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

[Bradskii]

Still dodging. I’m moving

I actually asked the question that he avoided answering. So I don’t know what you are rambling on about.

You asked a gotcha. Which tells us more about you and not anything about the subject matter. Of course astronomers disagree. They are scientists. It's part of their job description to look for errors in existing theories in order to improve them. But to use that, as you so obviously are doing, to imply that basic scientific facts are open to be questioned, when what you are suggesting is out by so many multiple orders of magnitute that you aren't even wrong, is quite honestly farcical. Again, it's equivalent to claiming that the distance from east coast to west is a few feet.

So here's your answer: Yes, astronomers disagree.

Now you obviously asked the question for a reason. So please tell us what you now have to bring to the discussion as a result of that answer.

 

[Hammster]

You asked a gotcha.

It must have worked.

 

[Bradskii]

It must have worked.

And you got a reply. So what are you now going to do with that information? My guess is absolutely nothing. But feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Hammster]

And you got a reply. So what are you now going to do with that information? My guess is absolutely nothing. But feel free to prove me wrong.

It’s already been shown that I cannot seem to post in a way you understand. So I don’t see the point.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s already been shown that I cannot seem to post in a way you understand. So I don’t see the point.

My guess was right...

 

[Ophiolite]

I see you cleverly avoided my original question. So I’ll ask again. Do astronomers ever disagree on anything?

Not about fundamental questions.

Still dodging. I’m moving on now

@Hammster I am somewhere on the spectrum between perplexed and astounded. @driewerf 's response implicitly acknowledges that astronomers may disagree about many things, but not - explicitly - fundamental matters. That is to say your question was answered. There was no dodging involved. You have made an direct unfair assertion about the driewerf's posting style. I hope you will respond appropriately.

 

[Hammster]

@Hammster I am somewhere on the spectrum between perplexed and astounded. @driewerf 's response implicitly acknowledges that astronomers may disagree about many things, but not - explicitly - fundamental matters. That is to say your question was answered. There was no dodging involved. You have made a direct unfair assertion about the driewerf's posting style. I hope you will respond appropriately.

I disagree. Throughout the history of science, there have been disagreements that have led to changes in what we believe today. To assume that what we know today is settled without argument is a bit on the arrogant side.

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree. Throughout the history of science, there have been disagreements that have led to changes in what we believe today. To assume that what we know today is settled without argument is a bit on the arrogant side.

The only arrogance being displayed here is from someone who suggests that the age of the planet has been incorrectly deduced... by a factor of 750,000. So you did have a response to the fact that scientists disagree on some aspects of certain disciplines. Which is nothing more than a complete and utter repudiation of astronomy, astrophysics and heaven knows how many scientific diciplines. It's no more than I said it would be: 'hey, they sometimes disagree so we have to question everything they do agree on.'

I was going to say that it's pretty desperate reasoning. But it isn't even that. There is no reason involved. Simply a rejection of all science in favour of a fundamental interpretation of scripture. And even (and this most perplexing) a rejection at times of the very posts you have made yourself.

You can answer one more question. Not as anyone with anything to offer in this thread, but as a member of the staff. On the old system there used to be a simple method of placing someone on ignore. That seems to have dissapeared. Perhaps you can tell me how to do it. I'd like to utilise it.

 

[kiwimac]

The only arrogance being displayed here is from someone who suggests that the age of the planet has been incorrectly deduced... by a factor of 750,000. So you did have a response to the fact that scientists disagree on some aspects of certain disciplines. Which is nothing more than a complete and utter repudiation of astronomy, astrophysics and heaven knows how many scientific diciplines. It's no more than I said it would be: 'hey, they sometimes disagree so we have to question everything they do agree on.'

I was going to say that it's pretty desperate reasoning. But it isn't even that. There is no reason involved. Simply a rejection of all science in favour of a fundamental interpretation of scripture. And even (and this most perplexing) a rejection at times of the very posts you have made yourself.

You can answer one more question. Not as anyone with anything to offer in this thread, but as a member of the staff. On the old system there used to be a simple method of placing someone on ignore. That seems to have dissapeared. Perhaps you can tell me how to do it. I'd like to utilise it.

You can't place a staff member on Ignore. Unfortunately.

 

[sjastro]

I disagree. Throughout the history of science, there have been disagreements that have led to changes in what we believe today. To assume that what we know today is settled without argument is a bit on the arrogant side.

