The Danger of Creationism

SkyWriting said:

Things don't appear on their own. (Science) Things don't happen without a reason.(Science)
Unless you can explain why life has occurred? (Science?)



From Darwin's travels?

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis if it happened would just be chemistry, nothing on it's own, unless you count all chemicle reactions as just happening on their own. Abiogenesis would simply be chemicles in the right place/right time coming together. No more a miracle then every time hydrogen and oxygen becoming water a miracle.

loveofourlord said:

Abiogenesis if it happened would just be chemistry, nothing on it's own, unless you count all chemicle reactions as just happening on their own. Abiogenesis would simply be chemicles in the right place/right time coming together. No more a miracle then every time hydrogen and oxygen becoming water a miracle.

Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting that chemistry is a supernatural miracle. I'm saying it's impossible.
Also, that there are no natural laws that promote life. We'd call them "The laws of Life" if there were any. None exist. Given it's been the focus of science since science was invented, given that there is plenty of data and examples to work with and examine, the void of Life Laws is stunning. Science proves that Life is not a natural event. There is not even a good scientific excuse for life to exist. Not even now.

tas8831 said:

Cool, we agree! But it looks like your fellow super-Christian Mark doesn't... Oh dear...

Click to expand...

If you ever attend a church for a time, you'll see that they are as independently opinionated as all your own associates.

SkyWriting said:

I wasn't suggesting that chemistry is a supernatural miracle. I'm saying it's impossible.
Also, that there are no natural laws that promote life. We'd call them "The laws of Life" if there were any. None exist. Given it's been the focus of science since science was invented, given that there is plenty of data and examples to work with and examine, the void of Life Laws is stunning. Science proves that Life is not a natural event. There is not even a good scientific excuse for life to exist. Not even now.

Click to expand...

No, that is not how scientific laws work. Scientific laws are descriptive, not proscriptive and many "laws" are not discovered yet. But they still exist. You made a bunch of nonsense claims that you simply cannot support.

SkyWriting said:

I wasn't suggesting that chemistry is a supernatural miracle. I'm saying it's impossible.
Also, that there are no natural laws that promote life. We'd call them "The laws of Life" if there were any. None exist. Given it's been the focus of science since science was invented, given that there is plenty of data and examples to work with and examine, the void of Life Laws is stunning. Science proves that Life is not a natural event. There is not even a good scientific excuse for life to exist. Not even now.

Click to expand...

Life is far too broad and complex a concept to be defined by "Laws". Instead we tend to describe how life works using scientific theories. We have the well attested theory of Evolution which describes how life develops and changes over time. How life originated from non-life is covered by the Hypothesis known as Abiogenesis. While there is some scientific evidence supporting Abiogenesis it hasn't yet reached a stage where it's accepted as a full fledged Theory - hence it remains hypothetical.

SkyWriting said:

Given it's been the focus of science since science was invented, given that there is plenty of data and examples to work with and examine, the void of Life Laws is stunning. Science proves that Life is not a natural event. There is not even a good scientific excuse for life to exist. Not even now.

Click to expand...

Life has certainly been a focus of science but not necessarily the focus. In any case life is a very broad subject and the tendency has been to focus on various aspects of life like the circulatory system or brain functions or ingrown toenails. When you consider that science has had the task of explaining the entire natural world, including life, it's hardly surprising that we don't yet know everything after a few short centuries of scientific investigation.

I'd be very interested in hearing more from you about how science has proven Life is not a natural event. I'm sure others reading this thread would also be eager to hear your exposition on this topic.

I was also surprised to hear that life needed a 'scientific excuse to exist'. Did you mean it needed a theory to describe how it came into existence? If so, that would be the Abiogenesis hypothesis mentioned above.

OB

Brian Mcnamee said:

But wicked men will certainly try to create a scientific consensus to forward their schemes.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of "scientific consensus"?

Vaccines, climate science and all have the highest potential for fraud theft and control.

Click to expand...

How so? Please explain.

Brian Mcnamee said:

Hi there is a documentary called the report from Iron Mountain or perhaps the Iron Mountain report which was made in the early 80's based on a 1960's summit that came together to strategize a plan of how to implement a global government....the weather and environment...rationalize a global government...climate models over long periods of time show ice ages... shifts in global weather...coming global agenda...45 goals of teh communist party...World Economic Forum and teh UN...The reset is coming and it is predicted in the Bible...LGTBQ agenda which is completely contradictory to science... chemtrailing ...chemtrails can be used as weapons systems and climate control....

Click to expand...

Wow... Now tell us about your education. Id like to see if my prediction has merit.

GOD Shines Forth! said:

Your problem. I don’t have it or own it.

I refuse the official narrative and it’s fait accompli, vaccine passports. Everyone spouting the same, though constantly shifting, jargon in service of this only strengthens my suspicion of their motives.

Click to expand...

AH, another 'jargon' monger. I am suspicious of people that see 'tyranny' and 'control' around every corner.

Mark Quayle said:

You haven't responded to 'why ignore treatments that work?'.

Click to expand...

