, and wish to address the person whose post I originally quoted...

 

[Smidlee]

No, animals have been shown to have a sense of right and wrong. They will have a different sense of right and wrong than you do, but that does not mean that their sense of right and wrong will be the same as yours:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-Scientists-suggest-just-humans-morals.html

Notice how your article refer to "right and wrong" completely on a mechanical terms. Any pet owner already know this , that animals and inserts are governed by a certain code. Human reasoning goes beyond this which is why we have courts to determine who is at fault.
For example you can train a dog that it's bad to pee in the house. If you happen to forget to let the little dog out before taking off for a long period of time and the dog pees on the floor then he will hide in the corner since the dog only knows " it's a bad bad dog". It doesn't understand it's the owner fault and not it's own.

Nope, foolish mistake number two in this post. You have no empirical evidence against evolution either.



Nope, that is not the case either. At best you are misinterpreting the work of others. Link the original work and I will try to help you understand. But odds are that you got this from a source that is known to pass on falsehoods.



Individual apes, no. But since our ancestors were apes the descendants of apes have been shown to become scientists, musicians, preachers, and even your mother. No one tried to hide anything. Please don't make false accusations against others that you cannot support. I suggest that you look at what qualifies as violating the Ninth Commandment.

all you have is story telling but no one know how to turn an ape into a scientist. Evolution is a product of human reasoning that scientist trying to explain away human reasoning . It's circular reasoning.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Anyone else notice a trend with posters that have "joshua" in their handle?

Not really.

Oh, I thought you meant this "Joshua"

.