 

[Bradskii]

You can't place a staff member on Ignore. Unfortunately.

So that's why I can't find it. It's a cross I shall bear.

 

[driewerf]

Still dodging. I’m moving

Cutting edge science and new research will be actively debated and as new data comes in corrections and improvements will be done. This does not apply to basic aspects of the different sciences. And the distance that separates us from the Andromeda Galaxy is not cutting edge research. The constancy of the speed of light is not cutting edge science. It’s a fundamental pilar on which big sections of modern physics rests, and if this was uncertain in any aspect, the whole of modern physics would have collapsed since long.
If you think for example the recent discovery of very early galaxies by the James Webb Telescope, and the corrections they will require on the current models, somehow will suddenly validate the YEC *model* then you are astonishingly wrong.

So here you have your answer.

Now your turn:
By the way, you still haven’t explained how the Andromeda Galaxy can be at a distance of 2.5 million light years away and the light we see travelled in a shorter period of time than 6.000 years . You have said that “Christian scientists” had tackled the issue but not said how the explained that. I would like to know what they found.

For good measure, I refer to post #1069.

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

I already agreed that x distance is x distance. I’m not sure why you keep acting as if I’m denying that. You can't be that ignorant about astronomy. As I said, distance equals time. You said you didn't agree that the universe is billions of years old. You cannot agree that something is billions...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

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?

Genesis clearly marks a division He made the beast of the earth after his kind (1:24-25). Then in verse 26 He says let Us make man in our image. Just because He created both on this day does not indicate the one derived from the other. The main difference between man and beast is not the physical make up or DNA, the main reason man is different and was created to be is we are His image and man came to life when God breathed into Adam giving man an eternal soul. Man is an eternal being and was created to be so by God. No other animal was given this. So no matter what evolutionist may think my God is not an evolved being nor was I evolved but Created by Him and for Him.

 

[driewerf]

Genesis clearly marks a division He made the beast of the earth after his kind (1:24-25). Then in verse 26 He says let Us make man in our image. Just because He created both on this day does not indicate the one derived from the other. The main difference between man and beast is not the physical make up or DNA, the main reason man is different and was created to be is we are His image and man came to life when God breathed into Adam giving man an eternal soul. Man is an eternal being and was created to be so by God. No other animal was given this.

Empty rhetoric that goes against all empirical evidence.

So no matter what evolutionist may think my God is not an evolved being nor was I evolved but Created by Him and for Him.

It must give some comfort to be closed for all evidence.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

Empty rhetoric that goes against all empirical evidence.

It must give some comfort to be closed for all evidence.

So I am to take the ideals of man over the Word of God? If evolution is so easily explained why have they not found all of the links to every spieces? Where is your "empirical evidence"? I can take all of the ingredients that would be needed to make a cake and put them into a bowl in random amounts. No measurements just dump and mix. These same ingredients are used to make other desserts and my mixtures would have different results. Most would not be palatable due to the unspecified measurements eventually I may end up with cake.
God is not a God of chaos He did not just take a bunch of random stuff hoping that it would evolve into man. He Created. He did not sit back to see what would come out of a catalyst He started. There is no solid ground for evolution for even man designs and builds we are made in His image. I would hope to think you would not believe your computer evolved from a box full of random parts.

 

[Mountainmike]

I have no idea what book you are referring to. The only book I mentioned in my comment was the Bible.


That is your opinion. For a person claiming to be a scientist you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about science research.


Eucharistic miracles are not scientific evidence of the Christian or other god. There are many miraculous cures by shamans worldwide.

Miraculous Healing: A Pathologist's Comments

I have given you plenty to follow. Read serafinis book. It will explain the issues including DNA, although you will find haplogroups hard going, if you are new to DNA typing. You either read it or you dont.
I have no idea of what you talking about or who or what serafinisor or haplogroup. It is as if you are purposely being cryptic.


Then why does it upset you?

I find areas of science interesting and informative. In addition particular areas of science has given me a better understanding of my patients and how best to work with them. While you may have had some negative experiences with science, you appear to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Precisely. You mentioned the bible and you respected millers exegesis of abiogenesis.
But if you do not believe the bible holds any authority, how can you respect any exegesis of it?
That was sophistry on your part


So called Shamanic "healings" are utterly irrelevant are a total straw man on your part.
Please keep to critical thinking.

