Creation "Science" is Anti-God

Matthew777

Faith is the evidence of things unseen
Feb 8, 2005
5,839
107
38
Spokane, WA
✟6,496.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It should be obvious to anyone who has posted on this forum as long as I have that creationism relies upon falsehoods, misinformation and fallacious logic in order to advance its right-wing fundamentalist agenda.

But what about truth? Isn't the truth supposed to be what sets us free?

If you have the truth right in front of your eyes and you deny it then are you not an enemy of truth?

If evolution were God's method of creation and you hate evolution then do you not hate God?

Think about it, my friends.

Peace.
 

Matthew777

Faith is the evidence of things unseen
Feb 8, 2005
5,839
107
38
Spokane, WA
✟6,496.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
This may sound paradoxical but I consider myself a better Christian when I accept scientific fact rather than denying it. It is a matter of intellectual honesty.

"A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying to others and to yourself."
Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Matthew777 said:
It should be obvious to anyone who has posted on this forum as long as I have that creationism relies upon falsehoods, misinformation and fallacious logic in order to advance its right-wing fundamentalist agenda.

Genesis conveys creationism. This is a book you claim to believe in, or at least used to. It seems you've gone from rejecting a six day creation to embracing evolution. I could have predicted it. I see it happen often right on these boards. I mentioned to you before your day-age model was the least tenable of all origins theories. I've seen several go straight from it to theistic evolution. It's inevitable if you're going to consistently hold to methodological naturalism. Then you must somehow try to tack God onto the beginning of a model that quite frankly doesn't require Him. Atheists realize this and are much more consistent (logically speaking).

Matthew777 said:
But what about truth? Isn't the truth supposed to be what sets us free?

If you have the truth right in front of your eyes and you deny it then are you not an enemy of truth?

If evolution were God's method of creation and you hate evolution then do you not hate God?

That's a big "if." But yes if that is the true God then bible believing creationists are in trouble. Because this would mean the bible is wrong. The debate isn't about whether God could have created through evolution, but whether or not the Bible says he did, and whether or not the Bible is true.

And you seem to be going a step further than most on this issue by claiming that the one who is wrong on origins hates God. I would never go that far. I believe I’ll be in Heaven some day with many former evolutionists. I believe their logic is bad, but I don’t think God’s going to condemn people for that.

Matthew777 said:
This may sound paradoxical but I consider myself a better Christian when I accept scientific fact rather than denying it. It is a matter of intellectual honesty.

Nothing wrong with intellectual honesty. But you do realize that the supernatural is outside the realm of scientific investigation. So many with scientific minds can’t seem to grasp this. Science can’t help us with miracles especially the world wide ones spoken of in Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

Matthew777

Faith is the evidence of things unseen
Feb 8, 2005
5,839
107
38
Spokane, WA
✟6,496.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Calminian said:
Genesis conveys creationism.

Does that not depend on one's interpretation of Genesis?

Calminian said:
Then you must somehow try to tack God onto the beginning of a model that quite frankly doesn't require Him.

How does the complexity and diversity of life not require God? One could rightly believe that without God, biological evolution would not be possible.

Calminian said:
But yes if that is the true God then bible believing creationists are in trouble.

What about Bible-believing evolutionists? Does their faith not count?

Calminian said:
It's inevitable if you're going to consistently hold to methodological naturalism.

I hold only to believing what is obviously true.

Calminian said:
And you seem to be going a step further than most on this issue by claiming that the one who is wrong on origins hates God.

If you hate God's ways then you hate God. Would you agree?

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Matthew777 said:
Does that not depend on one's interpretation of Genesis?

Yes is does. But forcing the bible to be compatible with evolution is a dishonest approach that frankly any religious person could do with their religious book. Something comes up that disagrees with their other beliefs, they just change the meaning to make it compatible. By this method all religious books can be claimed divine. Most atheists can go to the book of Genesis and read for themselves what the author was trying to convey. I don't think they're are impressed with christians try to convince them it really doesn't mean what it says.

Matthew777 said:
How does the complexity and diversity of life not require God? One could rightly believe that without God, biological evolution would not be possible.

Ah but if you say that you also admit your naturalistic theory doesn't work. If it requires a miracle to get started then you've stepped outside the realm of science. To be consistently scientific minded you must hold to methodological naturalism and not insert miracles.

Matthew777 said:
What about Bible-believing evolutionists? Does their faith not count?

Of course. They'll just have their logic adjusted when they get to heaven (if I'm right, that is).

Matthew777 said:
I hold only to believing what is obviously true.

Everyone in this forum believes the same.


Matthew777 said:
If you hate God's ways then you hate God. Would you agree?

A christian can actually be wrong at some points of his doctrine and even hate a doctrine that he'll actually find out t be true. But hopefully you understand that we are not saved by perfect theology.
 
