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

[Frank Robert]

And they give to their idols to try to gain favor with them. My God gave His son as a sacrifice to pay mankinds sin debt. My God lives and is not a statue created and worshiped by man. There are many false religions made up by man to evade the Truth it is easier to create a god that can be manipulated to suit what one desires to be truth.

Under Heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.​

All can know good as good only because there is evil.​

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu ​

​

 

[Mountainmike]

I will no longer answer you point by point because your are in denial.

You deny all evidence that is contrary to your belief but never produce contrary evidence.
Apologetics ≠ Scientific evidence.

Examples: you deny chimp empathy. No reason or contrary evidence for your denial. Dito chimp memory.

You continuously attack science that is contrary to your beliefs and scientists' work you dislike. Never an iota of evidence to back up your beliefs, you even fail to supply any links to sources for your opinions. You don't even give credit for where you get your opinions or apologetics.

You continue to harp on abiogeneis without the slightest understanding that it is a legitimate area of research. Again no source for your babbling that it's too complicated.

I have stated a dozen times I do not disagree that there are miraculous cures. If there is scientific evidence for eucharistic miricles I consider them in the same vein as spontaneous remission of cancer (SR)of cancers that which are backed up with scientific evidence.

I provided my sources of why Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence.

You deny it but fail to provide any legitimate sources to back up your denial. Following good practices for forensics dose not make forensics evidence scientific. You believe it does but are unable show any evidence for your belief.

Here it is again:

Forensic Science: Problems and Solutions​

Forensic Science: Problems and Solutions - Innocence Project

Through the examination of more than 360 DNA exonerations, the Innocence Project has seen many examples of problems in the foundation or application of forensic science, including: Unreliable or invalid forensic discipline. Studies

innocenceproject.org

Forensic science, or more specifically, problems in forensic science, contributes to many wrongful convictions, as seen in in nearly half (45%) of DNA exoneration cases and one-quarter (24%) of all exonerations in the United States.​

​

The main reasons:​

Unreliable or invalid forensic discipline.​

Insufficient validation of a method.​

Misleading testimony.​

A second source:

How Scientific Is Forensic Science?

How Scientific Is Forensic Science? - JSTOR Daily

We like to think that physical evidence is a foolproof way to lock in a conviction. The problem is that forensic science isn't exactly a science.

daily.jstor.org

"We like to think that physical evidence is a foolproof way to lock in a conviction. The problem is that forensic science isn’t exactly a science."

And another:

Is Forensic Science Scientific? Crime lab errors and privacy issues raise concerns.​

Forensic Science Scientific? Crime lab errors and privacy issues raise concerns. ​

​

... new technologies can also mislead the public about how forensic science is actually practiced. Most forensic technicians work in local government crime labs that lack certification requirements, accreditation programs, or effective education opportunities for technicians. Major studies of forensic science have shown that many crime lab methods are unscientific and too often involve guesswork, contributing to false convictions. Meanwhile, privacy experts worry that genomic crime-fighting tools could be misused to surveil Americans who have never committed a crime or even taken a DNA test.​

​

I am sure you will continue to deny the sources but you will fail to support your denial. I have no idea of why you think anyone would take your word for opinions you continuously fail to back up.

You really dont do critical thinking Frank.
Stop pretending to understand any science - stop echoing headlines unless you study the content.

In this case your pressure group articles speaks of "dna exonerations" from "forensic evidence" An utterly ridiculous cognitive dissonance.

Wake up call to both you and them! - DNA IS forensic evidence, repeat IS forensic evidence done by criminal accredited GLP forensic labs, the type that I refer in evidence!!!!!! Indeed it is the MAIN source OF forensic evidence.

I would not trust an academic lab to do that - they are not good enough standards, thats why the evidence on the cases I cite were done mainly outside the academic system. You saw the catastrophe that was Radio dating of the shroud, when academics with no idea of proper quality procedures got involved in test procedures they did not understand. The Machines which had no business testing fabric when they failed equipment qualification. I have pushed businesses/labs through GMp. I know.

Here are the issues in the EM evidence.

1/ In the cases I cite they are repeated on multiple contintents, multiple labs, multiple investigators and the samples are stillt here to test.
And they used forensic labs to confirm the DNA tests and results. Even down to labs that can now test single cells for DNA.

2/ Things pathologists excel at , with the help of accredited labs, are detection of human tissue, human blood, and cause of death, eg when tissue is traumatized. State pathologists spend their careers looking at such evidence. Cardiologists spend their lives looking at cardiac tissue, there were enough of the cases and investigators involved to be sure they got it right.

