Share good examples of Christian Science

[Hans Blaster]

As said before, its basic history.

Not quite following this part of the convo...

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

OK, but what does this have to do with evolution/creationism, or as the thread title notes "good examples of Christian science"? Nothing as far as I can see.

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

The Church. Or, at least, the local religious leaders. Thankfully their influence is waning at least in the parts of the World I live in...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Never said any different. Reread the post

It's ambiguous, but the context suggests that by "derived by a living organism" you meant "made by a living organism". If that's not what you meant, what was the point of that comment?

 

[Gene2memE]

Did you watch the video.

I've been through 'Case for a Creator' around half a dozen times. I've even participated in a drinking game involving spot the fallacy while watching it - we had to call it off early, otherwise some people would have died from liver poisoning.

 

[Gene2memE]

There was no competition and no struggle present with evolutionary theory being adopted. There was never an open discussion or debate between creationism and evolution that was credible or objective. Nor any real attempt made to vet competing theories like creationism or evolution for integrity.

Evolutionary theory was simply pushed through by deep pockets, big money and powerful political connections.

I don't think I've ever seen quite as good an example of someone talking about a subject they clearly know zero about. And yet carrying on anyway.

I've printed your post out. I may frame it in the future.

For future reference though:

There were a range of competing ideas about what we'd now call evolutionary biology forwarded through the 1800s and into the early stages of the 1900s. When Wallace & Darwin published, their idea was deeply controversial, prompted much academic and public debate, and swam against the current of Victorian religious and political trends. It took more than a decade of debate before it was accepted. Darwin deliberately delayed publishing on more controversial parts of his theory - books dealing with humans and sex - for fear of the backlash.

 

[HIM]

I've been through 'Case for a Creator' around half a dozen times. I've even participated in a drinking game involving spot the fallacy while watching it - we had to call it off early, otherwise some people would have died from liver poisoning.

I don't believe you

 

[HIM]

It's ambiguous, but the context suggests that by "derived by a living organism" you meant "made by a living organism". If that's not what you meant, what was the point of that comment?

No it isn't. And no I meant derived. There is a difference. Here is the section again in bold emphasis.

The Amino acids are not living organisms (in the experiment) 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.

 

[HIM]

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.



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



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.

And yet "a" is still "a" in all that we see and have observed; science.

 

[pitabread]

And yet "a" is still "a" in all that we see and have observed; science.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[HIM]

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".



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.

Any amino acid used by cells originate from cells of either plants or animals. You must have life to get life in other words.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Any amino acid used by cells originate from cells of either plants or animals. You must have life to get life in other words.

Can you justify this claim about amino acids?

It seems rather odd, since the actual experiment being discussed is one in which amino acids formed from chemistry rather than life.

It's also odd since amino acids can be found in all kinds of places in space.

What actually is your point about amino acids? It isn't clear.

 

[Gene2memE]

I don't believe you

Why not?

Is there anything implausible about what I wrote?

 

[Yttrium]

Can you justify this claim about amino acids?

What actually is your point about amino acids? It isn't clear.

HIM thinks that amino acids used by living cells are somehow different than amino acids formed from non-life chemistry, and can't be produced by non-life chemistry.

 

[Hans Blaster]

HIM thinks that amino acids used by living cells are somehow different than amino acids formed from non-life chemistry, and can't be produced by non-life chemistry.

Next thing we'll get living and non-living water. Sigh.

He also seems to think there is something special about "organic matter". For the record, organic chemistry (and with it organic molecules) is just the chemistry of molecules containing carbon. And carbon just requires a planet form from the ejecta of star that made carbon. (i.e., all rocky planets)

 

[Shemjaza]

Any amino acid used by cells originate from cells of either plants or animals. You must have life to get life in other words.

What's the difference between an amino acid that developed within life and without?

 

[klutedavid]

It's entirely plausible. Nomads and hunter-gatherers have little or no use for the wheel. It's only with the advent of agriculture and settled communities (around 10,000 years BC) that such technologies became useful.

