Share good examples of Christian Science

[HIM]

Okay I've watched the first 15 minutes and it's pretty bad.

Misleading information and outright lies.

So far all he's doing is saying "If Abiogenesis and evolution aren't true, then Creation must be." which is a garbage argument on its own.

agreed it is a subjective comment, but then so is yours.

Firstly, he points out that the Miller Urey experiment didn't use accurate models of the ancient Earth, (more recent experiments have used them and still developed amino acids). But the significant issue is that the failure of any particular experiment to study abiogeneis doesn't necessarily demonstrate that it's impossible, and so doesn't actually work as "negative evidence" as it is claimed.

But there is no Science to prove it. That was the point.
Amino acids are not living organisms and any amino acid that is used by a living organism must have been derived by a living organism, so the experiment proves what?
In order to have life you must have organic material period.

The next section is about evolution and it goes from misleading to outright falsehoods.

Claiming that "Transitional Fossils have never been found". Just the human lineage alone has a multitude of fossils showing a gradual change from a more chimp like ancestor to modern man.

No proof of this, speculation and hypothesis. In other words it looks humanoid so it must be.
There is only one way to prove it scientifically in the fossil record and that evidence has not yet presented itself.

Are you familiar with the mutations in DNA? Most are not good. And none have been observed to change something into something else.

 

[HIM]

Let me see if I have this right,
your scientific evidence for Creationism is:
"A pantheist scientist once used the word God poetically... then many years later, an atheist scientist responded using God in the same poetic context."

That is a pretty serious misunderstanding of how either science or evidence work.

No the point being is that Einstein through all his knowledge and intellect. Which is much more vast than ours seen God in all the complexity.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Here's a chapter-by-chapter (more or less) debunking of a case for the creator. Should take less than 7 hours. Be sure to watch every one.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-LSnSBNInfKCW2GYEcWBMjos64gA1vR

 

[Astrophile]

As said before, its basic history.

There are always movers and shakers who have the money, power and means to make things happen in the world.

In human history, which demographic would you say wields the most political power and has been responsible for the majority of trends?

In the history of Europe for the last 1700 years, I would say it has been the Christian church.

 

[pitabread]

A scientific approach is to examine both sides of the debate. Atheists presume to be scientific but only look at one side of the discussion.

Once again unless you've invented a way to scientifically test the supernatural, it's a moot point.

If creationists want to play in the scientific arena, they're bound by the rules of how science works and how scientific ideas are tested.

 

[pitabread]

There are many scientific arguments made for creationism dating back to 2005 and earlier. Which the overwhelming majority of christians and atheists have never heard of.

Some of us have been steeped in the creationism-evolution debate for decades now. We've heard those arguments.

In my experience, every single creationist argument usually has one or more of the following characteristics:

• misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the science in question
• assumption of design/creationism as the null hypothesis to scientific explanations for phenomena
• personal incredulity

What creationists need to do is come up with a cogent explanation that stands on its own and offers equivalent or superior explanatory power to current scientific explanations.

Creationists have never done that. Which is why creationism (and its off-shoots like the ID movement) have stagnated and are on the decline.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There are many scientific arguments made for creationism dating back to 2005 and earlier. Which the overwhelming majority of christians and atheists have never heard of.

The overwhelming majority of Christians and atheists that participate in online debates on the topic have indeed heard them.

 

[pitabread]

The overwhelming majority of Christians and atheists that participate in online debates on the topic have indeed heard them.

To add to this, I find that non-creationists in these debates seem more familiar with creationism/ID arguments than other creationists.

It actually mystifies me how unfamiliar at lot of creationists are with creationism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wasn’t aware of that, typically when we refer to a bearing today it’s in reference to balls or round pins used to reduce friction in rotating parts. I see your point but it’s still a very primitive concept.

It seems primitive to you because, as I said, you're familiar with it. But it's a counter-intuitive concept that requires quite a leap of imagination.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Basic history says: shadowy mysterious ruling elites have always been behind the majority of societal trends. You could look at Pythagoras being the leader of a secret society of ruling elites who pushed widespread cultural and political agendas 2,000+ years ago as a historical example.

Really? The Pythagorean school may have been secretive, but most histories of the time have it as just another cult-like philosophical group than a 'secret society of ruling elites'. What is your evidence for this idea?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's almost no one anywhere in the whole world who is bothering to cite even the most basic science supported creationism.

Perhaps that is because people who are familiar with both science and creationism generally recognise science-supported creationism as just another myth or scam - or maybe, like you, they think it would be pointless:

...I think you should make the effort to actually present these scientific evidences in the appropriate format of this forum.

It would be pointless.

People of today do not respect knowledge, truth or God enough to appreciate the value of such content.

A scientific approach is to examine both sides of the debate. Atheists presume to be scientific but only look at one side of the discussion.

If you can't or won't summarise the evidence in your own words, there is nothing to discuss ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I doubt many on this forum know enough basic science to comprehend what Einstein meant when he said: "God does not play dice with the universe". They lack the basic science knowledge to understand a simple quotation. Yet imagine they have the knowledge base necessary to put these topics into their proper context? Nope, nope, nope.

So how long have you been reading the 'Physical & Life Sciences' forums? You seem to have missed a lot...

