Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[The Cadet]

The naturalistic models have problems they can't solve.

I'm sure some thought this way about lightning a few hundred years ago.

 

[DogmaHunter]

duh..Of course i have.
It's what i used to believe: Guided evolution (that is in fact slow creation).
But it also lacks evidence, but has counter evidence in the so called 'cambrian explosion'.

The "cambrian explosion" took some 40 to 80 million years.
Just saying...

 

[DogmaHunter]

The naturalistic models have problems they can't solve.

Such as?

If assessed it's not naturally possible (when evidence and explanatory power lack), then supernaturally.

How do you assess if a things is naturally possible or not?

The fact is that we're here, either by natural means or supernatural means.

Off course, only natural means demonstrably exist.

 

[Hieronymus]

In your own words, who is "mitochondrial Eve", when did she live and what does she represent?

The first woman on earth.

And why do you think that it fits the garden and talking snake story with the magical trees?

It only makes it credible, but has nothing to do with genetics, because history is 'not science' but genetics is.

What bottle-neck?

The decimation of human life on earth, 3 remaining mothers is what genetic evidence suggests.

How is that accurate?

Tribes and languages have been traced back by genetics and recorded history.

Why must it be attractive? "Attractiveness" doesn't matter when you are trying to find out what is true.

Maybe when you're a robot and there's no peer pressure.
But i mean real life.

Well, if you care about being justified in your beliefs, that is...

Hahaha.



You think mankind living in peace is dependend on the findings of a natural science like biology?[/QUOTE]
No, i mean because religion is portrayed as the root of evil in the world.
Would it be a better place if there was no religion?

I wonder if it's even possible for an intelligent self conscious organism to NOT wonder about our origins and purpose.

 

[Hieronymus]

The "cambrian explosion" took some 40 to 80 million years.
Just saying...

That's according to naturalistic models, which have enough problems of their own.
Explain the fine tuning and stability of the universe (space time and all the laws of physics).
This is what we try.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Baloney.

No, that's the actual reason.
It's not testable, it's not demonstrable, it's not falsifiable.

Which makes it utterly useless and meaningless.

You know darn well there are many reasons based on many sorts of evidence to at least consider Biblical accuracy.

Please share a single test that can demonstrate that the supernatural actually exists.

And nowadays in our culture the peer pressure pushes towards atheistic naturalism (under the guise of rational thinking).

No. It pushes towards reasonable evidence. Testability, falsifiability.
Naturalistic thinking is merely the result of that.

You can easily turn that around by explaining how one can test for the supernatural.
Good luck with that.

So why would you suggest people still come to the faith by seeking truth?
Because they're idiots?

Because people want to believe. And they tend to fall prey to superstition, emotional appeals, naivity etc... And off course, they an just be mistaken. Or are you of the opinion that people can only believe accurate things?

Both sides have this problem.

Yep, both sides are human, so both sides face the same pitfalls in reasoning abilities.
The way to deal with that, is to put your emotions and "wants" aside, and just follow the testable evidence.

That's exactly why the scientific method has such a successfull track record... because it leaves human bias at the door.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The first woman on earth

LOL, wow..... If you are going to mention "mitochondrial Eve", it might be wise to first look up what is meant by it.

It's not "the first woman on earth". Not even remotely.
So I guess we can scratch that from your list of "evidence".

It only makes it credible, but has nothing to do with genetics, because history is 'not science' but genetics is

Well, since the concept of "mitochondrial Eve" is anything but "the first woman on earth", I guess we can just skip over this line.

The decimation of human life on earth, 3 remaining mothers is what genetic evidence suggests

So, you are claiming that that is a scientific conclusion?
At this point, you will be required to post up links to science publication where this is concluded.

Because to my knowledge, the most recent human bottle-neck consisted of a decimation of human population to a couple thousand individuals, and that some 100.000 years ago (if I remember correctly), around the time that the Toba volcano erupted.

So please, share this "genetic evidence".

Tribes and languages have been traced back by genetics and recorded history.

Languages don't show up in DNA.
Recorded history? That only records written language.

Got any better, because that was quite worthless... not to mention just wrong.

Maybe when you're a robot and there's no peer pressure.
But i mean real life. Hahaha.

"hahaha"? I don't get the joke, nore do I get the statement about robots.
Again, "attractiveness" is not a factor in what is true. Facts define what is true, not your emotional and subjective preferences.

No, i mean because religion is portrayed as the root of evil in the world.

Not by me.

Would it be a better place if there was no religion?

In principle, I'ld say "definatly". Not having to deal with the religious homophobia and islamic terrorists would certainly be an improvement, for example.

In practice.... That would depend. I think a lot of people "hide" behind a religion and use it as a vessel to spew their hatred and intolerance. Removing the religion in those cases wouldn't remove their hatred and intolerance.

In general though, I'ld say the world would most definatly be a better place if we could simply do away with any and all superstition.

I wonder if it's even possible for an intelligent self conscious organism to NOT wonder about our origins and purpose.

I'm sure there are a few who simply live their life and don't really care.
However, there's nothing wrong with wondering about our origins and even "purpose". Science wouldn't exist without such curiosity. The problem is not in asking the questions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's according to naturalistic models, which have enough problems of their own.

Errr... no. That's according to the evidence.
Do you even know what the "cambrian" is?
If you are going to dispute what the cambrian (and pre-cambrian) is, then why do you even mention the "cambrian explosion"?