I think that many ancient sites of human habitation were on rivers, or near the ocean. Fishing and gathering edible marine produce, seems to be more what the ancients spent their time on.

We may have been more settled in older times than what folk might think.

Lots of predators roaming the countryside in ancient times. The women and children would need some kind fenced enclosure to survive.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So what. Depending on their field they could easily partition their God and young Earth beliefs from their work. For example, consider my field and its subfields: physics

Condensed matter (solid state) physics: Nothing in this field dependent on the age of the Earth, etc.

Plasma physics: see above

Atomic physics: see above

Particle physics: see above*

Nuclear physics: see above**

Biophysics: Evolution gets in the works a bit with the subject matter. A young Earth position might be problematic with doing your work.

Astronomy/Astrophysics/Cosmology: Now we have a serious problem. Nothing in these areas works at all under a young Earth/Universe understanding. Being a functional astronomer with a young Earth position would be quite difficult. (God, not such a problem, but this is one of those fields that demonstrate the Earth/Universe is quite a bit older than 10,000 years.)


We could do similar things with other fields that don't directly touch the age of the Earth/Universe much like chemistry.


*/**Common "explanations" for the apparent age of things and the young Earth often involve accelerated decay, varying the speed of light, etc. These physicists will understand the underlying physics that must be violated and the consequences very well and will not find these "explanations" plausible given the basic realities explored in their fields.

Ok but making the blanket statement that I ignore scientist in general is inaccurate and not all YE scientists are working in fields that don’t directly involve the age of the earth. Many of them are archeologists and geologists and some are even cosmetologists!! XD

 

[BNR32FAN]

An illogical statement in using the Bible as a reference to date a Mesopotamian potter wheel.

Not only do you not understand the science of dating but the definition of history as well.
History is about written records, for example there are no cuneiform texts of Mesopotamians using potter wheels which provide a time frame.

You have well and truly dug a hole for yourself as the 3,500BC estimate is based on the very dating techniques you reject.

My intention wasn’t to validate when the wheel was invented, it was to compare scientific evidence between when historians and scientists claim the wheel was invented and the progression of technological advancements since then. So any errors in the claim of when the wheel was invented falls on the historians and scientists who made the claim not on me. Obviously I simply cited their work, I didn’t conduct the study myself.

You claim that I don’t know how carbon and thermoluminescence dating works but I explained exactly why they’re not accurate. Perhaps instead of making the simple claim that I don’t know how they work you could actually explain where I erred in my explanation of why they’re inaccurate. I’m order for carbon dating to be accurate we must know how much C14 was in the atmosphere when the life form died. The fact is we don’t have any way of KNOWING how much C14 was in the atmosphere before 1940. We can PREDICT how much there was based on the CURRENT RATE of C14 increase we observe today but we cannot predict what changes may have occurred in that rate before we were able to measure it. The same problem exists with thermoluminescence dating. We can only PREDICT how much gamma radiation an object has absorbed based on the amount it’s been exposed to when we were first able to read gamma radiation but we can’t be certain that this amount has been constant. Especially when scientists believe solar storms have been taking place about once per century. These massive waves of radiation would be greatly increasing the amount of gamma each object absorbed making it appear to be much older than it actually is. So if you disagree with this explanation please explain why it is incorrect.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And this response doesn't make any sense either as I asked you where you got a figure of 300,000 years for aboriginal occupation of Australia such as providing a peer reviewed paper.
You plucked this figure out of thin air and passed it off as a fact.

No that’s not true at all. Google how long has man existed and you’ll find all sorts of different predictions. I chose a mid range prediction which was the very first one at the top of the list of sites.

How Long Have Humans Been On Earth?.

So your accusation is false.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why do these lists of scientists who were Christians never mention Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
[or]
Michael Servetus (1511-1553), who discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood

When pushing the theory that Science and Christianity go hand in hand, it's poor form to talk about the early scientists that the church authorities set on fire.

 

[Hans Blaster]

cosmetologists!!

I really don't care what the cosmetologists believe, it isn't relevant.