People with extreme anti-science views know the least...

[essentialsaltes]

You know we're not talking about simple facts, relatively easily derived by repeatable experiments.

Spend as much money as you like and evolution is still the best theory explaining the plethora of facts from paleontology, molecular genetics, and other areas of biology. Just ask the Discovery Institute, the ICR, AIG...

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Not really.
It is unknown and impossible to find out or study HOW God created everything He did.
We can only study WHAT He created.

I disagree. It is not impossible to study God's way. And He might reveal some things. In fact, He encourages us to study.
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy+2:15&version=KJV

 

[Hieronymus]

I disagree. It is not impossible to study God's way. And He might reveal some things. In fact, He encourages us to study.
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Not disputing that, but this topic is about (natural) science:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

That does not apply to HOW God did things.

 

[Hieronymus]

Spend as much money as you like and evolution is still the best theory explaining the plethora of facts from paleontology, molecular genetics, and other areas of biology.

No.
As long as there's no natural mechanism for writing purposeful DNA, it's just a naturalistic conviction / assumption.
You ASSUME (because you have no other option as a naturalist) that such miraculous feats occur unintended by copying corrupted data that still runs well enough.
Nobody disputes mutation and natural selection.
We're just not all brainwashed (anymore) into believing it can account for things all of humanity couldn't even accomplish.
And that's because the things that come forth from surviving mutations are hereditary diseases, diminishing gene pools and disappearance of traits, disappearance of kinds / species, rather than improvements and variety.

 

[Hieronymus]

No.
As long as there's no natural mechanism for writing purposeful DNA, it's just a naturalistic conviction / assumption.
You ASSUME (because you have no other option as a naturalist) that such miraculous feats occur unintended by copying corrupted data that still runs well enough.
Nobody disputes mutation and natural selection.
We're just not all brainwashed (anymore) into believing it can account for things all of humanity couldn't even accomplish.
And that's because the things that come forth from surviving mutations are hereditary diseases, diminishing gene pools and disappearance of traits, disappearance of kinds / species, rather than improvements and variety.

And this is not all.
For DNA to work at all, it has to have a system around it to copy, read and implement it.
The level of genius and complexity of living nature, from solar system to the nano technological world in the cells, SCREAMS creation.
Only if you have a problem with that, or are still in your default brainwashed state (like i was too), you will opt for a naturalistic attempt at explaining the origin of living nature.

So, you see, a consensus within communities of people who are deemed smart doesn't necessarily mean it's correct or truthful.
Especially when there's money and agendas behind it.

 

[pitabread]

I might ask you the same question.

I'm just here to win internet points.

I am commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature.

Right, so you're basically a salesman.

The question you should ask yourself is whether this is an effective approach. For someone like myself that has lost count the number of times I've heard this from Bible thumpers, it's just noise.

 

[pitabread]

No threats, just fact. Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

It comes across like a threat. Essentially conversion via coercion.

Ask yourself if that is really the message and tactic that is appropriate.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No.

No? What better theory exists?

And that's because the things that come forth from surviving mutations are hereditary diseases, diminishing gene pools and disappearance of traits, disappearance of kinds / species, rather than improvements and variety.

False.

 

[pitabread]

The level of genius and complexity of living nature, from solar system to the nano technological world in the cells, SCREAMS creation.

Arguments from awe/incredulity aren't useful. They are just emotional arguments at the core.

 

[Cis.jd]

By being here, you show that you are, at the least, interested in Christian opinion ...

i am, i just didn't expect these opinions to be irrational and disgusting at the same time. I've seen people here say "retards" (yes, using this word) are going to hell because their is no excuse for not believing in god. What is that? Then when you try to ask for an intelligent reason why this god is a loving father and just judge in their eyes they go "well, if you knew the truth about christ..." or "who are you to judge God.. our minds are finite".

 

[Hieronymus]

No? What better theory exists?

It's the only naturalistic theory.
The only theory that is supposed to be approachable with the natural sciences.
However,
Science is:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
But this does not apply to historic events, so there's that.
And if the CAUSE of the natural is supernatural, it's not in the realm of science by that definition either.

So, as you ought to know by now, since you have been an active member here for quite a while, we can only do a few things.
We can discover things about our reality and learn to understand things.
Regarding the origins of things we can only make assessments of possibility, plausibility and probability.
You can take into account that ancient tenacious 'rumour' that there is a God too, and what those ideas are based on.

And how about purpose?

 

[Zetetica]

but think they know the most: study

The study involved genetically modified organisms, where there is little political bias to confuse the issue.

The more extreme the opposition, Fernbach and his co-authors found, the less people knew about the science and genetics, but the more their “self-assessed” knowledge — how much they thought they knew — increased.

“If somebody is well calibrated, those two things should be pretty highly correlated: If I know how much I know, then if I know a little I should say I know a little, and if I know a lot I should say I know a lot,” Fernbach explained. “Therefore there should be a high correlation between self-assessed and objective knowledge.

“And indeed, that’s actually true for the people who are moderate, or people who have the attitude that is consistent with the scientific consensus,” he said.

However, as people become more extreme, that relationship degrades and flips so that people who think they know more actually know less.

Next question:

Can you please list several “anti-science” views?

 

[Hieronymus]

i am, i just didn't expect these opinions to be irrational and disgusting at the same time. I've seen people here say "retards" (yes, using this word) are going to hell because their is no excuse for not believing in god. What is that? Then when you try to ask for an intelligent reason why this god is a loving father and just judge in their eyes they go "well, if you knew the truth about christ..." or "who are you to judge God.. our minds are finite".

Yes, it is clear there are 'retards' in every group..
And let's face it.
Christianity as a whole (which is not a whole) is a right old mess...
It seems to me there are only a few who more or less 'get it', and i'm not even sure if i'm one of them..
But there has also been infiltration and hijacking by nefarious elements, since day one...

They want us divided.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's the only naturalistic theory.

Well, if there are no competing scientific theories, then we should certainly have a lot of confidence in our extremely successful one.

 

[Hieronymus]

Well, if there are no competing scientific theories, then we should certainly have a lot of confidence in our extremely successful one.

Speak for yourself.
I'm not a naturalist.

Naturalism:
the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Next question:

Can you please list several “anti-science” views?

In the context of the study, they looked at opposition to GMOs and opposition to gene therapy to correct genetic disorders (where they saw the effect described in the OP), and denial of human-caused climate change denial (where they didn't).

Beyond that, there are any number of anti-science (or pseudoscience) views:

Flat earthism
Young Earth Creationism
Vaccines are harmful
Homeopathy
Astrology
Psychic powers are real

 

[essentialsaltes]

Speak for yourself.
I'm not a naturalist.

Do you object to the naturalistic theory that explains and predicts orbital motions in the solar system? That physics and gravity are sufficient to explain things like eclipses and establish a path to send spacecraft out to take pictures of Pluto?

 

[Hieronymus]

Do you object to the naturalistic theory that explains and predicts orbital motions in the solar system?

When will you understand the difference between the observable and the historic, between physics and origins?
You're smarter than this.

 

[Hieronymus]

Vaccines are harmful

Yes, some are.
This has been proven to be the case.

Seems more like you're just a mainstream parrot rather than an inquisitive mind.
You just dismiss what you're told to dismiss.

 

[essentialsaltes]

When will you understand the difference between the observable and the historic, between physics and origins?
You're smarter than this.

Do you object to the naturalistic theory that explains and predicts orbital motions in the solar system?