3/ So what went wrong in the cases you cite (which you clearly have not read, you just like the headline).
Two things.

a/ some forms of evidence such as boot prints , bite marks , and I gather accelerant damage have been shown to be unreliable in these cases. Whoever said they could be unique? It is consistency evidence unless there is a truly unique feature.

b/ More than that - US justice is dreadful. eg It seems the media can find someone guilty (which in the UK would be contempt of court)
so - once someone is found guilty by media, I am sure juries attach more weight than they should to evidence which is plausibility/ consistency evidence, not unique evidence.

But there are no bite marks or footprints in my cases
I refer you to standard pathology tests done in accredited labs. And because they are consistent across independent events, continents and teams

You? You just like soundbites that you think support your case. In this case you are wrong again.

You still have no evidence of any cells simpler than the hideously complicated minimum cells we know. But you believe in abiogenesis? Why? For me that jury is still out, because of lack of evidence. Because I am a scientist, not an abiogenesis wishful thinker.

Anyway since your goal is clearly to insult someone who clearly knows a great deal more about evidence and science than you do, we have nothing more to say to each other.

 

[Frank Robert]

You really dont do critical thinking Frank.
Stop pretending to understand any science - stop echoing headlines unless you study the content.

In this case your pressure group articles speaks of "dna exonerations" from "forensic evidence" An utterly ridiculous cognitive dissonance.

Wake up call to both you and them! - DNA IS forensic evidence, repeat IS forensic evidence done by criminal accredited GLP forensic labs, the type that I refer in evidence!!!!!! Indeed it is the MAIN source OF forensic evidence.

I would not trust an academic lab to do that - they are not good enough standards, thats why the evidence on the cases I cite were done mainly outside the academic system. You saw the catastrophe that was Radio dating of the shroud, when academics with no idea of proper quality procedures got involved in test procedures they did not understand. The Machines which had no business testing fabric when they failed equipment qualification. I have pushed businesses/labs through GMp. I know.

Here are the issues in the EM evidence.

1/ In the cases I cite they are repeated on multiple contintents, multiple labs, multiple investigators and the samples are stillt here to test.
And they used forensic labs to confirm the DNA tests and results. Even down to labs that can now test single cells for DNA.

2/ Things pathologists excel at , with the help of accredited labs, are detection of human tissue, human blood, and cause of death, eg when tissue is traumatized. State pathologists spend their careers looking at such evidence. Cardiologists spend their lives looking at cardiac tissue, there were enough of the cases and investigators involved to be sure they got it right.

3/ So what went wrong in the cases you cite (which you clearly have not read, you just like the headline).
Two things.

a/ some forms of evidence such as boot prints , bite marks , and I gather accelerant damage have been shown to be unreliable in these cases. Whoever said they could be unique? It is consistency evidence unless there is a truly unique feature.

b/ More than that - US justice is dreadful. eg It seems the media can find someone guilty (which in the UK would be contempt of court)
so - once someone is found guilty by media, I am sure juries attach more weight than they should to evidence which is plausibility/ consistency evidence, not unique evidence.

But there are no bite marks or footprints in my cases
I refer you to standard pathology tests done in accredited labs. And because they are consistent across independent events, continents and teams

You? You just like soundbites that you think support your case. In this case you are wrong again.

You still have no evidence of any cells simpler than the hideously complicated minimum cells we know. But you believe in abiogenesis? Why? For me that jury is still out, because of lack of evidence. Because I am a scientist, not an abiogenesis wishful thinker.

Anyway since your goal is clearly to insult someone who clearly knows a great deal more about evidence and science than you do, we have nothing more to say to each other.

TL;DR
Summary. You lack credibility because you never ever provide support for your claims. You don't even tell us the source for your apologetics. You never address the evidence others provide, you just deny it and label actual science wishful thinking which is obviously a projection. You attack scientists and biblical experts you do not agree with. You need to take a long look in the mirror. You wasted enough of our time already.

 

[Bradskii]

You still have no evidence of any cells simpler than the hideously complicated minimum cells we know.

You keep on keeping on repeating yourself. Nobody knows exactly how life started. How many times does that need to be written? For the life of me I don't even know what you are arguing about. Unless it's 'Gee, this is so complex, it can't have happened as a natural process.' So..what? So God is responsible? OK, we'll go with that.

Now anytime you are ready to explain how He did it, with some evidence to back it up (this is the science section of the forum after all).....I'm all ears. Otherwise, again, stop wasting bandwidth.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

Apart from quoting your own posts, you might like to crank back the proselytizing in the Physical and Life Sciences section. It's frowned upon. I doubt if you have much on topic to discuss, but we'd all be keen to hear it if you do.

Any answer to the question regarding how you know which parts of the the bible are metaphorical?

I would not expect it to be welcome. The topic was creation and evolution was it not? If one chooses not to have an ear to hear that falls upon them at least they have heard. I am sure my lack of knowledge in accordinance with your prejudgement as to my being ignorant will not change and I can live with that. I will no longer cast pearls before........ You are all knowing and not open to anything other than your own scientific mumbo jumbo. You can finish the saying above it is in the BIBLE

 

[Bradskii]

I would not expect it to be welcome.

It would be informative. If you make decisions on what parts of the bible are literal and what parts are metaphorical, then I'd like to know how you reach that decision. It's a blazingly simple question which you seem to find extraordinarily difficult to answer.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

It would be informative. If you make decisions on what parts of the bible are literal and what parts are metaphorical, then I'd like to know how you reach that decision. It's a blazingly simple question which you seem to find extraordinarily difficult to answer.

I have told you unless the Spirit of Truth guides you the Word of God is foolishness to those who do not believe. I cannot open up the eyes of a blind man so that he can see clearly. I have dealt with people who think like you do before. No matter what I were to say you in your mind have labeled me to be ignorant and you would take what I say as such. So I will no longer get in the way of your scientific enlightenment seminar.

 

[Bradskii]

I have told you unless the Spirit of Truth guides you the Word of God is foolishness to those who do not believe. I cannot open up the eyes of a blind man so that he can see clearly. I have dealt with people who think like you do before. No matter what I were to say you in your mind have labeled me to be ignorant and you would take what I say as such. So I will no longer get in the way of your scientific enlightenment seminar.

Ah, so it's the Spirit of Truth that tells you. It's not like you have a colour coded bible, one colour for metaphor and one for literal. OK, got you.

It's just that a lot of other people say the same thing. That they are guided by God as to how to interpret scripture. And here's the thing...they disagree with you. They say, for example, that Genesis is a metaphor.

Which is then something of a problem for people like me. One Christian says God says this. And other that God says that. But don't concern yourself. I've worked out how to tell who is right and who is wrong. I've accepted that if God exists, then as He is truth itself, He's not going to lie to us. And as He's omnipotent, He could do anything He wants. So I look at the evidence for what He has done. His evidence. That He has left us. And that tells me which Christians are right. And which ones are wrong.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge I am not ignorant of your evoloutionary rhetoric.

Evolution is a science, not rhetoric. (And who are you talking to? You quoted yourself.)

You were not there when it all began so who is being ignorant?

That's not a good argument. We have was to probe the "inaccessible past". Don't dismiss them out of hand.

There is a hole in practically every scientific theory even Einstein used God as an unknown factor when he could not explain certain aspects of his ideas.

Care to name that "unknown God factor" in Einstein's work?

You sir are no Einstein.

Again, this seems to be addressed to yourself.

 

[Mountainmike]

You keep on keeping on repeating yourself. Nobody knows exactly how life started. How many times does that need to be written? For the life of me I don't even know what you are arguing about. Unless it's 'Gee, this is so complex, it can't have happened as a natural process.' So..what? So God is responsible? OK, we'll go with that.

Now anytime you are ready to explain how He did it, with some evidence to back it up (this is the science section of the forum after all).....I'm all ears. Otherwise, again, stop wasting bandwidth.

I’m not the one claiming that either it happened or how it happened.
Don‘t know is the only honest scientific answer.

So it’s not my job to explain it - but the people who think it did happen or could happen as a natural process - like most on this forum, ask them. Ask frank robert.

You are missing the second half of the point I make, explaining the path to our simplest cells is MOST of the problem of life not a small detail. The other problem is consciousness.

Anyway tell me your beliefs. Was the start to life a single event or multiple events at multiple times?
Was life steered other than by so called natural process ( a term I dispute on philosophical grounds)

 

[Bradskii]

I’m not the one claiming that either it happened or how it happened.
Don‘t know is the only honest scientific answer.

So it’s not my job to explain it.

Then this has been a complete and utter waste of your time writing all your posts and an even bigger waste of my time reading them. Your first post should have been 'Looks like no-one knows how abiogenesis started..' and it would have been safely ignored. Except we got pieces of heart, blood, weeping statues and no end of miracles because you mistakingly thought it was a zinger of an argument against (unbelievably) evolution as well as abiogenesis.

Are you finally done?

 

[Diamond72]

100% believe it to be the case or at least be 99.9999999999999999% sure.

