Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Hammster]

Anything substantive to say?

The substance of my response was equal to the substance of your comment.

 

[Hammster]

Bradskii:
Which it doesn't. It says the universe is billions of years old. So astronomy as a science would cease to exist if you had your way. It took long enough, but that's one down.

And again, we have to ask: your immense expertise in this matter is based on what?
How many years have you studied astronomy, mathematics, physics? To which telescopes do you have access? What observations have you made?
Or is just saying "wrong" enough now?

That’s quite a fallacy you have there.

 

[driewerf]

That’s quite a fallacy you have there.

Then show us your physics. As already requested realier.

 

[Hammster]

Then show us your physics. As already requested realier.

Again, your point is fallacious. It assumes that someone must be an expert in something in order to comment on something. I figured you get to it at some point. I’m not disappointed.

 

[driewerf]

Again, your point is fallacious. It assumes that someone must be an expert in something in order to comment on something. I figured you get to it at some point. I’m not disappointed.

False. But until now you have only be able to say "wrong". Nothing else. Never, why the science is wrong, or more precisely, what data contradicts the current models in astronomy. You fit exactly in the description that I gave of creationists as anti science.

 

[driewerf]

Hammster said:
All I can do is to reiterate what I said and repeat that it isn’t a threat.

I am inclined to believe you. Now explain how these fragments need to be understood.

And I would like you to comment on these threats that aren't threats. How I need to understand:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
and
You should see it as a very real consequence for continuing to deny the truth. There’s a command to repent and believe the gospel. It should be obeyed.

 

[Mountainmike]

That is simply your opinion. Most intelligent people would place more weight on an expert biblical linguist's reading of the bible over yours.

Miller was clear that God is the ultimate cause. It is you who is confusing them.


The only evidence we have for OoL is we live in a natural world. Miller's interpretation of the bible is God provided the natural laws that created life. He shows that is what the book of Genesis is saying. Your interpretation bypasses the natural laws.


Wow!!!!! Claiming authority.


So you are claiming that abiogenesis is too complicated. Perhaps the prebiotic chemists should just throw in the towel.


I don't agree. If you think it is a problem for prebiotic chemists then you should convince them.


As a scientist you should be aware that claiming something is "too complicated" is not evidence.


Forensic evidence is not scientific evidence. DNA is both scientific and forensic. Please produce the forensic evidence that is as reliable and predictable as DNA.


It is not what I believe or don't that matters. I am simply following OoL because I find it interesting science. If tomorrow scientists were to produce life from inorganic chemicals most Christians would still see and believe God as the ultimate cause. Wouldn't you?

Miller is entitled to an opinion as a biblical linguist
But that is all it is. I am sure he does not claim the "infallibility" you seem to give his view!
Now please actually READ what he said. I distinguished his opinion on ultimate and proximate causes correctly.

I dont "think it is a problem for prebiotic chemists"
There is no prebiotic chemistry to study other than speculation. So there are no prebiotic chemists per se.
It is complicated and they have nothing at all in evidence. It is a problem for the army of "prebiotic chemist speculators".
They are entited to speculate. Speculation is how knowledge advances.

I may even agree with them, if they ever come up with some evidence that life can occur that way.
But even they have no way to account for consciousness outside the body.

What I do know is, Ihave forensic aka scientific evidence that creation can happen.
So no need to complicate the world by presuming a blind watchmaker can do the same.

You have no evidence for abiogenesis before the least complicated present day cell. At best you have conjecture on what might have happened, and that is only a few intermediate possibilities. There is no end to end hypothesis. Nobody knows when, where or how it happened.

Now consider how weak your case is.
If I said "hey there is a miracle" I do not know when where or how it happened or even what happened, but I think...
You would laugh me out and rightly so.
But that is the strength of your evidence for abiogenesis. You have none at all. Not how, where, when, a conjectured pathway, the first steps. NADA. Nothing. A load of atheists primarily have hyped conjecture out of all proportion because they do not like what they presume as alternative - creation.

