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

[Frank Robert]

We really are wasting our time diamond

You have that backwards, it is you who is wasting everyone's time with opinions claiming they are science w/o any evidence or links to support them.

Since in my list there are at least 5 different mutually exclusive beliefs on eg Eucharist and at least ten other areas of critical doctrine including baptism by definition almost all do not have the truth.

You are simply providing an opinion that seemingly miraculous events are proof of your beliefs. I don't think many people here deny that so called miraculous events happen but such events do not prove your particular beliefs.

Nor does it say what Frank hopes it means. That life is a product of abiogenesis followed by natural process, since as I pointed out on my thread the evolution from first cells to present complexity is a complete unknown.

I am not the one making multiple ridiculous claims you are the one doing that over and over and over again.

My only abiogensis' claim has been that it is legitimate science research. Regurgitating creationist/ID nonsense does not disprove abiogenesis.

All it takes is a decent IQ to rip that post containing” 87% accept” to shreds.
What he means is 87% believe!

Do you have a decent IQ? Take your own challenge.

 

[Diamond72]

You do not have science or a scientific method.

Yes, I do. The Bible does not say the grass is pink and the sky is orange. The grass is green and the sky is blue. Any first-grade student knows that. The Bible does not contradict science in any way, shape, or form. Science cannot falsify the Bible at any time in any way. There are many facts in the Bible that science can 100% verify are true. Some things we accept on faith but there is plenty of facts and plenty of History that archeology alone can show to prove the Bible is accurate and true. Any attempt to falsify the Bible is just a straw man argument. They make something up that is not even in the Bible, then they falsify their own argument.

Look at Noah's flood. They say every high mountain in the entire world was covered with water. This is not what the Bible says. It is their misunderstanding of the Bible that they falsify. So clearly the problem is not with God and the LIving word of God. The problem is in their lack of understanding of the truth.

you should not expect anyone who has had a high school course in biology to agree with you.

I really do not even know anyone that has a high school level of understanding of what a biodiverse ecology is. I wish they did so we could have a discussion about it. My brother was reading a book about the "Song of Trees" and How a tree can be a whole ecosystem itself. We read this in the Bible, Luke 13:18 "Then Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? To what can I compare it? 19 It is like a mustard seed that a man tossed into his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches.”

Science gives us insight into what God is doing, but they do not tell the whole story. If they did then they would praise, honor and give Him glory for what He has done. Instead, they mock God and call frame shift a random mutation, and claim that the tree created itself. Even though they cannot tell you where the laws of physics come from . As if they always existed. By definition that is God because He always exists.

Science is a systematic and evidence-based approach to understanding the natural world. Its methods rely on observation, experimentation, and the testing of hypotheses. While science can provide reliable information about the physical world and how it behaves, it is important to note that it is limited in its scope and ability to determine what is ultimately "true".

Scientific theories are always subject to change and revision based on new evidence or discoveries. Additionally, science is limited in its ability to address questions about subjective experiences, ethics, and the supernatural, which are outside the realm of empirical investigation.

In summary, while science can provide valuable information and insights about the physical world, its ability to determine what is ultimately "true" is limited by the nature of its methods and the scope of its inquiry.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I see theistic evolution as a higher system for evolution - evolution is purely a mechanism and theistic means that the mechanism was prepared/designed by God to produce the outcome He wanted.

I do not think it means that biological evolution needed to have some special divine interventions against its mechanism. In its basics it just means it has a purpose.

I've not seen any evidence that "TE" has any sort of coherence. If there is "divine selection" is there not natural selection? Do both exist? If so when do you apply which one to understand the origin for some species? If there is only "divine selection" what value does it have in explaining the relationships of species. Does god just want dozens of ecologically similar species of oak? There is no "science" to it at that point and TE is just a simulacrum, or in other words, a pseudoscience.

Though a lot of people answer the "TE" like answer on public surveys of origins, I suspect most just are taking there acceptance of evolution from what they learned in school and their belief in the Adam and Noah stories from church and mash them together in the 30 seconds while the surveyor waits for their answer.