Upvote 0

BeamMeUpScotty

Senior Veteran
Dec 15, 2004
2,384
167
55
Kanagawa, Japan
✟18,437.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Calminian said:
Nothing wrong with intellectual honesty. But you do realize that the supernatural is outside the realm of scientific investigation. So many with scientific minds can’t seem to grasp this. Science can’t help us with miracles especially the world wide ones spoken of in Genesis.

While I agree with you (if miracles do exist), I would like to ask you why so many YECs spend so much time trying to explain "things" through natural means? For example, why do they attempt to show Noah's ark as being possible without miracles?
 
Upvote 0

CHARLES H

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2005
1,950
55
52
TEXAS
✟9,861.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
BeamMeUpScotty said:
While I agree with you (if miracles do exist), I would like to ask you why so many YECs spend so much time trying to explain "things" through natural means? For example, why do they attempt to show Noah's ark as being possible without miracles?

thats a great question. if there is a GOD and he does do miracles then we must assume that they can not be explained or else they would not be miracles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Matthew777 said:
It should be obvious to anyone who has posted on this forum as long as I have that creationism relies upon falsehoods, misinformation and fallacious logic in order to advance its right-wing fundamentalist agenda.

Do you mean YEC? Because even TE is a form of creationism; is that based on falsehood, misinformation and fallacious logic? In fact a majority of people believe that God created using evolution. Although the YEC do make up a surprisingly large group of people.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
BeamMeUpScotty said:
While I agree with you (if miracles do exist), I would like to ask you why so many YECs spend so much time trying to explain "things" through natural means? For example, why do they attempt to show Noah's ark as being possible without miracles?

There are some YECs out there using bad arguments. But many of the YEC organizations I respect focus on the presuppositional aspect of the debate. AiG is the best example and probably the best representative of YEC thinking. Whether I agree with everything they've said over the years I don't know, but do know they've helped me in my understanding of this debate.

Regarding the flood, the creationists I know of believe God started it and sustained it and even ended it. To what extent is not revealed. But there's no way one can look at the text and conclude it was a natural event caused by natural triggers.

Creation is not the only subject where christians and others have tried to come up with natural explanations for supernatural events recorded in scripture. There was a documentary out many years ago that offered natural explanations for the parting of the Red Sea, the parting of the Jordan, Sodom and Gomorrah and others. I think they mean well but do a disservice ultimately to their faith.
 
Upvote 0

Matthew777

Faith is the evidence of things unseen
Feb 8, 2005
5,839
107
38
Spokane, WA
✟6,496.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Calminian said:
Ah but if you say that you also admit your naturalistic theory doesn't work. If it requires a miracle to get started then you've stepped outside the realm of science. To be consistently scientific minded you must hold to methodological naturalism and not insert miracles.

The fact of common descent does not require a natural cause.
When I say that creation science is anti-God, it is in their willingness to lie and misinform.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

Matthew777

Faith is the evidence of things unseen
Feb 8, 2005
5,839
107
38
Spokane, WA
✟6,496.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
JohnR7 said:
Do you mean YEC? Because even TE is a form of creationism.

cre·a·tion·ism
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

Asimis

Veteran
Jul 5, 2004
1,181
59
✟16,642.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Matthew777 said:
When I say that creation science is anti-God, it is in their willingness to lie and misinform.

Yes, it is as if they feel excused to lie for Jesus. Look at Dr. Dino for example. Fabricating lies just to win converts (but first buy his videos!) is not a good thing.


As.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Matthew777 said:
The fact of common descent does not require a natural cause.

This is quite a meaningless statement. Nothing "requires" a natural explanation in the ultimate sense if you believe in the supernatural. The question is, does evolution require a supernatural intervention? If it does, it's a flawed scientific theory. If it doesn't it's a possibility at best as are all natural theories about the past.

Matthew777 said:
When I say that creation science is anti-God, it is in their willingness to lie and misinform.

That's quite a charge. You're saying one cannot be a creationist without willingly misleading. This is not a very intelligent conversation. Perhaps you don't mean it to be.
 
Upvote 0

Matthew777

Faith is the evidence of things unseen
Feb 8, 2005
5,839
107
38
Spokane, WA
✟6,496.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Calminian said:
That's quite a charge. You're saying one cannot be a creationist without willingly misleading. This is not a very intelligent conversation. Perhaps you don't mean it to be.