A treatment for one thing does not necessarily = a treatment for another thing. I often hear these claims like 'why is there no cure for cancer??' - because there is no such thing as "cancer" - there are a LOT of things that we call cancer and what might work on one type of cancer will not always work on other types. That it, that is an ignorance-based question asked by people that should not be asking such questions.

Regarding Ivermectin:


A big metastudy that was looking like good news for the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid once you already have it was retracted. The main reason was that one of the individual studies used in this metastudy - one that apparently skewed the overall analysis to the pro-Ivermectin side, was exposed as fraudulent:


The Guardian had a more detailed examination of the reason for the retraction.

And so on...
But hey - if Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson said Ivermectin is gold, why should a little fraud matter..

Of note - Rogan took the kitchen sink approach, because he can afford it. He took Ivermectin, but also, by his own account, monoclonal antibodies, azithromycin, steroids, etc. How does he know it was the Ivermectin that made him feel better? He doesn't.

By the way - my latest reply to you has been up or almost 2 weeks:

For those wishing DNA worked exactly like computer code

GOD Shines Forth! said:

Truth.

Click to expand...

Evidence please.

EpicScore said:

... I understand that the conclusion of a scientific hypothesis cannot be valid unless the results are consistent throughout numerous trials that can be reproduced in different labs, assuming the same conditions are met.

Click to expand...

All hypotheses?

Occams Barber said:

You may work in a 'science and technology institute' but I suspect it's not as a scientist....
To be tested, a hypothesis/theory needs to be falsifiable. This can be done based in the field, through a telescope, from space, underwater or at home with a good calculator. Repeatability doesn't mean you must repeat the event.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY.

Juvenal said:

The Sarfati who appears in your o/p was once a member on this other, conservative Christian-run site, which is unquestionably far more liberal than CF in allowing flames and insults, until he was kicked off because of his inability to engage in anything approaching civil behavior, even with his fellow Christians when they disagree with him. By that standard, he is, objectively, obnoxious.

Click to expand...

I remember that! I especially liked it when the admins there, in a blatant attempt to shield Sarfati, changed their forum rules from 'no name calling' to 'no name calling without sufficient justification' and by golly, they always accepted Sarfati's justification... but nobody else's, until, as you indicate, he started attacking other Christians for not being as Christian-y as he was...
Ironically, this is what the Christian nationalists do not realize - if they get their wishes, they could end up on the 'wrong kind of Christian' list sooner than they think.

tas8831 said:

I remember that! I especially liked it when the admins there, in a blatant attempt to shield Sarfati, changed their forum rules from 'no name calling' to 'no name calling without sufficient justification' and by golly, they always accepted Sarfati's justification... but nobody else's, until, as you indicate, he started attacking other Christians for not being as Christian-y as he was...
Ironically, this is what the Christian nationalists do not realize - if they get their wishes, they could end up on the 'wrong kind of Christian' list sooner than they think.

Click to expand...

Relevant to the o/p (tassman? ... this is taoist/lao tzu/Juvenal now), Creationism may be a gateway drug to climate denial and anti-vaxxing, but it dead centers the Ken Millers and Francis Collinses and sundry otherwise conservative Christians they should instead be celebrating and using as archetypes of how Christianity advances scientific and intellectual pursuits.

Did you know Glenn Morton died last year?

tas8831 said:

What is your definition of "scientific consensus"? How so? Please explain.

Click to expand...

A conspiracy of wicked men?

Estrid said:

Climate change, maybe.
We've soil degradation, microplastics, pollution
of a million kinds, loss of habitat/ biodiversity
acidification of the oceans.
Don't be too sure of your predictions unless it's

Click to expand...

There's not a single place on Earth that has not been chemically changed by human activities. On earth there no longer exist any pristine state.

"If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will".

Click to expand...

Grateful Dead - The Wheel.

dlamberth said:

There's not a single place on Earth that has not been chemically changed by human activities. On earth there no longer exist any pristine state.

Grateful Dead - The Wheel.

Click to expand...

Thanks Estrid and dlamberth. perfect end to the day. was there for 5/8/77

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

A conspiracy of wicked men?

Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Juvenal said:

Relevant to the o/p (tassman? ... this is taoist/lao tzu/Juvenal now)

Click to expand...

No, never tassman.

, Creationism may be a gateway drug to climate denial and anti-vaxxing, but it dead centers the Ken Millers and Francis Collinses and sundry otherwise conservative Christians they should instead be celebrating and using as archetypes of how Christianity advances scientific and intellectual pursuits.

Click to expand...

Lots of things advance scientific and intellectual pursuits.

Did you know Glenn Morton died last year?

Click to expand...

I did not, that is too bad.

EpicScore said:

My point is that, in scientific practices, you don't really need to know how an object came to be (i.e. its history) to know how it works and use it for various purposes (i.e. its operation). A scientist looking to test the reactivity of elements based on its periodic grouping doesn't have to know how the periodic table is developed, and one's beliefs on the origins of the universe has no bearings on how well they can, say, prepare standard solutions to quantify analytes in a sample.

Click to expand...

Do a scientist's beliefs on the origin of the universe have any bearing on how well they can use photometric observations of Cepheid variable stars in a galaxy to conclude that the galaxy is millions of light years away?