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

[Bradskii]

I already agreed that x distance is x distance. I’m not sure why you keep acting as if I’m denying that.

You can't be that ignorant about astronomy. As I said, distance equals time. You said you didn't agree that the universe is billions of years old. You cannot agree that something is billions of light years away and is not billions of years old.

Do you not understand the relationship between speed, time and distance?

 

[Bradskii]

*horrified*
Astrology?

Yikes. Darn auto spell check on this tablet...

 

[Bradskii]

I said that you claimed that we must use the bible to find scientific answers.

'if we want scientific answers to questions like the distance of stars, you say we must get the answer from the bible.'

I never said that

Yes you did.

Astronomy is correct when seen through the lens of scripture.

It's wrong if it doesn't use scripture and right when it does. That scientific discipline doesn't work 'through the lens of scripture' so as far as you are concerned it's wrong.

You do know we can see what you have already said?

 

[driewerf]

No, your assessment is wrong.

I do not.

Once again, no. Astronomy is correct when seen through the lens of scripture.

But astronomy is seen through the lens of a telescope. Scripture has no lenses.

 

[driewerf]

See Genesis 1.

Are you able to formulate an answer in your own words?

 

[driewerf]

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.

Good. So when astronomers tell us that the Andromeda galaxy is at a distance of 2.5 million of light years away, then you agree.
Do you also agree that the light we see today from the Andromeda Galaxy has been travelling for 2.5 millions of years.
For that is what the distance of the Andromeda Galaxy implies.

 

[driewerf]

Your presupposition is that if these observations run counter to scripture, then it’s scripture that is wrong.

No. A scientist's attitude is to follow the empirical data. Wherever it leads. The rightness or wrongness of scripture is irrelevant.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't know if Professor Miller believes it or not but he makes as a Biblical Linguist & Minister he makes a good case that abiogenesis is biblical.

What specific evidence disagrees with the potential for abiogenesis? You really do not understand the nature of science. That there is disagreement between scientists is a good thing because it advances science.

There were likely many cells prior to the LUCA which were dead ends. Evolution began with the LUCA

God of the gaps is not science nor is it evidence against abiogenesis or evolution.

No one is pretending it is.

Philosophy has a role in guiding science but is not science nor can it predict what scientific research will produce in the future.

Quoting Miller:
"Whether or not God was the ultimate cause is a different philosophical and theological question, not a scientific question."


I have no idea what your point is but so far in our exchange your only agreement made against abiogenesis is "science does not know everything" therefore "God of the gaps." Reminds me of the ancient Greeks who did not understand lighting therefor Zeus.

My crystal ball stopped working when I four so I have no idea if science will find the answers for abiogenesis or not but it would be tragic for science if the gave up.

I answered your point on miller. You missed it.
He does the classic fudge . God is the ultimate cause. Who set in track a process starting with abiogenesis which he calls the proximate cause. The rest so he believes was chemistry.

But Neither he nor you have any evidence whatsoever of that as a pathway to life.

I am a scientist and seemingly you don’t understand science at all - it’s for you to produce evidence it did happen.
its not my job to provide evidence it didn’t.

Here is your problem:

The simplest cell we know is a hideously complex self repairing, self evolving, factory more complex than the most complex chemical factories Man has ever built.
It produces and reproduces thousands of proteins, enzymes , and other extremely complex organic molecules. It has a built in energy plant to power it. It is so complex that several inch thick books are needed just as a general description!
Before that cell you have nothing at all Except conjecture On how it / they came to be.

And a chemical assumption of life also fails to explain consciousness and the increasing evidence it can be spatially separate from the brain. Any solution you propose must be consistent with ALL evidence.

But I can point at repeated forensic evidence of recently living created cells, documented by pathologists, verified by heart specialists, which a respected pathologist who studied them said was compelling evidence of created cells . One day they were there. The day before they weren’t.
And it wasn’t successive Small change that made them.

If creation of any cell can happen. You don’t need abiogenesis in the sense you and miller use the phrase:
my evidence trumps your void.

it seems science takes time to catch up with the bible.
-christianity proposed a big bang, whilst the likes of Fred Hoyle were convinced in a perpetual universe.
- christianity speaks of a soul. Increasing evidence or veridical NDE shows indeed , that comsciousness is not just a process of the brain.
christianiTy speaks of life created. Forensic evidence now confirms it happens. And it blows a hole in the bedrock of the scientific model. So no need for your kind of abiogenesis.

I like evidence!
Although that is not where faith comes from, yours or mine.

So what do you believe frank? it’s not obvious, other than a veneer of believing creationism is nonsense , and that you seem to expect science to explain things outside its ability to comment.

You seem tohave the scientific world upside down:
Science finds useful patterns in observations , limited to things that repeat, within your ability of our senses to detect them. All our models are a low dimension projection on a what can be a far more complex universe. Attempts to model using high dimension super strings are prevented by the dimensional observability problem.
as for the rest of the universe we cannot know. It is unknowable .

Science is a useful tool like a hammer. It’s not a philosophical crutch or a support for Imorality or hedonism.

 

[Hammster]

You can't be that ignorant about astronomy. As I said, distance equals time. You said you didn't agree that the universe is billions of years old. You cannot agree that something is billions of light years away and is not billions of years old.

Do you not understand the relationship between speed, time and distance?

I assume that your point is that it takes billions of years for light to reach us from distant stars. Do you think that there might be some Christian astronomers out there that have tackled this problem?

 

[Hammster]

I said that you claimed that we must use the bible to find scientific answers.

