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

[Hammster]

Indeed you are. You are saying that any science that does not align with your interpretation of biblical creation is wrong.

That is not the same as saying that science ends, which is what you accused me of saying.

 

[Bradskii]

That is not the same as saying that science ends, which is what you accused me of saying.

If it doesn't align with your interpretation of the truth then you consider it to be wrong. There's no ifs, buts or maybes about this. The example I used was astronomy. It's clearly wrong as far as you are concerned. The Webb telescope and all the other optical, infra red and radio telescopes are all giving us bogus data. They are useless. The work that astronomers do is useless. The data they collect is useless. The theories they have developed are useless. The International Atronomical Union has thousands of members. What they all do is useless. According to you.

So that's one branch of science that would literally cease to exist. Do you have a response or shall we do some others?

 

[Hammster]

If it doesn't align with your interpretation of the truth then you consider it to be wrong. There's no ifs, buts or maybes about this. The example I used was astronomy. It's clearly wrong as far as you are concerned. The Webb telescope and all the other optical, infra red and radio telescopes are all giving us bogus data. They are useless. The work that astronomers do is useless. The data they collect is useless. The theories they have developed are useless. The International Atronomical Union has thousands of members. What they all do is useless. According to you.

So that's one branch of science that would literally cease to exist. Do you have a response or shall we do some others?

It’s not the data that is wrong. It’s the presupposition behind the interpretation that is wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s not the data that is wrong. It’s the presupposition behind the interpretation that is wrong.

Please don't talk nonsense. If something is measured at X distance then you can interpret that all you want. But the distance is X. If you say it's not, then the data is wrong, the theories are therefore wrong and all work done on that basis is wrong. Astronomy ceases to exist.

 

[sjastro]

I answered directly. How is it nonsensical? Are you regenerate? If so, you are a Christian who is a scientist.

Do I need to quote you again for the umpteenth time.

"Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools."

Your quote leaves no doubt a Christian cannot be scientist as science has done away with God.
There your words not mine and now you are singing a different tune.
So which version do you to actually believe in?

 

[driewerf]

It’s not the data that is wrong. It’s the presupposition behind the interpretation that is wrong.

What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?

 

[driewerf]

Do you have any evidence that there is a god or gods and that god is the god of the bible?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:18-20

I wonder how this is an answer to Frank Robert’s post.
Just producing a bible quote isn’t evidence of nothing. Or should we see this as a veiled threat (god’s wrath) not to investigate certain claims.
You realize I hope, that threatening anyone who investigates made claims, isn’t a sign of strength and confidence, but a symptom of weakness and uncertainty.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I didn't say that. We have brain structures and processes that allow us to learn language by hearing it. These are intrinsic features and are inherited.

What?

So what? And birds don't instinctively suckle milk from their mothers like humans and all mammals do.

See Gene's post above. He is more through. Instincts are behaviors and genes influence the brain structures and neurochemistry the drives behaviors (and is influenced by stimuli). The only way a truly instinctual behavior can occur (no learning from others of your species) is if the behavior is strongly influenced by inherited characters.

Mumbo Jumbo passing itself of as science....... evolution in a nutshell

How can a creature pass on a characteristic it does not have? How can a simple cell pass on anything but a simple cell?

Language is indeed an inbuilt ability to learn, but an actual language is not inbuilt. You cannot pass on what you do not have. How did the first inarticulate being develop a language? It had no vocabulary. There is nothing for it to pass on.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Your earlier posts indicated a lack of knowledge re evolution. Your later ones are only confirming it. Instead of asking random questions, why not take the time to Google the answers yourself?

I was taught evolution in school. Typically of science, virtually everything I was told turned out to be false. I often visited the Evolutionist's temple, the Natural History museum in London. Much of what I saw there was later debunked. But somehow the theory itself survives. I know stuff. I know how hard it is to do temperature control, for example. Yet somehow a cold blooded creature can become warm blooded by the magic of evolution. The only explanation I've heard is that it happened because it happened. Mammals suddenly appear, complete with highly complex thermal control the opposite of reptiles. Amazingly they give birth to live young and somehow, miraculously, milk is provided to feed them. And all this by sheer accident with no mechanism to control the process. Not only this, every creature needs male and female to appear at the same time and the same place.

Suppose the offspring of a creature is a mammal by the miracle of evolution. If its parent is has not mammal characteristics, how does the offspring survive? It does not. It is so far fetched that I could not accept it even before I became a Christian.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was taught evolution in school. Typically of science, virtually everything I was told turned out to be false. I often visited the Evolutionist's temple, the Natural History museum in London. Much of what I saw there was later debunked. But somehow the theory itself survives. I know stuff. I know how hard it is to do temperature control, for example. Yet somehow a cold blooded creature can become warm blooded by the magic of evolution. The only explanation I've heard is that it happened because it happened. Mammals suddenly appear, complete with highly complex thermal control the opposite of reptiles. Amazingly they give birth to live young and somehow, miraculously, milk is provided to feed them. And all this by sheer accident with no mechanism to control the process. Not only this, every creature needs male and female to appear at the same time and the same place.

Suppose the offspring of a creature is a mammal by the miracle of evolution. If its parent is has not mammal characteristics, how does the offspring survive? It does not. It is so far fetched that I could not accept it even before I became a Christian.

It's comments like this that show that you don't understand a thing that you're complaining about.

You are literally spouting mumbo-jumbo, which you claim the theory of evolution to be. So that's definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Hammster]

Please don't talk nonsense. If something is measured at X distance then you can interpret that all you want. But the distance is X. If you say it's not, then the data is wrong, the theories are therefore wrong and all work done on that basis is wrong. Astronomy ceases to exist.

I’m not making an opposing claim to this. I don’t see any biblical reason to say that x distance isn’t x distance.

 

[Frank Robert]

I was taught evolution in school. Typically of science, virtually everything I was told turned out to be false. I often visited the Evolutionist's temple, the Natural History museum in London. Much of what I saw there was later debunked. But somehow the theory itself survives.

The ToE survives because there is a consilience of evidence form multiple independent scientific fields.

I know stuff. I know how hard it is to do temperature control, for example. Yet somehow a cold blooded creature can become warm blooded by the magic of evolution. The only explanation I've heard is that it happened because it happened. Mammals suddenly appear, complete with highly complex thermal control the opposite of reptiles.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention in class. Mammals did not suddenly appear and we know how they evolved about 252 million years ago from reptilians.

Phylogenetic tree of mammalian evolution.

Amazingly they give birth to live young and somehow, miraculously, milk is provided to feed them. And all this by sheer accident with no mechanism to control the process. Not only this, every creature needs male and female to appear at the same time and the same place.

Your claim is that mammary glans did not evolve. It is interesting that you use the word "miraculously." The minority Christian alternative to evolution is that God did it. How did God do it? Miraculously!

Suppose the offspring of a creature is a mammal by the miracle of evolution. If its parent is has not mammal characteristics, how does the offspring survive? It does not. It is so far fetched that I could not accept it even before I became a Christian.

Christians believe in miracles so is it beyond belief that God would give us the miracle of a natural world?

 

[Hammster]

Do I need to quote you again for the umpteenth time.

Your quote leaves no doubt a Christian cannot be scientist as science has done away with God.
There your words not mine and now you are singing a different tune.
So which version do you to actually believe in?

My quote does no such thing. I can’t be any clearer. A true Christian is one who has been born again. It’s not whether someone holds to the biblical doctrine of creation.

 

[Hammster]

What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?

I’d never presume to correct Dr. Lisle.

 

[Hammster]

I wonder how this is an answer to Frank Robert’s post.

It responds to his post concerning the evidence for God.

Just producing a bible quote isn’t evidence of nothing.

Why not?

Or should we see this as a veiled threat (god’s wrath) not to investigate certain claims.

No. You should see it as a very real consequence for continuing to deny the truth. There’s a command to repent and believe the gospel. It should be obeyed.

You realize I hope, that threatening anyone who investigates made claims, isn’t a sign of strength and confidence, but a symptom of weakness and uncertainty.

Good thing I’m not doing that. On that note, straw man arguments, whether explicit or implicit are fallacious.

 

[driewerf]

I’d never presume to correct Dr. Lisle.

