Why does it have to do that? Why would it want to do that? And how on earth could it possibly do that? Evolution says nothing about the existence of God...wtopneuma said:
Upvote
0
Creationism will only destroy science
- Thread starter Liberalscience
- Start date
- Status
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 475
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Creationists (and Fundamentalists in general) really have the wrong idea as to how to approach the Bible. Here he have someone saying that the Bible is not a scientific treatise (correct) whilst also saying that a scientific theory needs to disprove the Bible. Where is the consistancy?
Upvote
0
wtopneuma said:
You have it backwards about. Evolution is not the source of creation and no one is claiming that it is. Creation is the source of evolution for God created living beings to evolve and adapt as their environment changes,
Just like every other science, but how are those incorrect assumptions corrected? By studying the bible or by scientific study of creation? Can you provide a single example of an incorrect scientific assumption that was corrected by theology?
Upvote
0
There would be no time frame for the term day if in the Biblical creation account it had just said the 1st, 2nd, 3rd day, etc. This is not the case. God in the Bible is very specific when he wants to make something clear. God limits the time frame by saying the evening and the morning was the 1st, 2nd, 3rd day, etc. This cannot legitimately be interpreted any other way, though people will still try to. God is specific about the virgin mary by having her tell the angel "How can I bear a child when I am a virgin? These are only two of the occassions when God is very specific.
Secondly, true science is the observing and recording of data and drawing conclusions from that data. It is not science when you try to find data to support a theory. It is science when the hypothesis is supported by observable data to make it a theory, then the theory is supported by observable data to make it true fact. 3rd Adam and Eve were made as adults with fully developed plants and animals in the Garden of Eden. There was no mutation of life forms over millions of years. there is wide desparity among scientist as to how old the earth is. Try using the ages given in the Bible from Adam through successive generations to calculate human life on earth. We do not know how long the span was between the creation of the earth and the six days of creating life on the earth but the 2nd verse says: "The earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep." There was no life before the six days of creation though the heavens and the earth (minus the stars, planets , moons, etc.) (Infinite space is one of the heavens mentioned in the Bible.) Two other heavens are God's dwelling place and our earths atmosphere.) were already created. There was no light, for light and the sun moon and stars were part of the six days of creation.
Secondly, true science is the observing and recording of data and drawing conclusions from that data. It is not science when you try to find data to support a theory. It is science when the hypothesis is supported by observable data to make it a theory, then the theory is supported by observable data to make it true fact. 3rd Adam and Eve were made as adults with fully developed plants and animals in the Garden of Eden. There was no mutation of life forms over millions of years. there is wide desparity among scientist as to how old the earth is. Try using the ages given in the Bible from Adam through successive generations to calculate human life on earth. We do not know how long the span was between the creation of the earth and the six days of creating life on the earth but the 2nd verse says: "The earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep." There was no life before the six days of creation though the heavens and the earth (minus the stars, planets , moons, etc.) (Infinite space is one of the heavens mentioned in the Bible.) Two other heavens are God's dwelling place and our earths atmosphere.) were already created. There was no light, for light and the sun moon and stars were part of the six days of creation.
Upvote
0
wtopneuma said:
No, in science, theories are supported by obervations (facts). Theories do not graduate to 'facts'. A scientific theory is a series of well supported hypothesis that are internally consistent and explain a wide range of observations. They need to be falsifyable and one should generally be able to make predictions with them related to new data that will be found. If new observations (facts) are found and they are consistent with the theory, they strenghen it. If the theory can't explain them, the theory either needs to change, or be considered falsified.
Theories are always tested with new evidence and observations, they never get to the point where they are true facts and not tested anymore.
It is a slight distinction but important when disussing scientific theories and their value and how they are tested and formed.
Upvote
0
Which one of the three evolutionary theories do you believe? This will help me to reply more accurately to your posts. Microevolution: Individual species change over time through mutations, environmental pressures, and natural selection. (All creationists agree that this happens.)
Macroevolution: Evolution above the species level. More broadly: The theory that all plants and animals share a common ancestry, and that all living and extinct species were produced through natural mechanisms such as mutations and natural selection over millions of years. (Disagreement is here.)
Evolutionism: An attempt to draw philosophical and theological conclusions from macroevolution, e.g. that there is no Creator and no purpose to human existence. (All creationists agree that this is wrong.)