(Fortunately, or priests never tried to teach us about the origins of life as they were too concerned about abortion and divorce. Thank goodness for small miracles they never got around to mangling science.)

 

[Diamond72]

People in the Old Testament positioned kidneys as the center of our consciousness,

All you do is falsify your opinion of what the Bible says. You show that your understanding of this passage cannot be true or accurate. While the Bible does associate the kidneys with thoughts and emotions, it does not explicitly say that the kidney is "the center of our consciousness".

While the kidneys and brain are separate organs with distinct functions, they are connected through a complex network of hormones, nerves, and blood vessels, and may influence each other in various ways.

Research has suggested that chronic kidney disease may be associated with changes in brain structure and function, including cognitive impairment and an increased risk of dementia. This may be due to the effects of inflammation and oxidative stress on the brain, which are common in kidney disease.

The odds of having reduced cognitive ability were increased by 23% among individuals with chronic kidney disease, Dr. Kurella-Tamura's group observed. More advanced stages of kidney disease were associated with even higher risk of poor mental functioning.

I have science to show that Bible is accurate and true. You have nothing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This does not even take into account the subject of funding and that often lies are considered to be fact. Like the idea, we only use 10% of the brain. Although in this case that may be true. There is a lot of bait and switch going on. Along with outright fraud. There is a significant amount of insurance fraud.

Science is big business and people want to stuff their pockets with all the lucrative loot.

You really need to stop your attacks on science. You do not know what you are talking about in this quoted text.

 

[Diamond72]

I've not seen any evidence that "TE" has any sort of coherence.

Let me make this clear. I think Frances Collins is responsible for the pandemic when he removed the ban on research on high-risk pathogens. Still, he is the leading theistic evolutionist in his book: "The language of God". Where he says DNA is the language of God. He is the leading expert on this because Collins headed the Human Genome Project, which was an international scientific research project that aimed to sequence and map the entire human genome.

President Barack Obama said: "His groundbreaking work has changed the way we consider our health and examine disease". Now if you think a highly accredited leading man of science is incoherent, then that does not say much about what you call science.

It is possible to hold a coherent and consistent worldview that incorporates both scientific and religious perspectives. Collins himself has argued that science and faith can be complementary, rather than in opposition to one another.

Here is a quote from an interview he gave to the Wall Street Journal in 2015:

"I see God as the creator of the universe, and the creator of the laws of physics that govern it. I see science as a way of exploring and understanding that creation. So for me, there is no conflict between those worldviews. In fact, I think they are quite complementary. Science is a way of learning about the natural world, and faith is a way of learning about the spiritual world."

 

[Diamond72]

You really need to stop your attacks on science. You do not know what you are talking about

You do not think that science is not BIG BUSINESS. Maybe I should leave you to the comfort of your ivory tower. I really do not want to pop your bubble. Let me give you one example because I would like to pop the Bill Gates bubble and the scam he is running. The Gates Foundation has committed over $1.75 billion in funding to COVID-19 response efforts, including vaccine research and development.

What you have is $1.75 billion dollars of tax-free money going to research on the vaccine. What they do not want you to know is that Bill Gates holds 10% of Pfizer stock in a holding company.

Gates Foundation Buys Stakes in Drug Makers - WSJ

www.wsj.com

Now, as an investor in Merck & Co., Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson and others, the Gates Foundation has a financial interest in common with makers of AIDS drugs, diagnostic tools, vaccines, and other drugs. The stock purchases are a new type of investment for the foundation: In the past, it held primarily bonds and other nonequity investments.

Joe Cerrell, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Gates Foundation, says the stock investments, reported this week in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, are independent of the foundation's programs.

"Gates says the $10 billion his foundation has put into the three organizations has created an estimated $200 billion in social and economic benefits. (The estimate is from the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank that estimates cost analysis to global problems.)"

This is a lot more return than the 3% the rest of us get on our investments.

Gates may only be the second richest on paper. But that is because he is starting to hide his money so it does not show up the way it currently does. But to say science is not big business is about as wrong as you can be.

Bill Gates invested in Chatbot to make Bing competitive. So you should love Gates based on your love for Chatbot GPT. Musk saw the handwriting on the wall and backed out a long time ago. Gates has no problem laughing all the way to the bank because it is so easy to pull the wool over your eyes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let me make this clear. I think Frances Collins is responsible for the pandemic when he removed the ban on research on high-risk pathogens. Still, he is the leading theistic evolutionist in his book: "The language of God". Where he says DNA is the language of God. He is the leading expert on this because Collins headed the Human Genome Project, which was an international scientific research project that aimed to sequence and map the entire human genome.

So grand vaguery about "TE" and then a bonus COVID conspiracy. Blah.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You do not think that science is not BIG BUSINESS. Maybe I should leave you to the comfort of your ivory tower. I really do not want to pop your bubble. Let me give you one example because I would like to pop the Bill Gates bubble and the scam he is running.

Science, not conspiracies. I don't care about your grand Bill Gates conspiracies. (Take them to the conspiracy board.)

 

[Diamond72]

Science, not conspiracies. I don't care about your grand Bill Gates conspiracies. (Take them to the conspiracy board.)

already answered this one

 

[Diamond72]

So grand vaguery about "TE" and then a bonus COVID conspiracy. Blah.

I am far from qualified to give you a theory. I have to leave that up to people like Collins. So you admit that the man sitting on the top rung of the ladder of science is vague and blah. What does THAT say about science? I seem to have more regard for science than you do.

 

[Diamond72]

We really are wasting our time diamond

They like to run people in circles. They are just to lazy to do their own research and try to get others to do their work for them. I call it the silver spoon syndrome. They never learned how to feed themselves so they expect others to spoon-feed them.

 

[trophy33]

All you do is falsify your opinion of what the Bible says. You show that your understanding of this passage cannot be true or accurate. While the Bible does associate the kidneys with thoughts and emotions, it does not explicitly say that the kidney is "the center of our consciousness".

While the kidneys and brain are separate organs with distinct functions, they are connected through a complex network of hormones, nerves, and blood vessels, and may influence each other in various ways.

Research has suggested that chronic kidney disease may be associated with changes in brain structure and function, including cognitive impairment and an increased risk of dementia. This may be due to the effects of inflammation and oxidative stress on the brain, which are common in kidney disease.

The odds of having reduced cognitive ability were increased by 23% among individuals with chronic kidney disease, Dr. Kurella-Tamura's group observed. More advanced stages of kidney disease were associated with even higher risk of poor mental functioning.

I have science to show that Bible is accurate and true. You have nothing.

Again, all your post is irrelevant to the topic.

There are no thoughts, emotions or consciousness in kidneys, this biblical anatomy is scientifically wrong.

 

[trophy33]

I've not seen any evidence that "TE" has any sort of coherence. If there is "divine selection" is there not natural selection? Do both exist? If so when do you apply which one to understand the origin for some species? If there is only "divine selection" what value does it have in explaining the relationships of species. Does god just want dozens of ecologically similar species of oak? There is no "science" to it at that point and TE is just a simulacrum, or in other words, a pseudoscience.

Though a lot of people answer the "TE" like answer on public surveys of origins, I suspect most just are taking there acceptance of evolution from what they learned in school and their belief in the Adam and Noah stories from church and mash them together in the 30 seconds while the surveyor waits for their answer.

(Fortunately, or priests never tried to teach us about the origins of life as they were too concerned about abortion and divorce. Thank goodness for small miracles they never got around to mangling science.)

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying.

Biological evolution is a scientific mechanism of how our bodies came to be. Theistic evolution says that this mechanism was prepared by God to fulfill his plans.

 

[dlamberth]

You do not think that science is not BIG BUSINESS.

I think it's very dishonest to group all of science into a single example.

 

[Frank Robert]

The problem is in their lack of understanding of the truth.

You continue to confuse science and religion. Science is not about religious truth or about the bible.

Scientific theories are always subject to change and revision based on new evidence or discoveries.

Finally we agree on something!

 

[Frank Robert]

You do not think that science is not BIG BUSINESS. Maybe I should leave you to the comfort of your ivory tower. I really do not want to pop your bubble. Let me give you one example because I would like to pop the Bill Gates bubble and the scam he is running. The Gates Foundation has committed over $1.75 billion in funding to COVID-19 response efforts, including vaccine research and development.

What you have is $1.75 billion dollars of tax-free money going to research on the vaccine. What they do not want you to know is that Bill Gates holds 10% of Pfizer stock in a holding company.

You are conflating science with "big business" taking over hospitals, specialty clinics, general health clinics, health insurance and with Pharma and anything else they else they can package for the proles.

 

[Diamond72]

You are conflating science with "big business" taking over hospitals, specialty clinics, general health clinics, health insurance and with Pharma and anything else they else they can package for the proles.

Science is neutral, science is agnostic. Yet people who claim to represent science are in our universities and on this board abusing science for their own personal agenda. They accuse me of the same when I use science to prove the Bible is accurate and true. So atheists, agnostics & Christians all use Science to support their claims.

So evil people can use science to build weapons of mass destruction. The people with the best weapons seem to have the advantage in battle. So as always, there is the use and abuse. In the same way, people who are greedy for money can use science to accomplish their agenda. I spent a lot of my life trying to convince people to do good and use what they have to help others and not harm them. This is the golden rule that we find in almost all religions except for terrorism.

 

[Bradskii]

I just have an alternative belief to yours.
At a scientific level just like you , I dont know.
And that is the best science can say.

There is evidence of created cells in our time. Study it.

You weren't talking about abiogenesis (you REALLY should know the difference by now). But evolution.

So you have no idea how we came to be. All you have is a belief. Versus my galactic amount of evidence. Which your faith tells you not to accept. Oh, and yet again some bleeding statues and bits of heart - we must be well into double figures with this monstrousy irrelevant argument, which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with discounting one iota of my evidence.

Again, this has been a waste of my time. We are done.

 

[Mountainmike]

You weren't talking about abiogenesis (you REALLY should know the difference by now). But evolution.

So you have no idea how we came to be. All you have is a belief. Versus my galactic amount of evidence. Which your faith tells you not to accept. Oh, and yet again some bleeding statues and bits of heart - we must be well into double figures with this monstrousy irrelevant argument, which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with discounting one iota of my evidence.

Again, this has been a waste of my time. We are done.

Oh goody. You have evidence?

As I keep pointing out , organisms are made of cells
so how did evolution of the early cells, evolve to the minimum cells we know today, which in the most stripped down forms are hundreds of bases?
Where on the path was asexual replaced by sexual reproduction.
Did the present genome start as DNA or only evolve to it?
How many chromomes did early organisms have?
You cannot answer any of them. You have no evidence for any of them.


You know doodly squat . You have no evidence at all.

And you seem to be proud of it.
you have an over simplistic dichotomy of abiogebesis and evolution of large organisms ignoring the massive problem between, and the evolution of the cells of big organisms which is the main problem of evolution , and about which you know little or nothing.

You read some 101 primer by an apologist for late stage evolution who decided the rest was a fact.
but saying It louder to those who contest won’t make it more of a fact!

meanwhile Im a scientist - the first step is knowing what you don’t know.
When where or how life started is a mystery as is evolution of cells from there to those of complex organisms.
And as a paleontogist noted there is not much known for certain in the supposed family tree of life, on a macro scale.

Its true. If you really think there is a galactic amount of evidence, you are indeed wasting your time.
Because It seems assessing the nature of evidence is not your srrong suit.

reality is
1/ nobody knows for certain,
2/ such evidence that there is is plausibility / speculation not actual evidence of a process known to have happened
3/ so all scientists have is a belief “ don’t know but I think”

4/ it may even have happened, and if evidence ever comes I might believe it, but It is a long way from being able to claim it so.

I will wager you still have not searched the evidence of created heart cells in so called Eucharistic miracles, for no better reason than it offends your world view.