This post is counter factual.
Bradskii
If it doesn't align with your interpretation of the truth then you consider it to be wrong. There's no ifs, buts or maybes about this. The example I used was astronomy. It's clearly wrong as far as you are concerned. The Webb telescope and all the other optical, infra red and radio telescopes are all giving us bogus data. They are useless. The work that astronomers do is useless. The data they collect is useless. The theories they have developed are useless. The International Atronomical Union has thousands of members. What they all do is useless. According to you.

So that's one branch of science that would literally cease to exist. Do you have a response or shall we do some others?

Hammster:
It’s not the data that is wrong. It’s the presupposition behind the interpretation that is wrong.

Driewerf:
What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?

Hammster:
I’d never presume to correct Dr. Lisle.

Note that Bradskii did NOT speak of Jason Lisle, but of the thousands of members of the International Astronomical Union. To suggest that Bradskii's post #1023 or my post #1029 was about dr. Lisle has no resemblance with reality.

And the reaction in itself doesn't answer any of the questions asked. The questions were
What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Language is indeed an inbuilt ability to learn, but an actual language is not inbuilt.

Yeah, and that's the point. Babies aren't born speaking or understanding English, or Mandarin, or Urdu. They learn those languages by listening to people talk. The ability to learn languages is inbuilt and evolved.

You cannot pass on what you do not have. How did the first inarticulate being develop a language? It had no vocabulary. There is nothing for it to pass on.

Communication non-verbal and verbal is present in a vast variety of animals. There are gradients in the sophistication of those communications. It clearly developed over time because it was useful.

 

[driewerf]

Driewerf:
You realize I hope, that threatening anyone who investigates made claims, isn’t a sign of strength and confidence, but a symptom of weakness and uncertainty.

Good thing I’m not doing that. On that note, straw man arguments, whether explicit or implicit are fallacious.

It might be a misinterpretation of my side. But to answer a request for evidence for the existence of god with the words
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Especially the part "wrath of god" is easily interpreted as a veiled threat.

And when this is pointed out, to reply with:
You should see it as a very real consequence for continuing to deny the truth. There’s a command to repent and believe the gospel. It should be obeyed.

This reinforces that impression. Especially the words "consequences" and "obeyed".
But I might be wrong. If you meant it otherwise, you are kindly invited to clarify your message and to erase all misunderstanding.

 

[Hammster]

This post is counter factual.
Bradskii

Let’s see.

If it doesn't align with your interpretation of the truth then you consider it to be wrong. There's no ifs, buts or maybes about this. The example I used was astronomy. It's clearly wrong as far as you are concerned. The Webb telescope and all the other optical, infra red and radio telescopes are all giving us bogus data. They are useless. The work that astronomers do is useless. The data they collect is useless. The theories they have developed are useless. The International Atronomical Union has thousands of members. What they all do is useless. According to you.

So that's one branch of science that would literally cease to exist. Do you have a response or shall we do some others?

Hammster:
It’s not the data that is wrong. It’s the presupposition behind the interpretation that is wrong.

Driewerf:
What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?

Hammster:
I’d never presume to correct Dr. Lisle.

Note that Bradskii did NOT speak of Jason Lisle, but of the thousands of members of the International Astronomical Union. To suggest that Bradskii's post #1023 or my post #1029 was about dr. Lisle has no resemblance with reality.

And the reaction in itself doesn't answer any of the questions asked. The questions were
What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?

You assume that the questions needed a response. I really don’t need to respond to those questions, or any specific questions about science. If you really want answers from a Christian perspective, you can find them on the internet.

What I can do is to explain once again that if these scientists believe that the universe is billions of years old, then that’s the lens they Will

 

[Hammster]

Driewerf:
You realize I hope, that threatening anyone who investigates made claims, isn’t a sign of strength and confidence, but a symptom of weakness and uncertainty.

It might be a misinterpretation of my side. But to answer a request for evidence for the existence of god with the words
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Especially the part "wrath of god" is easily interpreted as a veiled threat.

And when this is pointed out, to reply with:
You should see it as a very real consequence for continuing to deny the truth. There’s a command to repent and believe the gospel. It should be obeyed.

This reinforces that impression. Especially the words "consequences" and "obeyed".
But I might be wrong. If you meant it otherwise, you are kindly invited to clarify your message and to erase all misunderstanding.

All I can do is to reiterate what I said and repeat that it isn’t a threat.