The forensic evidence of eucharistic miracles is in the pathologists view - evidence of created heart tissue from bread.
This is about creation. Tissue which should not be alive or recently alive in vitro because white cells lyse raidly after death, but they are on the slides and sections.
Study it. The DNA evidence shows they are not a simple fraud, since the DNA of the fraudster ot victim would be identificable
These show human DNA but not nuclear human identity sequences. (human identification is a set of repeat counts of otherwise redundant DNA)
It seems the heart tissue of the nuclear DNA of the miracles is " bar code all zero" but the MtDNA shows haplogroups
Therefore it is real human tissue. It may yet be that the DNA of shroud and sudarium deposits are shown to have similar MtDNA to the miracles.

The "process" used to create it was a blessing, which in catholic exegesis IS a conversion from bread to flesh.
Since nobody else claims that, it is therefore it is a context for the christian and Catholic God.
It is not proof - however it is strong evidence. Both of Creation and of the Christian God.
Regardless of that it disproves darwinian evolution by the test Darwin himself set.
The veracity of eucharistic miracles is a high stakes game in the arguments between creation and evolution.


I find it odd, that on the one hand...
- you happily talk of the "science" of abiogenesis - whilst knowing that there is no evidence whatsoever of where, what , when or how it happened. The minimum cell we know is hideously complex. There is no process for abiogenesis, and even if there were, there . There are clear problems with irreducible complexity. The only "design" of suggested intermediate stages such as autocatalyzing polymers are clearly Intelligent design, not random, and they do not sustain despite the army of Phds working on it.

-yet you dismiss out of hand actual forensic evidence of what appears to be created heart tissue.

The objective observer would say your opinions are a priori biassed! The objective observer would be right!


Answer me the following questions.

1/ You said "creationist nonsense"
Do you consider all talk of creation "nonsense" or only young earth?

And as an exercise in logic not belief. Separate the two for the purposes of this question.
2/ Do you accept that IFF cells of heart tissue could be created in our time ( as a premisefor the argument)
That if creation is possible at all, you cannot rule out all you perceive being created at any time.
So you cannot rule out the entire universe created with apparent age rather than real age?
That is just a deduction from the premise.

3/ So where did gravity come from?

(You cannot use it as an explanation of why anything else exists or acts, if you cannot explain why that exists.
Therefore the natural law (which is actually just a pattern of observation) is not an explanation of anything, whilst being a very useful pattern for control of our environment)

 

[driewerf]

So I am to take the ideals of man over the Word of God?

Which word of god? The Quran? The Bhagavad Gita? The book of Mormon? The Illiad? It seems that the god talk a lot, but not coherently. As for “the ideas of man”, that is typical creationist down talking of scientific research. Everything they don’t like is downgraded to “opinion of fallible men”.

If evolution is so easily explained why have they not found all of the links to every spieces?

Because it is a work in progress. Visit a site like sciencedaily.com or Siencetechdaily . Every paper or article published is a little bit more knowledge we have acquired about the physical world. No science is finished, but all increase our knowledge.
That is why research is an on going process. As we speak some palealontolgist is digging up extra fossils. Some lab technician is sequencing a protein. Others are investigating DNA with restriction enzymes. As we speak scientists finding more and more evidence. Evry day, every hour. We have already plenty of it to be certain. But there is always more to investigate.

Where is your "empirical evidence"?

In the fossils, in the geographical distribution of animals ad plants and in your blood. Yep. You carry the evidence for evolution in your own blood.

I can take all of the ingredients that would be needed to make a cake and put them into a bowl in random amounts. No measurements just dump and mix. These same ingredients are used to make other desserts and my mixtures would have different results. Most would not be palatable due to the unspecified measurements eventually I may end up with cake.

And nobody pretends otherwise. You are just showing your ignorance.

God is not a God of chaos He did not just take a bunch of random stuff hoping that it would evolve into man. He Created. He did not sit back to see what would come out of a catalyst He started.

Empty rhetoric.

There is no solid ground for evolution for even man designs and builds we are made in His image. I would hope to think you would not believe your computer evolved from a box full of random parts.

Ah, the watch and the watchmaker argument. How compelling. Creationists haven’t even figured out yet the difference between dead objects and living organisms. And they want to lecture us about science.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

Which word of god? The Quran? The Bhagavad Gita? The book of Mormon? The Illiad? It seems that the god talk a lot, but not coherently. As for “the ideas of man”, that is typical creationist down talking of scientific research. Everything they don’t like is downgraded to “opinion of fallible men”.

