• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

Astroqualia

Born-again Truthseeker
Feb 5, 2019
160
36
34
FL
✟26,231.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The only gap is:
Creationists actually believe the Bible is true.
Non creationists do not believe the Bible is true.

I never understood how evolutionary christians actually can trust the Bible is true when it speaks of salvation, since they don't believe the Bible is true when it speaks very directly of genesis creation, and how God spoke into existence everything.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,458
3,994
47
✟1,112,808.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Ordered properties such as crystalline structure vs specified complexity and information:

What needs explaining is not the origin of order (whether in the form of crystals, swirling tornadoes, or the “eyes” of hurricanes), but the origin of information–the highly improbable, aperiodic, and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.

To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence “ABABABABAB ABAB” to the sequence “Time and tide wait for no man.” The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call “specified complexity”) have “information content.” Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content–that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.

Yet the information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium. Because chemical bonds do not determine the arrangement of nucleotide bases, the nucleotides can assume a vast array of possible sequences and thereby express many different biochemical messages.

If the properties of matter (i.e., the medium) do not suffice to explain the origin of information, what does? Our experience with information-intensive systems (especially codes and languages) indicates that such systems always come from an intelligent source — i.e., from mental or personal agents, not chance or material necessity. This generalization about the cause of information has, ironically, received confirmation from origin-of-life research itself. During the last forty years, every naturalistic model proposed has failed to explain the origin of information — the great stumbling block for materialistic scenarios. Thus, mind or intelligence or what philosophers call “agent causation” now stands as the only cause known to be capable of creating an information-rich system, including the coding regions of DNA, functional proteins, and the cell as a whole.

Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed. Since information requires an intelligent source, the flowers spelling “Welcome to Victoria” in the gardens of Victoria harbor in Canada lead visitors to infer the activity of intelligent agents even if they did not see the flowers planted and arranged.

Scientists in many fields now recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly. Archaeologists assume a mind produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. SETI’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that the presence of information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. As yet, radio astronomers have not found information-bearing signals coming from space. But molecular biologists, looking closer to home, have discovered information in the cell. Consequently, DNA justifies making what probability theorist William A. Dembski calls “the design inference.”

Impressive, an even longer way of saying: "No. I don't have a metric or an objective method of measuring specified information."

Neither your nor Dembski's gut feelings and religious conviction magically transform into objective evidence.

If you can't measure something then you can't make claims about the probabilities and possibilities of it increasing or decreasing.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,656
72
Bondi
✟369,771.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The only gap is:
Creationists actually believe the Bible is true.
Non creationists do not believe the Bible is true.

I think you meant 'Non creationists treat some passages in the bible as being allegorical'. I'm pretty sure they believe the bits about Jesus being resurrected for example. And quite possibly lots more. You'd need to check.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,006
✟69,550.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Silly logic. They also are only read by humans, so God can't exist.

Logical logic for someone who says DNA is not a programming code with instructions that build cells, because it’s a set of instructions that cells are built from, called a recipe.

Ever hear the term, six of one, half a dozen of the other?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Logical logic for someone who says DNA is not a programming code with instructions that build cells, because it’s a set of instructions that cells are built from, called a recipe.

Ever hear the term, six of one, half a dozen of the other?
Ever hear of the term Equivocation Fallacy?
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,006
✟69,550.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Impressive, an even longer way of saying: "No. I don't have a metric or an objective method of measuring specified information."

Neither your nor Dembski's gut feelings and religious conviction magically transform into objective evidence.

If you can't measure something then you can't make claims about the probabilities and possibilities of it increasing or decreasing.

Rationalize it anyway you want.

That doesn’t change the fact that DNA possesses the qualities and traits of everything that comes from an intelligent mind.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,458
3,994
47
✟1,112,808.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Logical logic for someone who says DNA is not a programming code with instructions that build cells, because it’s a set of instructions that cells are built from, called a recipe.

Ever hear the term, six of one, half a dozen of the other?

So, nonsense then.

I understand programming and machine code and that isn't the same as the chemical reactions that make up DNA and the development of life.

We have a trivial explanation on how it can change, it's mutation, and that explains how new variation can slowly enter a population.

You silly argument from analogy is pointless logic.

Rationalize it anyway you want.

That doesn’t change the fact that DNA possesses the qualities and traits of everything that comes from an intelligent mind.

Perhaps you can explain that then?

What about the complexities found in snow flakes or mountain formations? Are each of them hand crafted by angels, or are they emergent complexity that comes from initially simple conditions as the evidence indicates?

This isn't a matter of rationalisation, it's a straight up fact that measuring the increase of anything (information or otherwise) is impossible if you can't measure it.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is what you purport to be real evidence of abiogenesis?

