Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

Darwin was torn between his religion and his discoveries for a while. The irony is that we know now that Darwin was wrong, particularly on his finches, and this probably would have had him abandon common ancestry if he knew it.

I think that evolutionists are guilty of the same confirmation bias they try to criticize creationists as being.

Loudmouth said:

Do we have an answer from you as it pertains to the opening post? You can't show how creationism can make predictions with respect to DNA sequences?

Click to expand...

Can you use evolution to make predictions about what I'm about to eat for dinner?

I'll give you a small hint:
It's an Italian foot-long sub with a bunch of banana peppers. And it's awesome.

Loudmouth said:

We often hear that creationism is just a different interpretation of the evidence.

Click to expand...

I've rarely heard that.

Creationism tell the story that God Created.
This cannot be tested and so is outside of
ability of the scientific method to examine.

Additionally, Creationism is limited to the origin of
life and not any changes since then.

Justatruthseeker said:

Show me where I made the claim Nobel Prizes were awarded for showing the Milky-Way was the entire universe?????? Go ahead show us??? I think your adding and putting words in my mouth in your pathetic strawman. Let's see what I said, find that post and post it here. I think you'll find it says nothing of the sort - just a strawman by you.

Click to expand...

Right here: "Scientists once got Nobel prizes for discovering the milky-Way was the entire universe. How'd that turn out - despite the fact that all the scientists agreed it was well deserved????"

SkyWriting said:

Additionally, Creationism is limited to the origin of
life and not any changes since then.

Click to expand...

That's not Creationism in the sense that most people on here would use the term. It sounds like it's probably Evolutionary Creationism/Theistic Evolution, which usually has no issues with modern science.

TudorGothicSerpent said:

That's not Creationism in the sense that most people on here would use the term. It sounds like it's probably Evolutionary Creationism/Theistic Evolution, which usually has no issues with modern science.

Click to expand...

Modern science is nothing else but issues with modern science.
The point of publishing research is to challenge the status quo
of the current body of science.

SkyWriting said:

Modern science is nothing else but issues with modern science.
The point of publishing research is to challenge the status quo/sef
of the current body of science.

Click to expand...

There's taking a concept and running with it, and then there's this.

Science is a self-criticizing field. That said, it's not like there's nothing in science that's pretty well accepted. Evolution by natural selection isn't any kind of special sacred calf, but the basic underlying ideas have been shown to be true in the same way that it's true that the moon orbits the Earth and that the Earth orbits the sun. You can hit a point where "self criticism" clearly becomes an excuse for proposing ideas that are well outside of rationality

SkyWriting said:

The point of publishing research is to challenge the status quo
of the current body of science.

Click to expand...

Nothing could be more wrong than that comment.

TudorGothicSerpent said:

There's taking a concept and running with it, and then there's this.

Science is a self-criticizing field. That said, it's not like there's nothing in science that's pretty well accepted. Evolution by natural selection isn't any kind of special sacred calf, but the basic underlying ideas have been shown to be true in the same way that it's true that the moon orbits the Earth and that the Earth orbits the sun. You can hit a point where "self criticism" clearly becomes an excuse for proposing ideas that are well outside of rationality

Click to expand...

Like multiverses, string theory, dark matter, anti matter, and up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom quarks?
You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
How do you think we got to our current state of temporary "knowledge"?

Loudmouth said:

You will notice that creationists do not publish research that challenges the status quo. That's because they have no science to present.

Click to expand...

I notice that you don't look for any.
This makes you look like a poor researcher.

Download Superfaults and Pseudotachylytes: Evidence of Catastrophic Earth Movements PDF

Download The Chasm Between the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes: A Review of the Evolutionary Literature PDF

Download New Research Evaluating Similarities Between Human and Chimpanzee DNA PDF

SkyWriting said:

Like multiverses, string theory, dark matter, anti matter, and up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom quarks?
You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
How do you think we got to our current state of temporary "knowledge"?

Click to expand...

Not to be rude or overly hostile, but are you seriously denying the existence of quarks? Multiverses and string theory are pretty speculative and not major aspects of physics outside of theoretical stuff. Quarks are actually visibly detectable, though (in a bubble chamber based on the trails that they leave, but still, these aren't mysterious and unproven particles).

AV1611VET said:

What data?

Click to expand...

He is talking about data that you would have to have taken a class in Chemistry to understand. There are books written by people with advance science degrees that are Christians. From what I have seen they are so busy to get their science degree so they have not had time to study the Bible. There was a time when people like Darwin studied the Bible and Science. But now they seem to be more of one and less of the other. If you look at Collins for example and he talks about how DNA is the Language of God. He does not really defend this so much as to accept this belief on faith. Unlike people like Schroeder, Collins has not studied ancient Hebrew and does not know anything about ancient Hebrew begin the language of God. I know you have some beliefs about the language the Bible was written in, but I am not sure I know what you believe in that regard.

The Bible was FIRST written for a generation a long long time ago. Each generation has the task of understanding and interpretation the Bible for their generation. For example you use one of the KJV that was published at a point in time. Now we try and use that edition to make the Bible real and relevant for the generation that is alive today and comes to the Bible to study and learn the message God has for us today in our generation. As well as the message that God has for the first or original generation that the Bible was written for.

Funny evolutionists expect Christians to have advanced degrees in science, but they do not have the most basic of understanding of the 101 courses that you take at Bible school. They make a mockery out of our belief system and then get so snarly when we return in kind to tear their beliefs to shreds. Somewhere along the way I am sure there was a first shot that was heard around the world but I do not think it was Christianity that fired that first shot.

Psalm 2

2 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

5 Then shall He speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure.

joshua 1 9 said:

Funny evolutionists expect Christians to have advanced degrees in science, but they do not have the most basic of understanding of the 101 courses that you take at Bible school. They make a mockery out of our belief system and then get so snarly when we return in kind to tear their beliefs to shreds. Somewhere along the way I am sure there was a first shot that was heard around the world but I do not think it was Christianity that fired that first shot.

Click to expand...

That is so true!

How many times have I said, in effect:

"The mirror hurts, doesn't it?"

"Clean out your own closet before you go messing in ours."

"That door swings both ways, doesn't it?"

Loudmouth said:

It is the creationists who claim that they interpret DNA evidence. However, their claims fall flat when faced with real DNA evidence.

Click to expand...

Francis Collins is the leading expert on DNA and He is a Creationist that has written the book on how DNA is the Language of God. This is the language that God used when He created the world we live in. A world that in the beginning was very good. Now that the world is in a fallen condition God is doing a work of restoration to return all of creation to HIS plan and purpose. Evolution looks at this world in the fallen condition that it is in and they make no attempt to try to understand what God original plan and purpose was nor do they understand what God's plan and purpose is for this world we live in.

AV1611VET said:

That is so true!

"Clean out your own closet before you go messing in ours."

"That door swings both ways, doesn't it?"

Click to expand...

They may have a different idea of what the idiom means that the "door swings both ways".
Which maybe their real agenda in some cases. The rest is just white wash.