Give me a creation science group who does not lie and mislead for the sake of its cause.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

kemaldohak

Member
Dec 20, 2004
17
2
✟147.00
Faith
Muslim
The chimpanzee joins the group of animals whose genomes have been deciphered by scientists. The data from the chimp genome was compared to its human counterpart by an international research consortium, whose studies have been published in Nature. (1) According to the findings of the consortium, humans shared many genes with chimpanzees, but there were very important differences as well. In fact, this first comprehensive genetic comparison triples the percentage of differences suggested by previous studies that relied on partial genome analysis. The latest percentage of genetic similarity is 96% in comparison to previous ones reported about 98.5%.
Chimps have been the fourth mammal to be genetically sequenced after human, mouse and rat - enriching the genomic treasure of scientists. 67 scientists have contributed to the consortium from countries such as United States, Germany, Israel, Italy and Spain. "As we build upon the foundation laid by the Human Genome Project, it's become clear that comparing the human genome with the genomes of other organisms is an enormously powerful tool for understanding our own biology" says National Human Genome Research Institute Director Francis S. Collins. (2)
An important reason of the decrease in genetic similarity figure is that scientists have taken into account various types of genetic difference. In previous studies scientists picked only single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as variations which gave figures such as 1.2% difference. An SNP represents a single base pair difference between two matched DNA sequences. In this latest study scientists considered also other genetic differentiation types, such as indels (insertions and deletions) that represent gaps corresponding to unmatched nucleotide sequences between the human and chimp sequences, which may be one to thousands nucleotide long. The one shown below is a 3-nucleotide indel.
The %4 difference amounts to difference in 40 million base pairs, and represents 35 million SNPs and 5 million indels.


Obligatory reduction in propaganda figures
Inclusion of indels in analysis has revealed how simplistic and misleading previous analysis were. This is admitted in a report by Nature News Service with comments from Evan Eichler of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, a member of the consortium:
…humans and chimps are not quite the close cousins we thought. Crude past comparisons of our DNA showed that our sequences were between 98.5% and 99% identical. That is indeed the case when considering single-letter differences in the DNA code, of which there are 35 million, adding up to about 1.2% of the total sequence. But there are other differences, Eichler says. The two sequences are littered with duplicated segments that are scattered in different ways in the two species, he reports in a separate analysis. These regions add another 2.7% of difference to the tally. "So the 1.2% figure is woefully inaccurate," says Eichler. (3)
This is a very striking admission because for decades evolutionists have mislead the public with 99% figure in their human-chimp genetic similarity propaganda. Now that turns out to be founded on simplistic and inaccurate interpretation.
Genetic similarity is not a proof of common ancestry
Actually, whatever the genetic similarity, it constitutes absolutely no contribution to the claim that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Clearly, similarity between genetic sequences does not prove common ancestry. Since chimps and humans breathe the same atmosphere, have similar organs and diets, it is of course natural for them to have similar genetic sequences - that, for example, provide them with the similar biochemistry. The existence of similar instructions in the manuals of two similar devices is no proof that these devices came into existence as a result of coincidences, neither do the genetic similarities between organisms provide any evidence for the claim that they evolved from a common ancestor by chance. Genetic information contained in the DNAs of living beings is staggeringly complex. A mathematical analysis of this complexity demolishes the materialist/evolutionist claims. The existence of genetic information and its revealing similarities between organisms constitutes a concrete evidence for the fact that living beings are created by God.
Behind the statistics
When we read headlines such as "scientists find man and chimp are genetically 99.44% similar" we are led to believe that these are fully objective and precise estimates. It is hard to think of something else, when the number even includes four tenth and four hundredth digits and "scientists" are doing the estimates! However, this impression is deceptive and merely supports the evolutionist bias of evolutionist scientists.
To uncover the bias, let us consider the two sequences comprising 20 DNA bases of below (bases, or nucleotides, are like the steps of the DNA ladder). They are from the same region of DNA, first being from the baboon and the second from orangutan. (4) If they are aligned in parallel rows, they reveal obvious differences. (Colored bases in italics indicate where sequences are different. A, T, G, C represent bases Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine respectively.)

If you are biased to express similarities, on taking a closer look, you can see that although the sequences are different, they include identical pieces. To make them look more similar, you may invoke a hypothetical gap and align them like this:

Now the sequences are almost identical. You have made them look as though the second sequence has lost (or the first one has gained) one nucleotide at the site where C and the gap reside. And if you make a calculation, you will find that percentage of similarity has significantly increased.
But there's a serious problem. You have added an element of subjective interpretation to the data.
And that is only a small amount compared to what you can do with larger sequences. Long sequences from two organisms almost never can be perfectly aligned in parallel rows, without any breaks in the continuity of nucleotides. This opens the door to interpreter to selectively align nucleotides, as he would like to see them.
To put this into perspective let us see how 40 nucleotides of human DNA and 54 nucleotides of orangutan DNA can selectively be aligned. In the two alignments below, the first row represents the human sequence while the second one represents the orangutan sequence (5):