'if we want scientific answers to questions like the distance of stars, you say we must get the answer from the bible.'



Yes you did.

No, I didn’t.

It's wrong if it doesn't use scripture and right when it does. That scientific discipline doesn't work 'through the lens of scripture' so as far as you are concerned it's wrong.

Just to be clear, any science that ignores that the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago, and gives us ages that are far beyond that timeframe, is incorrect

You do know we can see what you have already said?

I’m quite aware.

 

[Hammster]

But astronomy is seen through the lens of a telescope. Scripture has no lenses.

You’re so funny. But don’t quit your day job.

 

[Hammster]

Good. So when astronomers tell us that the Andromeda galaxy is at a distance of 2.5 million of light years away, then you agree.

Yes.

Do you also agree that the light we see today from the Andromeda Galaxy has been travelling for 2.5 millions of years.

No.

For that is what the distance of the Andromeda Galaxy implies.

Not necessarily.

 

[Hammster]

No. A scientist's attiude is to follow the empirical data. Wherever it lads. The rightness or wrongness of scripture is irrelevant.

When an automaker makes a car, how he says he made it is true, regardless of how many tests might be made that say different. So it would be good to start with what he said.

 

[driewerf]

When an automaker makes a car, how he says he made it is true, regardless of how many tests might be made that say different. So it would be good to start with what he said.

Very poorly chosen analogy: Volkswagen emissions scandal - Wikipedia.
You go with the same fallacy as the many challenge threads that AV1166VET starts: don't believe your eyes or empirical evidence over made claims.
The crucial point is that
1) there is no evidence that said claims of the carmaker are really the carmaker's words
2) empirical evidence shows the claims wrong
3) worshipers of the carmakers can't agree on what the carmaker's words mean.

 

[driewerf]

Yes.

No.

Not necessarily.

Then show us your alternative to physics.

v= s/t or which implies t= s/v.
With s= 2.5 million light years (you agreed) and c = 300.000 km/s this means t = 2.5 million years.

 

[driewerf]

I assume that your point is that it takes billions of years for light to reach us from distant stars. Do you think that there might be some Christian astronomers out there that have tackled this problem?

Christian astronomers are astronomers when they do astronomy. Or they aren't astronomers. If they discard empirical evidence for because of "Scripture" they step out of science.
And if you refer to Jason Lisle's anisotropic synchrony convention, that's a fraud.

 

[Hammster]

Christian astronomers are astronomers when they do astronomy. Or they aren't astronomers. If they discard empirical evidence for because of "Scripture" they step out of science.
And if you refer to Jason Lisle's anisotropic synchrony convention, that's a fraud.

 

[driewerf]

Anything substantive to say?

 

[Frank Robert]

I answered your point on miller. You missed it.

That is simply your opinion. Most intelligent people would place more weight on an expert biblical linguist's reading of the bible over yours.

He does the classic fudge . God is the ultimate cause. Who set in track a process starting with abiogenesis which he calls the proximate cause. The rest so he believes was chemistry.

Miller was clear that God is the ultimate cause. It is you who is confusing them.

But Neither he nor you have any evidence whatsoever of that as a pathway to life.

The only evidence we have for OoL is we live in a natural world. Miller's interpretation of the bible is God provided the natural laws that created life. He shows that is what the book of Genesis is saying. Your interpretation bypasses the natural laws.

I am a scientist and seemingly you don’t understand science at all - it’s for you to produce evidence it did happen.
its not my job to provide evidence it didn’t.

Wow!!!!! Claiming authority.

The simplest cell we know is a hideously complex self repairing, self evolving, factory more complex than the most complex chemical factories Man has ever built.
It produces and reproduces thousands of proteins, enzymes , and other extremely complex organic molecules. It has a built in energy plant to power it. It is so complex that several inch thick books are needed just as a general description!
Before that cell you have nothing at all Except conjecture On how it / they came to be.

So you are claiming that abiogenesis is too complicated. Perhaps the prebiotic chemists should just throw in the towel.

Here is your problem:

I don't agree. If you think it is a problem for prebiotic chemists then you should convince them.

And a chemical assumption of life also fails to explain consciousness and the increasing evidence it can be spatially separate from the brain. Any solution you propose must be consistent with ALL evidence.

As a scientist you should be aware that claiming something is "too complicated" is not evidence.

But I can point at repeated forensic evidence of recently living created cells, documented by pathologists, verified by heart specialists, which a respected pathologist who studied them said was compelling evidence of created cells . One day they were there. The day before they weren’t.
And it wasn’t successive Small change that made them.

Forensic evidence is not scientific evidence. DNA is both scientific and forensic. Please produce the forensic evidence that is as reliable and predictable as DNA.

So what do you believe frank? it’s not obvious, other than a veneer of believing creationism is nonsense , and that you seem to expect science to explain things outside its ability to comment.

It is not what I believe or don't that matters. I am simply following OoL because I find it interesting science. If tomorrow scientists were to produce life from inorganic chemicals most Christians would still see and believe God as the ultimate cause. Wouldn't you?

 

[driewerf]

Bradskii:
Which it doesn't. It says the universe is billions of years old. So astronomy as a science would cease to exist if you had your way. It took long enough, but that's one down.

Science is wrong if it says that. This doesn’t negate science at all. There’s still plenty of astronomy to do.

And again, we have to ask: your immense expertise in this matter is based on what?
How many years have you studied astronomy, mathematics, physics? To which telescopes do you have access? What observations have you made?
Or is just saying "wrong" enough now?