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

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see how this is relevant to the post you quoted.

That is because you did not go back to the post that was an insulting attack. It had an accusation of speculation in it. Scientists cannot make their theories based upon speculation. That is all that creationists have. Here is the passage used to attack:

"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
— Romans 1:21"

Ooh, it is even worse than I thought. With loss after loss and not a victory based upon reality to be found it applies to creationists even more than I thought since there is no doubt that their actions have been futile as well.

 

[klutedavid]

Of course it is changing. All of the sciences are changing. There is no scientific dogma and the change shows it. But if you look at the nature of the changes they keep getting smaller over the years as we learn more and more. Now they are merely debating the details of how evolution occurred. No one is debating whether it is real any longer. That problem was answered a long time ago.

Demanding a complete explanation now is unrealistic and is asking for dogma. Dogma, assumptions, all of those things are not allowed in the sciences.

Hold your horses.

Assumptions are critical in science, your dealing in assumptions everyday.

If you don't know then you must assume much, that is the starting point in science.

There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.

That there must be a natural explanation for every event that occurs.

Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.

There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

Assumptions, assumptions, axioms, assumptions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hold your horses.

Assumptions are critical in science, your dealing in assumptions everyday.

If you don't know then you must assume much, that is the starting point in science.

There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.

That there must be a natural explanation for every event that occurs.

Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.

There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

Assumptions, assumptions, axioms, assumptions.

Science deals with natural explanations for the natural world. Yeah, so what? I've never seen any evidence that non-natural explanations would be needed.

 

[klutedavid]

We don't need to do it at all. At least not to understand the very early universe. No one has said "this explains completely how the universe started" yet. The Big Bang theory only explain the universe to an extremely tiny fraction of a second after the expansion began. Right now physicists can work backwards only so far. Will they ever be able to work back further? We don't know yet. True scientists will admit where there knowledge stops.

The Big Bang theory does not explain much about the early universe. A lot of ideas get thrown around, but no one really knows how it all began. It is a mystery and will remain a mystery.

How about you explain what causes gravity, try an easier problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How about you explain what causes gravity, try an easier problem.

Curvature of space. You're right, that was easy.

 

[klutedavid]

Science deals with natural explanations for the natural world. Yeah, so what? I've never seen any evidence that non-natural explanations would be needed.

What do you mean by 'so what'?

Your assuming that everything, every event, has natural causes. How would you or anyone else know whether that is a true statement. You honestly have no idea, whether any events are ultimately natural events. In order to know this you would need absolute knowledge, which you don't have. You must assume that all events have natural causes.

 

[klutedavid]

Curvature of space. You're right, that was easy.

You realize of course that if space is curved. Then the shortest distance between any two points is not a straight line. You managed to destroy a primary axiom in mathematics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you mean by 'so what'?

Your assuming that everything, every event, has natural causes. How would you or anyone else know whether that is a true statement. You honestly have no idea, whether any events are ultimately natural events. In order to know this you would need absolute knowledge, which you don't have. You must assume that all events have natural causes.

Yeah, these are the basal assumptions. You can check them over and over to see if they are violated and the more that they are not violated the more consistent with the assumption of naturalness the whole universe is. There is nothing in the universe that precludes a non-natural origin or causation. It can't be proved, so what, but it really works well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You realize of course that if space is curved. Then the shortest distance between any two points is not a straight line. You managed to destroy a primary axiom in mathematics.

It's not a primary axiom of mathematics. It is an axiom of Euclidian geometry (geometry in a flat space). The equivalent in curved space is the geodesic, and that's exactly the path taken for both the shortest distance, but also things without external forces.

 

[klutedavid]

Science deals with natural explanations for the natural world. Yeah, so what? I've never seen any evidence that non-natural explanations would be needed.

Of course not, because you have assumed that all causes are natural. You seriously have no idea.

 

[Ken-1122]

What do you mean by 'so what'?

Your assuming that everything, every event, has natural causes. How would you or anyone else know whether that is a true statement. You honestly have no idea, whether any events are ultimately natural events. In order to know this you would need absolute knowledge, which you don't have. You must assume that all events have natural causes.