Did you actually read it?


They got molecules to bond together by twos and sometimes four?

And only after injecting a chemical artificially to cause bonding?

This is EXACTLY like adding water to mud and claiming it’s evidence that mud huts can spontaneously form without a hut builder.

Protein chains in living cells require hundreds of linked amino acids of specified complexity.

And that’s a small part of the very complex cell.

Discussing a pitiful result such as that and seriously trying to claim that it proves that incredibly complex DNA could have formed in water when key components of it are destroyed in water, is incredibly problematic, to put it mildly.

First the very complex cell membrane would have had to be there, which is essential to protecting DNA, and no one can even begin to try and create a functioning cell membrane, even under perfect laboratory conditions.
I see you did but you obviously did not understand it.
Emergence of life in an inflationary universe
or perhaps because the lure of anti-science fallacies is greater for you.
8 Logical Fallacies That Fuel Anti-Science Sentiments
Why do you think research has shifted to clay on dry land, for abiogenesis evidence?
Follow the money.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The only gap is:
Creationists actually believe the Bible is true.
Non creationists do not believe the Bible is true.

I never understood how evolutionary christians actually can trust the Bible is true when it speaks of salvation, since they don't believe the Bible is true when it speaks very directly of genesis creation, and how God spoke into existence everything.
Do you really want to understand? All Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired and authoritative word of God and they trust it implicitly.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The only gap is:
Creationists actually believe the Bible is true.
Non creationists do not believe the Bible is true.

I never understood how evolutionary christians actually can trust the Bible is true when it speaks of salvation, since they don't believe the Bible is true when it speaks very directly of genesis creation, and how God spoke into existence everything.
The easy answer. Creationists interpret genesis as literal, most other Christians interpret genesis as metaphorical.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
59
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟46,584.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The only gap is:
Creationists actually believe the Bible is true.
Non creationists do not believe the Bible is true.

I never understood how evolutionary christians actually can trust the Bible is true when it speaks of salvation, since they don't believe the Bible is true when it speaks very directly of genesis creation, and how God spoke into existence everything.

It was Gallileo I think, who is attributed these words
"The bible tells us how to get to Heaven. Not how the heavens go".
A useful thing to remember when tempted to use the bible to decide science.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,634
52,516
Guam
✟5,128,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It was Gallileo I think, who is attributed these words
"The bible tells us how to get to Heaven. Not how the heavens go".
A useful thing to remember when tempted to use the bible to decide science.
Using the Bible to decide science is like using Bill Gates' diary to run a computer repair shop.
 
Upvote 0

Astroqualia

Born-again Truthseeker
Feb 5, 2019
160
36
34
FL
✟26,231.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Using the Bible to decide science is like using Bill Gates' diary to run a computer repair shop.
Funny how the Bible was the first document in history that told us to use running water when dealing with injuries rather than the classic bowl of water that spread germs. Thats a pretty scientific practice for hygiene.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,634
52,516
Guam
✟5,128,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Funny how the Bible was the first document in history that told us to use running water when dealing with injuries rather than the classic bowl of water that spread germs. Thats a pretty scientific practice for hygiene.
I somehow don't think that temps Dan to use the Bible to decide science.
Mr Laurier said:
A useful thing to remember when tempted to use the bible to decide science.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Funny how the Bible was the first document in history that told us to use running water when dealing with injuries rather than the classic bowl of water that spread germs. Thats a pretty scientific practice for hygiene.
Citation? And evidence that no one cleansed a wound in running water until they read about it in the Bible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Funny how the Bible was the first document in history that told us to use running water when dealing with injuries rather than the classic bowl of water that spread germs. Thats a pretty scientific practice for hygiene.
Mere cherry picking. One does not get to count the things that the Bible got right if one ignores the things that the Bible got wrong.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
The odds of a living cell arising naturally is 1 to the 97 billionth power - not just impossible but ridiculously impossible.

1 to the 97 billionth power is 1, so you may be nearer to the mark than you thought. I'm not going to ask where you got this number from; I suspect that it was a scientist who was teasing you and making fun of your ignorance of mathematics.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,006
✟69,550.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Impressive, an even longer way of saying: "No. I don't have a metric or an objective method of measuring specified information."

Neither your nor Dembski's gut feelings and religious conviction magically transform into objective evidence.

If you can't measure something then you can't make claims about the probabilities and possibilities of it increasing or decreasing.

Nice attempt at deflection from the fact that even many evolutionists today admit DNA is a biological programming language code that all cells have as their operating system, containing specified and complex information, and that language and information only come from an intelligent mind.
 
Upvote 0