Because it is a work in progress. Visit a site like sciencedaily.com or Siencetechdaily . Every paper or article published is a little bit more knowledge we have acquired about the physical world. No science is finished, but all increase our knowledge.

In the fossils, in the geographical distribution of animals ad plants and in your blood. Yep. You carry the evidence for evolution in your own blood.

And nobody pretends otherwise. You are just showing your ignorance.

Empty rhetoric.

Ah, the watch and the watchmaker argument. How compelling. Creationists haven’t even figured out yet the difference between dead objects and living organisms. And they want to lecture us about science.

Man was dead before God breathed life into him. Lazarus was dead and rose from the dead into life. Tabitha came back to life. Most importantly Jesus died and rose again. So dead into life We do understand maybe it is you who has not grasped the concept? Ezekiel and the dead bones? If you wish to argue that all the living tissue had not perished.

 

[Mountainmike]

Which word of god? The Quran? The Bhagavad Gita? The book of Mormon? The Illiad? It seems that the god talk a lot, but not coherently. As for “the ideas of man”, that is typical creationist down talking of scientific research. Everything they don’t like is downgraded to “opinion of fallible men”.

Because it is a work in progress. Visit a site like sciencedaily.com or Siencetechdaily . Every paper or article published is a little bit more knowledge we have acquired about the physical world. No science is finished, but all increase our knowledge.

In the fossils, in the geographical distribution of animals ad plants and in your blood. Yep. You carry the evidence for evolution in your own blood.

And nobody pretends otherwise. You are just showing your ignorance.

Empty rhetoric.

Ah, the watch and the watchmaker argument. How compelling. Creationists haven’t even figured out yet the difference between dead objects and living organisms. And they want to lecture us about science.

You seem to have a false dichotomy. Creationists and scientists.
Alas I am both.

Science is a useful tool for analysign observations of the universe. For finding useful patterns in them. Science is a hammer. A tool.

Creation is about how the universe and life came to exist. So The two are not alternatives.


Since science cannot know the extent of the universe beyond the blurred projection from our senses, neither can it say what it is , or where it came from. So your belief is no more valid than mine.

Take.. Gravity is a behaviour observation pattern. You cannot say why it is, or how it came to exist. You cannot say it will always do what it has been observed to do in our narrow space of time and space. Dark matter ( the name for an error term) says it is not as good a model as you hope elsewhere in the universe! Science is just useful tool.

As for abiogenesis , the least complex living cell we know is still hideously complex. It is a self evolving self repairing chemical factory far more complex than any man has built. It takes books to describe the chemical pathways in it.

You presume that first cel(s)l came to be by random chemical process. Yet you cannot say when, where, how or what happened. You have no pathway defined for how, where, when or under what conditions it could have happened, or why it is not still happening. There is a clear irreducible complexity problem arising from the definition of "life" if we take "self maintining , capable of darwinian evolution" as the yardstick.

How did life bridge the gap from non living to an irreducibly complex living cell?

At best there are a few pieces of intelligent design of interesting chemicals that might (or might not) have been a small part of a process you cannot even say happened.

Is there a difference between the evidence for our beliefs?

As it happens yes. As I point out on other threads I can show you forensic evidence that pathologists say are compelling evidence of created cells.
You can show me no evidence at all for life occuring as a process of chemistry. Not when, where, or how or any process for it.
I might believe it is possible if there is some evidence produced.

Show some humility in the light of what you do not know and can never know.








What is your definition of life?

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

Man was dead before God breathed life into him. Lazarus was dead and rose from the dead into life. Tabitha came back to life. Most importantly Jesus died and rose again. So dead into life We do understand maybe it is you who has not grasped the concept? Ezekiel and the dead bones? If you wish to argue that all the living tissue had not perished.

The Word John 1:1 In the beginnig was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. I am the way the Truth and the Life no man comes unto the Father except thru me. If you proclaim to be Christian then there is only one Word that is true all others are lies. There is only one God and One way to get to heaven. If the Bible is not true than Jesus was a liar; insane and a complete lunatic. The other books you mention are not the Truth If you believe anything and follow anyone but Jesus then you cannot rightfully call yourself Christian you may have a form but deny the power thereof.
If Genesis is not true than the rest can be taken as a falsehood as well. Either God created or He did not, therefore if His word and salvation plan are also to be questioned where is Hope?