Anything that is able to happen will be given the label of a natural event; even if we previously didn't know it could happen thus previously considered it supernatural

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course not, because you have assumed that all causes are natural. You seriously have no idea.

I'm not sure what else there would be. I've heard all of these supernatural claims, but none of them have ever held up. I need some evidence if I am to accept non-natural causation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hold your horses.

Assumptions are critical in science, your dealing in assumptions everyday.

If you don't know then you must assume much, that is the starting point in science.

There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.

That there must be a natural explanation for every event that occurs.

Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.

There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

Assumptions, assumptions, axioms, assumptions.

And all so perfectly reasonable that most do no count them as assumptions.

 

[klutedavid]

It's not a primary axiom of mathematics. It is an axiom of Euclidian geometry (geometry in a flat space). The equivalent in curved space is the geodesic, and that's exactly the path taken for both the shortest distance, but also things without external forces.

Einstein’s General relativity makes use of these geodesics to describe the motion of objects in warped or ‘non-minkowski’ space-time. By holding that all objects move in straight lines when not acted on by a force.

The problem is that objects do not move in straight lines, because a point of zero force does not exist.

 

[klutedavid]

Yeah, these are the basal assumptions. You can check them over and over to see if they are violated and the more that they are not violated the more consistent with the assumption of naturalness the whole universe is. There is nothing in the universe that precludes a non-natural origin or causation. It can't be proved, so what, but it really works well.

I do not see what you see. I see problems riddled through our understanding of the universe. If you can accept an infinite energy contained in zero space (the singularity). Then your a genius. I do not accept the concept of infinity in science unless you can define it or measure that concept.

Scientists even declare that the universe may be infinite. They got me again with that concept of infinity. The term is used so often in mathematics and no one wants to define it.

 

[klutedavid]

And all so perfectly reasonable that most do no count them as assumptions.

I don't think 'perfection' exists in our universe. But we do live in alternate universes, don't we.

Reasonable to anyone who has been spoon fed these axioms and assumptions.

I have a problem with every assumption in science. It is never safe to assume anything.

 

[trinity80]

Hi Trinity. Let me see if I can answer a few of those questions.

I disagree about ´slight´ risk, it was only thanks to improvements in medical care that stopped so many deaths.
Thank you for your entertaining reply...walking fish peoples.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

No offense but I kind of feel like this line of questioning is similar to asking why is the sky blue. And if the sky were green then people might ask why is the sky green. And if the sky were purple people might ask why is the sky purple. So you see no matter what color the sky was people would still ask why it is that color. I think this line of questioning is similar to that and if God had made man’s dna different than what it is we would still be asking these questions regardless of how He constructed it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That question was answered earlier. If the car did not evolve from the chainsaw, then why do they both have internal combustion engines? The reason is because the function works well for both, and both were created by humans. The mechanics of life work well, and all life was designed by the same God.



As stated in Genesis, God made man in his own image. It was the image, not the mechanism, that makes humanity unique. It was the form, not the function. What is the difference between an android and some other kind of robot?



How unique? If made absolutely unique, then even the chemistry would be incompatible with the food chain. We would have to be fully autotrophic, and if so, then we would have insufficient energy to be animated. Again, it's not the function that makes humanity different, but it's the form. We think, move and behave in a way resembling a god, as opposed to the form and nature of animals.



No, it doesn't. There is no possible unbroken lineage from ape to human. There is no way to smoothly change the genetic makeup a little at a time, as necessary to transition from one to the other. In between the two is a chasm of monsters and corpses.

I agree and I think it’s important to notice that we still have apes and we have man and we have nothing in between these alleged evolutionary processes. Hence the missing link that has still never been found.

 

[pitabread]

I agree and I think it’s important to notice that we still have apes and we have man and we have nothing in between these alleged evolutionary processes. Hence the missing link that has still never been found.

There are numerous transitional fossils from early hominids to modern humans. The transitional fossils have such a fine blend of characteristics that creationists can't even agree on which are human or not.

The evidence for human evolution is quite well documented.