But I can point at cell sections, timestamped tv footage, lab chemical analysis, dna analysis . CT scans that show (for example) the bleeding statue of cochabamba really did bleed human blood, with mashed epithelial cells showing trauma even a few thorn cells thrown in. Judging by white cells it was also recently live, and is proof of trauma.
They appeared live on air, with no pathways in the statue for fraud.
Unlike your "dont know how, where , when or whether..first conjectured abiogenesis cells" .
These are real cells, on which real tests have been done. Fascinating they are too.


You are clearly confused on terms.
Part of the forensic evidence which is scientific evidence is DNA evidence. Both nuclear and mitochondrial. It goes a long way to showing it cannot be a fraud.


As I have pointed out many times.
What happens is "natural" by definition of it happening.
So eucharistic miracles are natural. And God is a part of nature.

When you say "natural law" all you mean is what the universe is observed to do through our narrow lense on it.
.
You cannot say what gravity "is" or why gravity "is" , you can only say what it normally does within limits, and with no guarantee it will always do the same, or indeed the model that works in our local, works everywhere and always. Dark matter says it does not work everywhere. Dark matter is the name for an error term in the model. Where the error is bigger than the known matter.

It is all part of the modern disease of assuming science knows more than it does.
Or indeed that it can say more than it can.

Your reasoning is proof of the problem of woefully bad education on philsophy of science.. You have this idea that "natural laws" somehow imply "cause" or that a model of observed phenomena is the same as a model of the underlying reality.
They are not. Ask Kant. Go back to the science before science. The epistemiology.

 

[Frank Robert]

Miller is entitled to an opinion as a biblical linguist.
But that is all it is.
Now please actually READ what he said. I distinguished his opinion on ultimate and proximate causes correctl.

You are entitled to your opinion and I others are entitled on whose opinion they place more trust in. I am familar with Professor Miller from reading his comments and interacting with him on PS. All I know about you is from what you write on CF.

I dont "think it is a problem for prebiotic chemists"
It is complicated and they have nothing at all in evidence.
It is a problem for the army of "prebiotic chemist speculators". They are entited to speculate.
I may even agree with them, if they come up with some evidence that life can occur that way.
What I do know is, Ihave forensic aka scientific evidence that creation can happen.
So no need to complicate the world by presuming a blind watchmaker can do the same.

Your assumptions are incorrect.
I do not doubt that you have forensic evidence but you have not shown it is reliable and predicable when it comes to OoL. You can convince us by producing forensic evidence that consistently produces accurate results.

You have no evidence for abiogenesis before the least complicated present day cell. At best you have conjecture on what might have happened, and that is only a few intermediate possibilities. There is no end to end hypothesis. Nobody knows when, where or how it happened.

I have not claimed that there is evidence for abiogenesis and I agree that OoL is one of sciences' great questions. The difference between us is that it appears you have predetermined that life came about through supernatural origins. Perhaps I am wrong so I ask, have you ruled out that OoL could have come about through natural means?

When you say "natural law" all you mean is what the universe is observed to do through our narrow lense on it.
.
You cannot say what gravity "is" or why gravity "is" , you can only say what it normally does within limits, and with no guarantee it will always do the same, or indeed the model that works in our local, works everywhere and always. Dark matter says it does not work everywhere. Dark matter is the name for an error term in the model. Where the error is bigger than the known matter.

Again your are assumptions are incorrect. They appear to be based on apologetics found on Discovery Institute, AIG and other similar creationist sites.

I am agnostic, as such, I have no idea weather a god exists or not. If god does not exist then our only means of understanding OoL is through natural means using our sciences. If a creator god does exist then he would be the ultimate cause of life regardless of what humans believe but the only way we would know for certain is if god revealed himself.

It is all part of the modern disease of assuming science knows more than it does.
Or indeed can say more than it can.

Having an interest in current science and origins is not a disease modern or otherwise.