BTW, were you aware that Einstein's 'God' was nature? His concept was like Spinoza's God, not supernatural, but nature itself - he said:

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions"

Do you really see Einstein's dice quote as some kind of endorsement of a Christian God?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Einstein had issues with the "spooky action at a distance" element of quantum entanglement.

Which the "God does not play dice with the universe" quotation does not cite.

The quote has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

Well, he wrote that quote in a letter discussing his reservations about the completeness of QM (that it could not be fundamentally probabilistic) and that he later followed up with another letter describing his view that some underlying rules would be found, saying, "In other words, God tirelessly plays dice under laws which he has himself prescribed."

I'm curious to know what you think the quote was about...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In human history, which demographic would you say wields the most political power and has been responsible for the majority of trends?

Until relatively recent times, that would have been religious authorities. What is your point?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't know if I can find a good source for it. Here's a hint.

We can see from Stephen Hawking's later retort to Einstein.

That quantum mechanics was not the topic they were addressing.

These are very controversial quotations as they invoke creationism to a degree. But not many know or are aware of it.

Are you after a Dunning-Kruger scholarship? That Hawking (mis)quote was from a talk he gave where he described Einstein's 'dice' quote as summing up Einstein's unhappiness with the uncertainty entailed in QM (specifically, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Later in that talk he went on to describe the loss of information in black holes via Hawking radiation, a quantum phenomenon, giving the misquote that you posted - what he actually said was,

"Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen."
S. Hawking

In case you missed it, both quotes were about quantum mechanics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... any amino acid that is used by a living organism must have been derived by a living organism...

No, this is just wrong. Not only can amino acids be produced on Earth by chemical processes not involving life (the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated that), but they're also found in interstellar space and on comets.

 

[HIM]

No, this is just wrong. Not only can amino acids be produced on Earth by chemical processes not involving life (.

Never said any different. Reread the post

 

[pitabread]

No proof of this, speculation and hypothesis. In other words it looks humanoid so it must be.
There is only one way to prove it scientifically in the fossil record and that evidence has not yet presented itself.

What does this mean exactly?

And as far common ancestry goes, there are more lines of evidence than just the fossils. You could have no fossils whatsoever and the evidence would still support common ancestry.

Are you familiar with the mutations in DNA? Most are not good.

Most mutations are neutral. You have at least a few dozen novel mutations compared to your parents.

And none have been observed to change something into something else.

As to what mutations have been observed to do, this includes basically every type of impact with respect to a biological organism: gain-of-function, loss-of-function, functional shifts, changes in gene expression, gene duplication, de novo gene formation, etc.

Insofar as the process of evolution changing populations over time, mutations are simply one mechanism among many that contribute to that process.

 

[Shemjaza]

agreed it is a subjective comment, but then so is yours.

Strongly disagree.

When I described it as a "garbage argument", I wasn't just saying that I disliked the conclusion, I was commenting that it wasn't logically sound.

One experiment failing to demonstrate abiogenesis is not reasonable evidence that abiogenesis is impossible.

For example if I were to claim that I had demonstrated evidence that there are kangaroos in Australia by showing that there is fecal matter from an animal of roughly the right size in my back yard and it was later demonstrated to be more likely to be from my dog that wouldn't become "negative evidence showing that there are no kangaroos".

But there is no Science to prove it. That was the point.
Amino acids are not living organisms and any amino acid that is used by a living organism must have been derived by a living organism, so the experiment proves what?
In order to have life you must have organic material period.

The experiment didn't create life and no one that I'm aware of ever claimed it did. It demonstrated that organic chemicals can form without the presence of life. We also know that in the presence of the right energy and catalysts organic chemicals can spontaneously form the kind long chain structures necessary for DNA, RNA and proteins.

We don't have "proof" of abiogenesis, we don't even have enough for a scientific theory, but we do have evidence.

No proof of this, speculation and hypothesis. In other words it looks humanoid so it must be.
There is only one way to prove it scientifically in the fossil record and that evidence has not yet presented itself.

Are you familiar with the mutations in DNA? Most are not good. And none have been observed to change something into something else.

No, we have detailed analysis of many extinct species and even DNA from a couple of them.

We also have the genetic analysis from extant species that show the same pattern of relatedness.

Every mutation is a very small change into something else... over a multitude of generations, what's to stop these small changes from building up?

No the point being is that Einstein through all his knowledge and intellect. Which is much more vast than ours seen God in all the complexity.

Isaac Newton was an amazing genius who advanced learning, mathematics and physics... he was also a devoted Christian theist.

Einstein was not. His conclusions were about the remarkable beauty of the world which he refereed to as God, he did not believe in any supernatural or personal God.

Which is all irrelevant to the evidence.

"A very smart man believed is something" isn't a profound argument if you can't demonstrate that their reason for believing in it is sound and justified.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I doubt many on this forum know enough basic science to comprehend what Einstein meant when he said: "God does not play dice with the universe". They lack the basic science knowledge to understand a simple quotation. Yet imagine they have the knowledge base necessary to put these topics into their proper context? Nope, nope, nope.

Well, I do. I also know the historical context of Einstein's statement about dice.

He was disparaging quantum mechanics, particularly the probabilistic interpretation of it.

(He also wasn't speaking of any god concept involving a divine Jesus, just to throw some cold water on any attempts for you or others to claim he was arguing for or making references to support for your religion.)