Note that the order of nucleotides are exactly the same in the two alignments. But the number of indels and SNPs change significantly between the two interpretations. And while this example compares 40 and 54 nucleotide long chains, the number of probabilities that may be interpreted other than what they really are significantly increases in a comparison between the complete human and chimp genomes, which comprise billions of nucleotides.
Evolutionists' puzzle
With the advent of comparative genomic analysis, it has been a cliché for evolutionists to say that the genetic analyses will be able to provide the final answer to the question "What makes us human?", or in other words, that all features of a human being could be accounted for at the DNA level. The first comprehensive comparison of the human and chimp genomes is in hand but it does not seem to be of a clue, let alone provide an answer. This can be observed in news accounts reporting the study. Robert Waterston, director of genome sciences at the University of Washington and a member of the consortium says:
[Genetically] We're not that different. But we have language, cars, espresso machines and psychotherapy. How could all that result from just a comparatively small number of genetic changes in the overall blueprint? (6)
True. How can a small number of genetic differences place the chimpanzees in a forest while putting scientists, on the other hand, in a research consortium to study the chimpanzee genome? Obviously, human beings, who possess reason and feelings, cannot be reduced to genes. This leaves evolutionists unanswered. Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, a co-author on one Nature paper is reported as saying:
We cannot see in this why we are phenotypically so different from the chimps. Part of the secret is hidden in there, but we don't understand it yet. (7)
Collins, of the National Human Genome Research Institute, points out that it is erroneous to seek the answer to the question "What makes us human?" merely at the molecular level:
"The real question about what it takes to be human is more than a biological question, it's also a theological question," Collins said. DNA "may not tell us 'How do we know what's right and wrong?' and 'What's the human spirit, anyway?'" (8)
What to understand from the Chimpanzee Genome Project?
There is long way to go for a comprehensive understanding of the human and chimpanzee genetics. This latest comparison study has merely provided the scientists with raw data. As Ajit Varki of the University of California, San Diego, puts it:
[A] genome is like the periodic table of the elements… By itself it doesn't tell you how things work--it's the first step along a long road. (9)
First of all, as a general principle, data does not speak for itself; it is interpreted. Suppose that you are asked whether a given blue cube looks more like a blue pyramid or a bigger blue cube. Your answer will differ based on which criterion you will choose; color or size. The point that should be remembered about this study is that genetic differences are much more complex than what the evolution propagandists would have us believe by such descriptions as "99% similarity." Once other types of genetic variations are taken into account, this percentage significantly decreases. Yet, still, this last interpretation too seems to be overshadowed by evolutionist bias. An internationally respected biochemist Fazale Rana, PhD, denies even the 96% similarity as follows:
[W]hat we are seeing here is a scientific shell game… Researchers are manipulating the outcomes to try and show more similarities between chimps and humans than are actually there by focusing on a single type of genetic difference. When scientists take into account all the types of genetic differences and do a more global comparison, the similarities drop from 96% to about 85%. (10)
Secondly, we see once again that as there is gain in scientific knowledge, evolutionists experience loss. This is how the claims of vestigial organs and junk DNA were abandoned. These claims were based on an erroneous reasoning: "We don't know their functions, so they must be functionless." With the advance in scientific understanding of them, however, it was understood that the evolutionist claims were severe errors based on ignorance. The genetic similarity propaganda is going through the same process today. Scientists now see that the previous interpretations on genetic similarity were based on a superficial, hasty, clumsy and deceptive approach.
Thirdly, and most importantly, a difference of 40 million bases would fill 10,000 pages, if each base represented a letter. (11) Believing that such genetic difference accumulated as a result of nature's unconscious forces and coincidences is like believing that tens of thousands of random changes on the electronic edition of a medical encyclopedia would add new information, transforming it into an encyclopedia of physics rather than turning it into a meaningless mass of letters.
The myth of evolution
The tale of the ape-like creature which descended from the trees, adapted to a new habitat, gradually acquired new biological features and eventually turned into a perfect human being is the greatest nonsense of the modern culture. Interestingly, however, genetic researchers seek for the traces of this myth in the human and chimpanzee genomes, believing that their own scientific minds are a product of coincidences and purposeless natural phenomena. What logical reason could there be to believe in this false faith coming from a mind which tries to account for itself as a product of chemical processes?
None, of course.
The theory of evolution is a deception concocted to uncover the fact of creation. Humans and chimpanzees did not evolve; they are perfect beings created by God, the Creator of all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟20,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Calminian said:
That's quite a charge. You're saying one cannot be a creationist without willingly misleading. This is not a very intelligent conversation. Perhaps you don't mean it to be.
Certainly one can be an honest creationist, but those who repeatedly spout PRATTs are just as certainly liars.
 
Upvote 0