Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Once again, without evidence they cannot claim that the data supports their beliefs. As scientists they know that they are lying when they do this. Do you know what an ad hoc explanation is? An ad hoc explanation only explains some of the evidence and that same evidence likely shows them to be wrong elsewhere.Well, thank you for at least acknowledging it. I just find it interesting that scientists in the documentary interpret data and evidence in less than deep time terms, and therefore supportive of creation.
Baraminology is based on assuming the conclusion,FWIW, I watched the Todd Wood segment. The funny thing is that Todd Wood's claims in that segment re: mapping physical discontinuity based on fossil skulls is contradicted not just by other creationists but also Todd Wood's own writings: Australopithecus Sediba, Statistical Baraminology, and Challenges to Identifying the Human Holobaramin
The recent discovery and description of Australopithecus sediba proved controversial among creationists after Wood (2010) broke with the majority and proclaimed it human based on an analysis of craniodental characters using statistical baraminology. Since creationists often judge postcranial characters more significant than craniodental characters, a re-analysis of the hominin holobaramin was undertaken using 78 postcranial characters published by Berger, et al. (2010) and 25 characters of the hand published by Kivell, et al. (2011). These character sets, along with subsets of the original craniodental characters evaluated by Wood (2010) were used to calculate baraminic distance correlations (BDC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). The inconclusive results raise questions about the value of using correlation and clustering methods to identify holobaramins.
This is another example where I can't just shrug off the knowledge I have (of creationist writings no less!) in the context of that film segment.
Many now notable scientists have once been in that situation.And there so called "interpretations" are worthless. They are not scientific explanations. And the qualifications of many of those so called scientists are in rather severe doubt.
All I know is that they are scientists, well-educated and trained. You seem to discount anything they say as rubbish... shouldn't you first be asking yourself, "what is that they see differently from me, and why?"Do you think that it is unreasonable that scientist need to follow the scientific method to claim to be doing science? They were not following the scientific method. Do you know why? Because when creationists follow the scientific method they are shown to be wrong. And they know this. If their beliefs were correct they would not be constantly shown on those very rare exceptions when they did follow the scientific method.
Well put! I have often wanted to say that myself, but I know there will be those who jump all over it if I say it, because many Christians accept both evolution and a Creator. I, for the life of me, have tried to figure out how they recocile the two, but can't.As I see it the theory of evolution posits a model of creation that does not need a creator.
Many now notable scientists have once been in that situation.
All I know is that they are scientists, well-educated and trained. You seem to discount anything they say as rubbish... shouldn't you first be asking yourself, "what is that they see differently from me, and why?"
Many now notable scientists have once been in that situation.
All I know is that they are scientists, well-educated and trained. You seem to discount anything they say as rubbish... shouldn't you first be asking yourself, "what is that they see differently from me, and why?"
Because they are educated and at least somewhat honest. Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic, wrote one of the most used biological textbooks of all time. He has no problem accepting evolution. I do not think that he treats the Adam and Eve story as something that actually happened at all.Well put! I have often wanted to say that myself, but I know there will be those who jump all over it if I say it, because many Christians accept both evolution and a Creator. I, for the life of me, have tried to figure out how they recocile the two, but can't.
All I know is that they are scientists, well-educated and trained. You seem to discount anything they say as rubbish... shouldn't you first be asking yourself, "what is that they see differently from me, and why?"
Well, you know the old saying, "What do you call someone who graduates last in his class at medical school"... Doctor.Sorry, they are either not well educated or they are dishonest. I can show that time after time. And all you have to do to show that I am wrong is to find an example where one of these so called scientists properly used the scientific method. It is easy to discount people playing at being scientists. And I understand what they see differently from me and why. The question is why can't they be honest about it. There is a saying that has not been shown to be wrong yet: "There is no such thing as a well educated and honest creationist". They fail either one or the other. I do believe that I explained to you how Dr. Steve Austin got caught lying in his radiometric dating.
Can a scientist lie and still be reliable? I don't think so. That is an unforgivable sin in the sciences. Being wrong at times is to be expected. If one is not wrong sometimes one is not trying hard enough. But either being wrong all of the time or worse yet lying and getting caught at it are not good signs.
Sorry, they are either not well educated or they are dishonest.
Well put! I have often wanted to say that myself, but I know there will be those who jump all over it if I say it, because many Christians accept both evolution and a Creator. I, for the life of me, have tried to figure out how they recocile the two, but can't.
There are some legitimate scientists that believe in creationism. The problem is that though they follow the scientific method in their own work they never ever follow the scientific method when it comes to creationism. That should raise a huge red flag.Well, you know the old saying, "What do you call someone who graduates last in his class at medical school"... Doctor.
It's all well understood, based on theology which dates back 2500 years. The short answer is the ontology of causal interaction is much more complex than just the physical forces which move atoms around--the physical forces which govern evolution, the only form of causality which science investigates. Observing that natural forces are entirely adequate to explain evolution (without periodic divide tinkering on the material level) does not deny God's constant causal involvement. Traditional Christians have had not very much trouble with this--creationists are almost all Protestants. A lot of sound theology was thrown out with the bathwater of the Reformation and Sola Scripture has proven an inadequate substitute.Well put! I have often wanted to say that myself, but I know there will be those who jump all over it if I say it, because many Christians accept both evolution and a Creator. I, for the life of me, have tried to figure out how they recocile the two, but can't.
"Even if all the evidence in the universe turned against yec, I would still be yec, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate."
Dr Wise is perfectly entitled to say that. He is expressing his faith. He is putting the Bible before rational thinking, something I have not been able to do. Actually he is understating his faith; the bible unequivocally indicates it - not cogently and not consistently - but confidently and absolutely. It is an assertion not amenable to reason. That is fine with Dr Wise and with me as a statement of his faith, not of rigorous science.
It sure is.Isn't it hard to find two Christians who interpret everything
the same way?
This is why I can't understand how Christians reconcile evolution with creation.Evolution doesn't need a creator, to do what?
I do reconcile it beyond the simple statement... Jesus is the 'Lamb of God,' who paid the price for all sinners, and for me that is the truth.The Bible says Jesus is a sheep. Don't you reconcile that by saying it has a meaning beyond the simple statement, which is obviously
not true?
What I can tell you, without sounding too sanctimonious, is sincerely pray and ask for forgiveness and guidance. If you do this, I believe in my heart you will see things in His light for you, whatever it is.I'm no Christian but I could believe in a God.
Could be there isca God who planned out matter and energy
so well! Just the incredible properties of water, it gets more
amazing the more you know.
Such a God could set things up for life to emerge, and be as
dynamic as everything else in the universe.
It sure is.
This is why I can't understand how Christians reconcile evolution with creation.
I do reconcile it beyond the simple statement... Jesus is the 'Lamb of God,' who paid the price for all sinners, and for me that is the truth.
What I can tell you, without sounding too sanctimonious, is sincerely pray and ask for forgiveness and guidance. If you do this, I believe in my heart you will see things in His light for you, whatever it is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?