It's like talking about the Eiffel Tower while denying that Paris exists.

Explain the fine tuning and stability of the universe (space time and all the laws of physics).

Explaining the origins of the universe doesn't change the facts of biology.

This is what we try.

No, that is utterly false. YOU (=your side) isn't trying anything.
What your side does is provide the answer before (even without) asking the questions.

You aren't "trying" to explain it. You are merely declaring it to be a certain way.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know you can quote that piece of nonsense all you want and it still,doesn't prove evolution.

You can ignore the evidence supporting evolution all you want, it doesn't disappear. You can repeat and repeat that there is no evidence, and yet there it is.

Its still full of supposition and assumption. Dolphins with legs and reptile birds are just two of them. Dolphins don't have legs but it is supposed that the fetal,process shows evolution Reptile birds are assumed to be proof while there is no evidence of the evolution. They just appear and it is assumed they evolved.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Bird transitionals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds

These fossils aren't assumed. They are observed.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, even though the prophets of the church of naturalism reluctantly admit it is a matter of faith and a priori commitment to naturalism, their Godless flock refuses to accept this.
So whatever brings them to a Christian forum to discuss our origins is completely beyond me.

We don't need faith. We have the evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you too.
Not that i'm happy with the conclusion though, i think it's pretty sad.

What is said is that you have to twist the words of other people.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said they think it's a religion. They think it's science. I said it's a religion. I don't mean,it's a religion with a church and pastors,etc. I mean it's a faith system.

We don't need faith. We have the evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Loudmouth]

There are Christians who believe in evolution. I am not one of them obviously.
I believe the Genesis account to be the accurate account of creation. I have not seen or heard any evidence that has convinced me otherwise.

As we have already seen, no evidence will ever convince you otherwise. What you have is a dogmatic religious belief.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think there's a lot of theophobia behind it, why they can't allow a divine foot in the door.

What evidence are we not allowing in?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well like I said earlier. The quotes made are true quotes and even taken in context still make admissions.

I want everyone to take a moment and really think about this statement. Think about the amount of dishonesty it takes to be a creationist.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's there to illustrate the consensus and the commitment to naturalism.

It is a commitment to evidence. Given how many times you have tried to claim that evolution is based on faith, now you want to turn around and say that science is wrong for not using faith. Why don't you pick one?

 

[Loudmouth]

They overwhelm us with evolutionary thinking, that's true..
The rest is just the famous evo mantra.
The naturalistic models have problems they can't solve.
If assessed it's not naturally possible (when evidence and explanatory power lack), then supernaturally.
The fact is that we're here, either by natural means or supernatural means.

You admit that creationism is nothing more than an argument from ignorance?

 

[Loudmouth]

Baloney.
You know darn well there are many reasons based on many sorts of evidence to at least consider Biblical accuracy.
And nowadays in our culture the peer pressure pushes towards atheistic naturalism (under the guise of rational thinking).
So why would you suggest people still come to the faith by seeking truth?
Because they're idiots?
Both sides have this problem.

It isn't the fault of scientists that you can't produce a shred of evidence for creationism.

 

[The Cadet]

Explain the fine tuning and stability of the universe (space time and all the laws of physics).

You first. And please - make sure your explanation is supported by evidence and falsifiable.

 

[rjs330]

You can ignore the evidence supporting evolution all you want, it doesn't disappear. You can repeat and repeat that there is no evidence, and yet there it is.



Bird transitionals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds

These fossils aren't assumed. They are observed.

That's not evidence of evolution. Its fossils found in rocks from things that died. Where is the evidence that those particular creatures evolved into a creature in the end. You don't have it. Yet you believe it. Why? Because of the dogma of evolution. You believe in evolution therefore everything we find must be evolved or evolving. How do you KNOW that the creatures were evolving. How do you KNOW they weren't their own unique creature. You don't. You assume and suppose based on your belief in evolution. The fact remains evolution cannot and has never been proven because it cannot be scientifically observed or recreated. It cannot be scientifically observed because it takes so long to happen according to the belief. It cannot be tested or reproduced because the claim is it happens by chance.

You may try and reproduce some sense of evolution in a lab. But man is intervening in the process and directing the process. In essence using his intelligence. which then become intelligent design.

A creationist looks at the world and says look at all the variety of trees and plants and insect and birds and fish and all the amazing creatures in this planet. God did an amazing job in creating all this diversity. And look how he made the earth to support all this life to provide water and food and how it all works together so incredibly. God is amazing. Even though neither I nor anyone I was there to observe it. And I can't reproduce creation for I am,not God.

An evolutionist looks at the world and sees trees and says look at all these varities of trees and they are all trees with similar characteristics. Therefore they all came from the same ancestor. Then they look at all the animals. They all have some similarities like eyes and,mouths and jawbones and ears so they must have evolved from same ancestor. Evolution is incredible. Even though neither I nor anyone was there to observe any of it. And I can't reproduce it because I am not nature.

It is all based on faith and dogma. What I see as the awsomeness of God, the evolutionist sees the Awsomeness of nature.

The evolutionist falls into the category prescribed in Romans as worshipping the creation rather than the creator. Why? Because they will not believe in God. And in the end those that refuse to believe in God will,be without excuse.





Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk