Creationist "arguments" - different karyotypes

miamited · Nov 18, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
Unlike Wilbur (Charlotte's Web), those pigs did not talk.

Hi YSF,

Well, they were only possessed the moment that Jesus cast the demons into the pigs and then they immediately ran off a cliff to their deaths. I'm not sure that we can categorically say that they couldn't have talked in that brief time that they were possessed of demons.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

Sam Davis said:
Maybe your bias has you automatically assuming others are wrong.

No, I typically conclude that they are wrong. That this happens repeatedly, often on the same topics, has biased me to be highly skeptical of the arguments produced, that is true. But I do not simply declare the arguments wrong, I demonstrate that they are.

Like in this thread - I provided pretty clear evidence that they are wrong to claim that humans and chimps cannot be related because we have different karyotypes.

When you say “they” are you lumping all creationists into the same category?

In my experience (been doing this for about 20 years), I would say the overwhelming majority - "they" is shorthand.

Darwinism Under The Microscope is a good book that presents intelligent design. You should check it out.

What evidence does it actually present FOR 'Intelligent Design', as opposed to attacks on evolution?

Maybe your bias has you thinking this book is good because you want to believe that it is.

The author of that 2002 book is a medical doctor (supposedly), that also wrote such books as "God's Prescription For Healing: Five Divine Gifts of Healing" and "Come Unto Me: God's Call to Intimacy."

Maybe HIS bias has him finding God where God is not present?

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

miamited said:
Hi SLP,

So, your basic argument is that God could not have made creatures that look the same with the karyotype issue that you're bringing up? I'm just wanting to make sure that I'm actually understanding the point of this thread before getting involved.

No, my argument is to point out the inconsistency in creationist claims, and that the ones having to do with genetics (in this case, karyotypes) are nearly always based on aq lack of understanding of the subject matter.

Yes, I readily admit that this 'karyotype' science isn't within the realm of my understanding, as I imagine it likely isn't in most people's. But, if you're willing to take the time to educate me, I'll be happy to listen to any argument that says that God can't have done what He is said to have done because of...

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Thanks Ted, but I have a feeling that given your stated position, no amount of education would alter your pre-conceived conclusions.

The fact of the matter is, when creationists try to use scientific arguments against evolution, they nearly always fail (and I only say 'nearly' because I have yet to see all creationist arguments).

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

Sam Davis said:
I personally believe the Genesis account and take it as literal. All things are possible with God.

It’s quite probable that the snake was possessed by Satan. That is not an impossiblity.

It is also possible that it was all made-up.

Any comments on creationists using karyotype arguments to attack evolution?

Sam Davis · Nov 18, 2019

SLP said:
No, I typically conclude that they are wrong. That this happens repeatedly, often on the same topics, has biased me to be highly skeptical of the arguments produced, that is true. But I do not simply declare the arguments wrong, I demonstrate that they are.

Like in this thread - I provided pretty clear evidence that they are wrong to claim Scadding proved vestigials are not real, or that they do not provide evidence for evolution.

In my experience (been doing this for about 20 years), I would say the overwhelming majority - "they" is shorthand.

What evidence does it actually present FOR 'Intelligent Design', as opposed to attacks on evolution?

Maybe your bias has you thinking this book is good because you want to believe that it is.

The author of that 2002 book is a medical doctor (supposedly), that also wrote such books as "God's Prescription For Healing: Five Divine Gifts of Healing" and "Come Unto Me: God's Call to Intimacy."

Maybe HIS bias has him finding God where God is not present?

The problem with your thinking stems from the root and that is that Christianity is a religion based on faith and not science. We may use science but it is not what our beliefs stand on. We believe God said, “let there be light” and there was light. There is no real scientific way to measure that statement because it’s based in faith. I tend not to argue science with atheists because it is a fruitless discussion. My beliefs are based upon faith not science. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

Sam Davis said:
The problem with your thinking stems from the root and that is that Christianity is a religion based on faith and not science. We may use science but it is not what our beliefs stand on. We believe God said, “let there be light” and there was light. There is no real scientific way to measure that statement because it’s based in faith. I tend not to argue science with atheists because it is a fruitless discussion. My beliefs are based upon faith not science. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

How is that MY problem?

Did you not notice that the OP countered the arguments of CREATIONISTS re: karyotypes?

Sam Davis · Nov 18, 2019

Many Christian beliefs go against science such as Jesus raising the dead or the parting of the Red Sea. That is why Christianity is based in faith not science.

solid_core · Nov 18, 2019

Sam Davis said:
Many Christian beliefs go against science such as Jesus raising the dead or the parting of the Red Sea. That is why Christianity is based in faith not science.

Science excludes miracles just in the definition of physical laws.

Science is indifferent regarding God and His interventions to nature.

Sam Davis · Nov 18, 2019

SLP said:
How is that MY problem?

Because you are attempting to argue science with people of faith.

pitabread · Nov 18, 2019

Sam Davis said:
Because you are attempting to argue science with people of faith.

To be fair, creationists started it.

The IbanezerScrooge · Nov 18, 2019

Sam Davis said:
Because you are attempting to argue science with people of faith.

So, "rules for thee but not for me" is it?

Do you not see that the OP is a RESPONSE to arguments by people of faith against science?

Speedwell · Nov 18, 2019

Sam Davis said:
Because you are attempting to argue science with people of faith.

No, he is countering an attempt at a scientific argument made by people of faith.

Keep in mind that the discussion is not about theism vs. atheism. It is about bad scientific arguments made by some theists.

Sam Davis · Nov 18, 2019

SLP said:
Did you not notice that the OP countered the arguments of CREATIONISTS re: karyotypes?

Honestly I don’t really comprehend the argument you are trying to make but that is of little concern to me because my faith is in God.

Sam Davis · Nov 18, 2019

Jesus said, “You must have faith like a child to enter the kingdom of God”. I don’t really see where a scientific argument factors into that.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 18, 2019

SLP said:
Handling with Kid gloves, 'in your face', etc.... Doesn't seem to matter.

When someone will produce an already-refuted set of claims, have it refuted again, only to re-post it a few weeks later - can we really lay that at the feet of someone that was 'mean' to them?

True enough, and I've encountered some of the same resistance. However, I've also encountered some of the same resistance among atheists who have essentially refused to acknowledge that a viewing the Theory of Evolution through, and only through, the lens of Philosophical Naturalism can be, and often is, counter-productive to helping their own cause of gaining both respect from Christians or educating them.

So, I think atheists would be better served by advocating a position in line with Methodological Naturalism when attempting to present (and/or enforce) their views to various hyper-Creationists.

Sam Davis · Nov 18, 2019

Speedwell said:
No, he is countering an attempt at a scientific argument made by people of faith.

Keep in mind that the discussion is not about theism vs. atheism. It is about bad scientific arguments made by some theists.

The IbanezerScrooge said:
So, "rules for thee but not for me" is it?

Do you not see that the OP is a RESPONSE to arguments by people of faith against science?

Well those people don’t represent me.

Speedwell · Nov 18, 2019

Sam Davis said:
Honestly I don’t really comprehend the argument you are trying to make but that is of little concern to me because my faith is in God.

He is countering an argument made by creationists. Do you understand the creationists' argument? Faith in God does not come into it.

Speedwell · Nov 18, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
True enough, and I've encountered some of the same resistance. However, I've also encountered some of the same resistance among atheists who have essentially refused to acknowledge that a viewing the Theory of Evolution through, and only through, the lens of Philosophical Naturalism can be, and often is, counter-productive to helping their own cause of gaining both respect from Christians or educating them.

So, I think atheists would be better served by advocating a position in line with Methodological Naturalism when attempting to present (and/or enforce) their views to various hyper-Creationists.

Hyper creationists generally don't acknowledge the difference.

Speedwell · Nov 18, 2019

Sam Davis said:
Well those people don’t represent me.

Then why do you think you have a dog in this fight?

2PhiloVoid · Nov 18, 2019

Speedwell said:
Hyper creationists generally don't acknowledge the difference.

Yes, I know. But there is still be an asserted 'political' difference among many atheists, especially among the most outspoken and popularly recognize ones, and this could be altered toward a more positive influence if they adhered instead to the latter position. I think it would tone down and temper the appearance of the atheists view on things---unless they really are closet trolls and indeed really DO wish to see the removal of Christianity from society. However, I'd like to think that most atheists aren't trolls, just scientifically literate individuals who are concerned citizens.

Creationist "arguments" - different karyotypes

Ted

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads