Belief in Micro, But not Macro?

[Key]

Btw, I have to commend you for making over 5000 posts in only 6 months. That's crazy

Give ToholdNothign time, I am sure he will beat Razor's numbers with the way he is going.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

My lack of respect for the "Scientific Community" started with Piltdown man, and it has not improved as it seems the same tired and weak tactics and mindset continue among them.

If they spent a quarter the time looking at Piltdown man as they did on the Paluxy river tracks, I would have respected them, but they didn't and the only reason why, is because of religious prejudiced.

You mean religious prejudice, right? And again, you are taking misuse of something as your means for dismissing something, which seems to go against any logic. Science admits its mistakes and moves on. Why must you harp on the past as if it is all science has to justify itself? It still seeks answers now in the present. Why not critique it there, unless of course, you don't have the capacity to. In which case, just admit your ignorance and critique it on another area, if that is the case.

Excuse me, didn't you posses the audacity to tell me how to follow my own religion?

I was mistaken in that regard, though perhaps you misunderstood my qualification that I was uncertain as to whether this was the case. But then you seem to think that being an insider always means you know the religion inside and out, which isn't the case. There are certain things you would prefer not to know, right?

Now, unless motivated by a need to peruse some naturalist ideal in a vain quest to disprove God, why are these "Scientist" continuing to try to find something that after well over a hundred years of searching has tuned up Nill.

Again, you're assuming that every scientist is out to disprove God, which isn't necessarily the case. You're trying to paint science as a religion, when, unlike any basic religion, there are neither sacred texts that are unquestionable in their basic statements, nor are there beliefs that must be taken as true without first demonstrating in a significant manner that they work. This seems to be a personal vendetta of yours against scientists because you have had a bad experience with antitheistic scientists, which are not the same as atheistic scientists, as much as you'd like it to be so.

Any rational person would have seen the light and realized, it just was not going to happen by it's own, it's not going to be some naturally occurring event.

Nature can surprise us and has for many centuries. Germ theory, cell theory, subatomic physics, etc. Who are you to say that your God couldn't have set the machine in motion, so to speak, and let it progress out in that sense? That's what many Christian scientists would advocate, I imagine.

Which is funny, because I hear constantly, that life is this complex thing that is highly details, and yet out of the same lip and same breath I hear that it could just happen of it's own accord.

Of its own accord only means that with the significant amount of time we have for the events to happen, they happen by natural processes that are quite primeval in a sense.

I worked in engineering for over 10 years, and the reality of life does not work like that, you can't have it both ways. Either it is so simple that is can happen on it's own and this can be recreated easily enough, or it is too complex to fabricate by any means we have available to us, which means it can't just happen of it's own.

There is such a thing as a middle ground. Things can develop complex systems that were composed of parts that sufficed very much on their own in different contexts. Humans originally needed certain organs, it would appear, but now they are obsolete and can be removed with no problem, such as the tonsils or appendix. Just because we cannot fabricate it by means we have now doesn't mean there weren't vastly different circumstances billions of years ago that we still are unable to adequately replicate.

But it is the dance around and deception and two faces songs that I hear constantly that picks at any respect I might posses for the people that entertain these fictional delusions, and while I would have more respect for them if they just openly admitted that this was not scientific, that it was just some emotionally driven faith based belief that was founded on wishful desires and anything actual then the total lies they feed people about it being scientific.

Again you're confusing antitheism in science with general atheism and naturalism in science which is only hostile to faith if the faithful take themselves so seriously that they can't accept that they might be wrong.

In fact, it is the Christians that challenge these lies, and here is what burns me. Even after real scientist debunk them, the lies continue.

You call them lies, but perhaps the lies are self inflicted. Perhaps you don't want to admit that in some sense evolutionary theory is right, even if Big Bang theory might just be a way to get around God, which seems odd, because it was originally posited by a Catholic priest, was it not?

Which again, is why, until concrete observable evidence is put in my lap, I have heard too many lies and half truths to not be a hard core skeptic.

Which is exactly what many atheists say to you concerning your God, so honestly, this just proves the double standard you're using.

and the only way to change that is by doing what they are supposed to be doing to begin with, use real science.

Perhaps you don't understand real science because you look past the theory and only focus on the application in a human context, which isn't always what science does.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Give ToholdNothign time, I am sure he will beat Razor's numbers with the way he is going.

You'll notice I've been here only 6 months as it is and I only have about 600+ posts. What does that tell you? Maybe that I pick and choose where I post a bit more prudently, though honestly, you're predicting a bit too far ahead there, it seems. Raze lives here, I come here for amusement.

 

[Key]

You'll notice I've been here only 6 months as it is and I only have about 600+ posts. What does that tell you? Maybe that I pick and choose where I post a bit more prudently, though honestly, you're predicting a bit too far ahead there, it seems. Raze lives here, I come here for amusement.

Not really, it just means you have limited yourself to this topic area (or perhaps, thankfully, we have limited you to here) not that you are showing any respect for the rules, you know, the one about the OP being the only non-Christian allowed respond to the questions posed.

But, I am sure if you could post in the Christian Only sections, noting especially Theology, your desire to debate and carry on pointless exchanges would boost you to well over double Razors numbers.

God Bless

*Note: and the amusement is noted, it is the hallmark of a Troll.And I think we are quickly becoming bored of you, or at least I am.

 

[Key]

Which is exactly what many atheists say to you concerning your God, so honestly, this just proves the double standard you're using.

No, it is not a double standard, (As much as I think you wish it was) because no one is claiming that Christianity or God are Scientific Theory.

So while I find endless amusement in the ignorance of people who claim something is scientific and then want to claim religious immunity, it is just one more reason why I don't (nor should I) respect them.

Thank you.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Not really, it just means you have limited yourself to this topic area (or perhaps, thankfully, we have limited you to here) not that you are showing any respect for the rules, you know, the one about the OP being the only non-Christian allowed respond to the questions posed.

I limit myself because they are genuinely interesting. And honestly, to be blunt, that rule is unnecessary. It stifles and smothers the conversation beween Chrsitians and non Christians to no end. If I'm interested in tehe question the OP brought up, I see no reason why I can't post if only because I'm interested in learning.

But, I am sure if you could post in the Christian Only sections, noting especially Theology, your desire to debate and carry on pointless exchanges would boost you to well over double Razors numbers.

Only if the topic interested me to begin with. I don't just post everywhere to increase my post count; not that that's what raze is doing, but in any case, you can't generalize me like that as if you've somehow got all my activity in a database or even understand my motivations for posting.

 

[Intrepid99]

To the original poster,
Thats right that bacteria and virus mutate. It has been observed and we will continue to observe. For example take malaria. The protozoa is getting resistant to drugs with point mutations. This is why the powerful drugs are not enough. But the malaria is defenseless against people with sickle cell anemia.
This shows the limits of evolution. There can be single point mutations, but not enough to infer to macro scale.

Source: Undergraduate and graduate studies in molecular biology.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No, it is not a double standard, (As much as I think you wish it was) because no one is claiming that Christianity or God are Scientific Theory.

So while I find endless amusement in the ignorance of people who claim something is scientific and then want to claim religious immunity, it is just one more reason why I don't (nor should I) respect them.

So where do creationism and intelligent design fall into the notion that people aren't saying God is a scientific theory? I know most people don't believe that, but you seem to have the whole notion of science today skewed in a way that you perceive antitheism everywhere, which seems to just manifest some complex of you wanting to be in the minority and be a contrarian by association.

Believing something of a metaphysical nature doesn't equal believing something in a religious manner necessarily. Believing in evolution is hardly a matter of one being religious, nonreligious or anti religious, because all of those groups can believe or disbelieve in it for any number of reasons. The panspermia theory comes to mind for many atheists technically in contrast to evolutionary theory, surprisingly enough. Raelians are similar, though potentially cultish, I'm not sure. Just because someone wants to be scientific doesn't mean that they all believe in evolution and just because people don't believe in God doesn't mean they are on a quest to disprove God, even if they happen to be scientists. Your examples are hardly much different than me bringing up examples of hateful Christians and saying all Christians are like that. It's neither fair nor factual.

 

[Key]

I limit myself because they are genuinely interesting. And honestly, to be blunt, that rule is unnecessary. It stifles and smothers the conversation beween Chrsitians and non Christians to no end. If I'm interested in tehe question the OP brought up, I see no reason why I can't post if only because I'm interested in learning.

You can start your own topic on it if it interests you so much, it is uncouth and disruptive to debate the answers we give someone else.

God Bless

 

[Key]

So where do creationism and intelligent design fall into the notion that people aren't saying God is a scientific theory?

Because theories like Creationism and Intelligent Design do not involve the God itself, but only the methods they used.

And, the day a Scientist has to look at a Religious person as say "Well they do it too" is the day I loose respect for the Scientist... it was many years ago.

And since they (being people who claim to be people "of science") are have not stopped being so obtuse, I have no started to respect them, and I don't see it happening anytime soon, but I try to keep an open mind, even if I am a realist.

Thankfully, to be fair, they seem to be content to only infect the field of biology in a way that has no true impact on our development and advancement as a society as a whole.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Because theories like Creationism and Intelligent Design do not involve the God itself, but only the methods they used.

Yet they posit God as the solution, so you can't deny the involvement of the God in an ontological sense, even if the methods are at least partly relying on arguments and evidence, though also relying on what is a vested faith position in a transcendent entity. And before you turn that on a scientist's supposed faith in the scientific method, they have trust because it is already evidenced to work. And even a faith in some sense towards the basic laws of logic doesn't come close topositing a sovereign will and creator

And, the day a Scientist has to look at a Religious person as say "Well they do it too" is the day I loose respect for the Scientist... it was many years ago.

When has a scientist critiqued a creationist for having trust in te scientific method? Creationists create the most obscurantist notion in their theories to justify something any genuine believer in deity would argue has to be primarily based on faith and any arguments by reason are preaching to the choir, not the unbeliever. Can you falsify God in any sense? Is God even observable? No. Like Aquinas' argument from analogy, creationism and intelligent design advocates think that we can argue from the universe as effect to God as cause.

And since they (being people who claim to be people "of science") are have not stopped being so obtuse, I have no started to respect them, and I don't see it happening anytime soon, but I try to keep an open mind, even if I am a realist.

Respect isn't always earned, in some sense, it should be freely given. Does not Yeshua speak of loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you?

Thankfully, to be fair, they seem to be content to only infect the field of biology in a way that has no true impact on our development and advancement as a society as a whole.

And how would advancing our understanding of the genome and its relation to evolutionary theory, let alone the other applications of that kind of knowledge be infecting biology? Scientists never said everyone had to agree on everything, merely that they present a falsifiable and verifiable hypothesis if they do detract in some way.

 

[Key]

And how would advancing our understanding of the genome and its relation to evolutionary theory, let alone the other applications of that kind of knowledge be infecting biology? Scientists never said everyone had to agree on everything, merely that they present a falsifiable and verifiable hypothesis if they do detract in some way.

Ahhh innocent idealism, with no grip on the reality of things. That's not how it works.

And as it stands today, Macro Evolution is not falsifiable, as it continues to remain entirely unaffected by the evidence.

As I said, thankfully these cultists that want to press this idea are content to stay where they don't cause too much impediment upon our technological development, ooooo wait... did you just say "advancing our understanding of the genome and its relation to evolutionary theory" ?

I take it back, maybe they are corrupting the whole ball of wax. Why am I not surprised.

God Bless

 

[Key]

Respect isn't always earned, in some sense, it should be freely given. Does not Yeshua speak of loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you?

again, you forget yourself.... yet again.

It is not your place, nor shall it ever be, to tell me about my religion or how I should follow it.

You're becoming very trollish now.

God Bless

 

[Harry3142]

Dr. Miller, when he was a graduate student, filled a beaker with hydrogen, methane and ammonia, as it was believed that the atmosphere of Primitive Earth consisted mainly of these 3 gasses. Under these conditions he successfully brought about amino acids.

But Dr. Miller himself 'scrapped' his experiment after he tried using carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor, and failed. And why did he use these 3 gasses? NASA scientists discovered circa 1980 that the atmosphere of Primitive Earth was actually composed mainly of these gasses, and not hydrogen, methane and ammonia.

There are problems with the theory of evolution (and it is a theory, not a fact) that the promoters of evolution as a pseudo-religion have failed to address. Their claim that the earth's last extinction level event occurred 65 million years ago is disproved by, of all things, science itself.

Let's start with meteor impacts, and the craters they made, which caused substantial damage since the time of the dinosaurs:

1. Canada, 38 million years ago, 17-mile diameter crater.

2. Chesapeake Bay, 35 million years ago, 53-mile diameter crater.

3. Canada, 23 million years ago, 15-mile diameter crater.

4.Germany, 15 million years ago, 15-mile diameter crater.

5.Tajikistan, 10 million years ago, 32-mile diameter crater.

6. Ghana, 1.5 million years ago, 6.5-mile diameter crater.

Add to those disasters the eruptions of Ngorongoro, Yellowstone, and Mt. Toba (the last one only 70,000 years ago) and this planet has been quite literally uninhabitable by any but the smallest animal and plant life many times since the last ELE that the evolutionists claim we had.

In every case listed here, there was a massive blast, followed by intense heat, a supersonic blast of air, and a saturation of the atmosphere with enough ash and dust to asphyxiate every animal for miles immediately. The animals that were farther away were not safe, by any means. Their deaths occurred within a month of the happenings, due to their inhaling a powdery dust that had the consistency of ground glass.

But the nightmare wasn't over. In each and every case what followed was a winter which quite literally lasted for years. Snow in measurable amounts was on every landmass year-round. The estimates are that the small collisions caused winters to last for from 3 to 5 years, but the larger collisions caused the earth to become a 'walk-in freezer' for well over a decade.

I grew up, and still live, in Ohio. If it's one thing we know about in this region it's the effects of prolonged exposure to subfreezing temperatures. There is simply no way any animal which relied on its habitation and sustenance to come from the surface of this planet to have survived those years of cold and deprivation.

As for my personal belief, I'm an Old Earth Creationist.

 

[salida]

The agnostic and athiest scientists who don't believe Genesis will always come up with naturalistic ways on how creation is possible because they don't believe in a supernatural God. I don't even consider this grasping at straws but grasping at air.