A machinist who works within a tolerance of millionths is someone who is capable of producing parts with very high precision. A millionth of an inch (also known as a microinch) is a very small unit of measurement, and tolerances at this level require careful attention to detail and advanced manufacturing techniques.

A friend of mine works a 3 million dollar machine with three robots on it. The biggest issue is with the temperature. Things tend to expand or shrink at different temperatures. So you have to get the machine up and running if you want consistency. Even humidity can be a consideration.

 

[Diamond72]

The idea that a person cannot have
intellectual honesty and be a christian
is really sad.

So you are saying it is sad that people reject the science that proves the Bible is accurate and true. Everyone seems to want to support their bias rather than to go where the evidence takes them.

 

[Diamond72]

The Bible is not a science book.

There is nothing in true science that we do not find in the Bible.

 

[Bradskii]

There is nothing in true science that we do not find in the Bible.

Age of the universe?

 

[trophy33]

There is nothing in true science that we do not find in the Bible.

Radio, quantum mechanics, satellite communication, airplanes, internet...

 

[Diamond72]

They'll march right across our courthouse lawns and tear our Ten Commandments down, then move on through our schools, demanding prayer and the Bible be censored, then on down to the hospital to set the record straight on abortions, and then back to the halls of higher academia to crank out another generation of disciples that will shipwreck our morals.

It is not an oxymoron to be a religious scientist. While there are some fundamental differences between science and religion, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and it is possible for an individual to embrace both perspectives.

Many scientists, including some of the most famous and influential ones in history, have been deeply religious. For example, Isaac Newton, the founder of modern physics, was a devout Christian who believed that his scientific discoveries were a way of understanding the beauty and complexity of God's creation.

If the Bible says the Flood happened, it happened.

And science has no cause to say otherwise.

The proof is that science cannot show that Noah was not real and the flood did not happen. DNA substantiates the generations that we read about in the Bible. The biggest stumbling block seems to be accepting the "world wide" aspect of his flood as literal rather than symbolic.

People think that the Bible has to be literal or symbolic when the Bible contains elements of both literal and symbolic. Now I am finding people do not even know what archetypes, allegories, and paradigms are. So how can they claim not to believe when they lack understanding?

The Bible is 100% true because science an not show ANY of the Bible NOT to be true. Even the smallest, most minute details cannot be shown to be wrong or in error. God is infinite and there is no detail to small for him.

 

[Mountainmike]

Then this has been a complete and utter waste of your time writing all your posts and an even bigger waste of my time reading them. Your first post should have been 'Looks like no-one knows how abiogenesis started..' and it would have been safely ignored. Except we got pieces of heart, blood, weeping statues and no end of miracles because you mistakingly thought it was a zinger of an argument against (unbelievably) evolution as well as abiogenesis.

Are you finally done?

If you mean
There is actual scientific evidence of created tissue in our own time ( pathologist think so too) in eucharistic miracles

Whilst there is no evidence whatsoever of the process of what happened leading to the minimum cells we know - the abiogenesis / evolution speculation on origin of life.

So the score on evidence is creation 5 , abiogenesis 0, then you are right.
it is also astounding.

But if you mean examining evidence is a waste of your time , if it contradicts your assumptions, only you can make that value judgement - but that it is true, why do you waste any time on a science forum, since all of your time is wasted here! Strange.

But then as a scientist , I am used to assessing scientific data and keeping emotion out of it. Others here? Not so much.

I guess it’s a problem with pseudoscientific populist media and pseudoscientific authors like Dawkins.
they have this silly black and white boundary between evolution and abiogenesis, as do you.

To prove a point - Tell me. Which side of 100 base genome and 1000 proteins in a cell , do you decide is abiogenesis?

Because the obvious answer is far less, in which case by that definition most of the development of life ane the minimum present cells was on the evolution side of your line. The idea a complex cell popped into existence as a chemical process from the right molecules is a non starter.

But if you do think abiogebesis happened as a far simpler cell, then you have no evidence that cell evolution happened or how. So yes , I question evolution And abiogenesis as any scientist must. there is Far too much woolly thinking on forums like this.

No - I am not YEC. I am simply a scientist who can only say “ don’t know” on the basis of present knowledge.
It’s only non scientists and wishful thinkers who think present evidence of abiogenesis/evolution accounts for life.

 

[Frank Robert]

So the score on evidence is creation 5 , abiogenesis 0, then you are right.
it is also astounding.

Zeus did it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not an oxymoron to be a religious scientist. While there are some fundamental differences between science and religion, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and it is possible for an individual to embrace both perspectives.

No argument there!