A story easy enough to tell - where creationists and atheists can agree

[Speedwell]

all the creationists with PHD's in chemistry and physics that I took courses from at the university would agree that those sciences are 100% compatible with the Christian world view.

What is this "Christian world view?"

 

[BobRyan]

A Christian world view, yes. A creationist world view, not so much.

you have free will you can reject whatever facts you wish.

 

[BobRyan]

That makes subsequent Christian attempts to deny science self-contradictory - or hypocritical.

Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.

In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.

Yet you have agreed that physics and chemistry are not Christian conceptions .

You are quoting "you" again and then blaming me for what "you" say??

 

[pitabread]

you have free will you can reject whatever facts you wish.

I'm not rejecting any facts. I'm simply pointing out what is.

Young-Earth Creationists require an alternative physical model for the universe in order to force-fit current observations into a 6000 year time frame. That isn't compatible with modern physics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All of my science teachers were creationists until about half way through my university science and engineering program...

What changed their minds?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

all the creationists with PHD's in chemistry and physics that I took courses from at the university would agree that those sciences are 100% compatible with the Christian world view ... in fact the Creationist world view.

They're compatible with pretty much every world view. But you have not answered my question - which major branches of science were started by Christians?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You are quoting "you" again and then blaming me for what "you" say??

The funny thing with the quote function on these threads is that it gives the name of the poster. And the name associated with what I quoted was "BobRyan". Now if you're not BobRyan, you shouldn't be using his profile. If you are BobRyan then what I stated is in your posts in black and white for all to see.

 

[BobRyan]

What is this "Christian world view?"

The Christians in my example were scientists that all accepted the Bible fact that all life on Earth was created by God in literal 7 day creation week.

 

[Speedwell]

The Christians in my example were scientists that all accepted the Bible fact that all life on Earth was created by God in literal 7 day creation week.

Interesting. All of the scientists who taught at mine were devout Christians who thought belief in a seven day creation was optional, though a bit eccentric.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting. All of the scientists who taught at mine were devout Christians who thought belief in a seven day creation was optional, though a bit eccentric.

It is "possible" they would not include themselves in the "Atheist and Creationists can agree" topic that is the subject of this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

That makes subsequent Christian attempts to deny science self-contradictory - or hypocritical.

Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.

In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.

Yet you have agreed that physics and chemistry are not Christian conceptions .

You are quoting "you" again and then blaming me for what "you" say??

The funny thing with the quote function on these threads is that it gives the name of the poster. And the name associated with what I quoted was "BobRyan". .

On the contrary "Phsyics and chemistry are not Christian conceptions" is a case of you quoting you.

my statement was

BobRyan said: ↑
In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.

Christians who study science have the conception of science and in fact most major branches of science were started by Christians

 

[Speedwell]

It is "possible" they would not include themselves in the "Atheist and Creationists can agree" topic that is the subject of this thread.

What's the point of addressing only atheists?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What's the point of addressing only atheists?

It makes him feel better that his "creationism" is fully justified by Christianity and a core part of said same. At least that's my theory.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.

In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.



You are quoting "you" again and then blaming me for what "you" say??



On the contrary "Phsyics and chemistry are not Christian conceptions" is a case of you quoting you.

my statement was



Christians who study science have the conception of science and in fact most major branches of science were started by Christians

You have been given multiple examples of major branches of science being started by non-Christians. All you have provided in return is the assertion "most major branches of science were started by Christians." Your inability to provide a single example of Christians starting a major branch of science is strong evidence against your assertion.

 

[Shemjaza]

You have been given multiple examples of major branches of science being started by non-Christians. All you have provided in return is the assertion "most major branches of science were started by Christians." Your inability to provide a single example of Christians starting a major branch of science is strong evidence against your assertion.

Except Evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.

You'll have to ask them.

In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.

This claim was unsupported last time you made it - can you do better this time?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except Evolution.

Not really; evolutionary ideas go back to the Ancient Greeks, if not before. Pre-Darwinian ideas of evolution were quite well advanced, which explains why Wallace came up with the same mechanism independently. Making major steps in a field isn't starting the field.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If our arms had separate DNA to the rest of our bodies and there were creatures very much like disembodied arms living today who it turns out had DNA similar to our arm DNA... I'd be open to the hypothesis that arms started off as a separate symbiotic creature.

What if the arms actually came from outer space?

 

[loveofourlord]

Looking for an example of a "story easy enough to tell" that everyone will agree "is just a story".

==================

Imagine if you will that "once upon a time" there were "arm humans" composed only of arms, and "Leg humans" composed only of legs and "Torso humans" composed only of human head and torso.

And suppose those individuals got together and started forming fully formed humans as we know them today, the result being the humans that we see today.

And we note that similarities are there - that the same sort of human skin can be found arm/lets/torso. We also note that the DNA in the cells of legs/arms and torso is sufficient to reproduce an entire human.
==================

regardless of the level of detail in story telling that I add to the story above -- it is pretty obvious that both atheists and creationists will view it as a "story easy enough to tell" and would doubt that it is to be taken seriously beyond "just a story".

I could even add "symbiosis" to the end of the story and it would not make it any more believable.

once again no one has a clue what your trying to say here, you bring up a strawman of....no idea what, are you talking about mitochondria, or sexes, or is this ray comforts first dog argument, like what you smoking?

 

[loveofourlord]

ahh yes - someone graciously states the obvious. I do appreciate that more than I thought I would at first. Well played. I had almost given up hope of seeing it posted today.



Is it possible that the story being told about mythical non-existent prokaryote-ish cells hopping inside a prokaryote to engage in a massive saltation-transform into eukaryote is itself a goofy story if one is not an atheist?

It is not observable , it is not repeatable. And there is no biology observation today where 11 or 12 organelles each existing as their own single-cell prokaryote-ish organism (never seen in real life as such), all suddenly pop out of the rocks and jump into a more massive prokaryote to form a eukaryote in pure saltation-miracle-goes here fashion.

Yeah....unless we actually have evidence of this :> Oh wait we do YAY.

here is something interesting about mitochondria DNA it's circular DNA not the normal string DNA that most other cells have. And we have other examples of bacteria and such with circular DNA, such as the nasty little thing that causes rocky mountain fever. Now here is a fascinating thing about it, it spends part of it's life cycle IN human cells. Now imagine if in the past a simular bacteria had such a life cycle, but over millions of, or billions of years it evolved to work with the cell rather then against, it got food, and didn't have to leave, or cause harm.