Your reasoning is proof of the problem of woefully bad education on philsophy of science.. You have this idea that "natural laws" somehow imply "cause" or that a model of observed phenomena is the same as a model of the underlying reality. They are not. Ask Kant.

Again you are incorrect. FYI, I don't take offense from personal attacks I simply take note of the source.

 

[driewerf]

Do I understand you well that when we see scratched rocks from previous ice ages, we have to tell ourselves that these scratches aren’t there?
Do I understand you well that when we see the neutron star from a previous supernova, we have to tell ourselves that that neutron star isn’t real?
Do I understand you well that when we observe magnetic reversals in the ocean floor millions of years old, we have to tell ourselves that these reversals aren’t there?

Nothing millions of years old has ever been observed.

Yet here above are all examples of things observed that are millions of years old. Just saying "Not true" or any equivalent of that won't do.
So yes or no, do we have to tell ourselves that what we see, what we record is false.
Has your god created a world full of lies?

 

[Bradskii]

I assume that your point is that it takes billions of years for light to reach us from distant stars. Do you think that there might be some Christian astronomers out there that have tackled this problem?

The speed of light is the bedrock on which astronomy works. If you say it's wrong because of what you read in the bible, then astronomy ceases to exist. This is the point I am making. There's no need to make assumptions. I'm being clear enough. Astronomy, according to you, from your understanding of the bible, is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. A waste of everyone's time doing it, researching it, writing about it, reading about it, studying it, teaching it...it's a dead science.

Let's do geology next.

 

[Bradskii]

Just to be clear, any science that ignores that the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago, and gives us ages that are far beyond that timeframe, is incorrect

Exactly the point I have been making. All those scientific disciplines I noted are completely useless according to you. Why have you been arguing against that for umpteen posts and now state exactly what I have been saying?

 

[Hammster]

False. But until now you have only be able to say "wrong". Nothing else. Never, why the science is wrong, or more precisely, what data contradicts the current models in astronomy. You fit exactly in the description that I gave of creationists as anti science.

Lol. Mkay.

 

[Hammster]

Hammster said:
All I can do is to reiterate what I said and repeat that it isn’t a threat.

And I would like you to comment on these threats that aren't threats. How I need to understand:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
and
You should see it as a very real consequence for continuing to deny the truth. There’s a command to repent and believe the gospel. It should be obeyed.

It’s only a threat if you see justice as threatening.

 

[Hammster]

The speed of light is the bedrock on which astronomy works. If you say it's wrong because of what you read in the bible, then astronomy ceases to exist. This is the point I am making. There's no need to make assumptions. I'm being clear enough. Astronomy, according to you, from your understanding of the bible, is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. A waste of everyone's time doing it, researching it, writing about it, reading about it, studying it, teaching it...it's a dead science.

Still no. But I’m tired of repeating myself.

 

[Hammster]

Exactly the point I have been making. All those scientific disciplines I noted are completely useless according to you. Why have you been arguing against that for umpteen posts and now state exactly what I have been saying?

Because I’m not arguing against science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because I’m not arguing against science.

When you say

any science that ignores that the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago, and gives us ages that are far beyond that timeframe, is incorrect

You are in fact arguing against science. Anything else is a distinction without a difference.

 

[Bradskii]

Because I’m not arguing against science.

You keep saying that. But you have just said that the basis for any astronomical observations of anything except nearby objects is utterly wrong. How it it even possible for you to say that you are not arguing against science when you are literally saying that the science is wrong?

 

[peaceful-forest]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

Creatures share things like DNA, looks, etc. is because we all have the same Designer.

Answers in Genesis has a video about the Common Designer: Common Designer

 

[Hammster]

When you say

You are in fact arguing against science. Anything else is a distinction without a difference.

That’s incorrect.

 

[Hammster]

You keep saying that. But you have just said that the basis for any astronomical observations of anything except nearby objects is utterly wrong. How it it even possible for you to say that you are not arguing against science when you are literally saying that the science is wrong?

Once again I’m not saying that all science is wrong.