Macroevolution: Evolution above the species level. More broadly: The theory that all plants and animals share a common ancestry, and that all living and extinct species were produced through natural mechanisms such as mutations and natural selection over millions of years. (Disagreement is here.)
Evolutionism: An attempt to draw philosophical and theological conclusions from macroevolution, e.g. that there is no Creator and no purpose to human existence. (All creationists agree that this is wrong.)
Upvote
0
Did you just make up that definition for 'evolutionism'? Who came up with that? That is not a theory of evolution in the scientific sense.
I don't 'believe' the theory of evolution. I accept the theory of evolution as the best explaination of observed evidence we currently have that explains the biodiversity of life and other lines of evidence.
Seriously, where did you get that definition of 'evolutionism'?
I don't 'believe' the theory of evolution. I accept the theory of evolution as the best explaination of observed evidence we currently have that explains the biodiversity of life and other lines of evidence.
Seriously, where did you get that definition of 'evolutionism'?
Upvote
0
You seem to be confusing evolution with reductionism. Perhaps you have been listening to Dawkins too much. He tries to sell reductionism as a logical progression from evolution, which it is not. Evolution and reductionism are two completely separate entities. Evolution is science and reductionism is a metaphysical belief.wtopneuma said:
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
here was no mutation of life forms over millions of years. there is wide desparity among scientist as to how old the earth is.
please supply evidence for this "wide disparity among scientists as to how old the earth is".
tia
please supply evidence for this "wide disparity among scientists as to how old the earth is".
tia
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
Markus6 said:
reductionism is the movement from big to little, by breaking things into their component parts and looking at the parts.
it looks more like the metaphysics of deriving worldview principles from science, sometimes phrased as "methodological naturalism implies philosophic materialism" or the naturalists fallacy of drawing metaphysical oughts from the scientific descriptions of what is.
and Dawkins is one of the best examples of these metaphysical claims.
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
rmwilliamsll said:
I would also like to hear about this wide disparity. From what I've seen, every single accreditted geology department accepts that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, give or take 50 million years. Where is this disparity coming from?
According the "Geological Society of America", which has 19000 members (I assume the bulk of them are scientists), here's a part of their offical statement on the evolution/Creation debate.
Upvote
0
Science is nothing but a bunch of Children trying to play God.
Mankinds Science has comtinually proven itself wrong since its existence.
Wanna really get blown away check out Moti Milgram do a Google search.
He has disproven many of Einsteina nd Issac newtons theories that have been taught for nearly a hundred years now in Physics.
Also we just found some more planets in the solar system and oh the best one is SCIENCE thought the world flat for a long time. Even though they could
plainly see the curvature of the earth on the horizon over the ocean as we can today with the naked guy.
Mankinds Science has comtinually proven itself wrong since its existence.
Wanna really get blown away check out Moti Milgram do a Google search.
He has disproven many of Einsteina nd Issac newtons theories that have been taught for nearly a hundred years now in Physics.
Also we just found some more planets in the solar system and oh the best one is SCIENCE thought the world flat for a long time. Even though they could
plainly see the curvature of the earth on the horizon over the ocean as we can today with the naked guy.
Upvote
0
I hope you've never been to see a doctor, taken any kind of medicine, used air conditioning and/or heating in your house, driven a car...WAIT?!! What are you doing using a computer?
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
what sample size are you making your judgement of scientists on? or how many science classes have you taken? or how many top rated scientists have you worked for?
science is often wrong, it is reasonably self correcting and very self critical. is your peer community?
moti milgram:
you will have to start us off with a link
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=moti+milgram&btnG=Google+Search
brings up nothing of interest or relevance.
SCIENCE thought the world flat for a long time.--->
modern science at the best dates from Roger Bacon, more likely to the time of Newton.
cean as we can today with the naked guy.
i am not interested in seeing anything with a naked guy.
but thanks for the offer.
.
Upvote
0
Scientific theories usually gain enough support of fail in that endeavor within two hundred + years to be either accepted by most people including the church bodies. The latter two of the three evolutionary theories appears headed to losing support.
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
God is not like man and man is not like God. God is far superior to man and the Bible is His Word, not man's word. This means that we should go with what the Bible definitely says until science can show that the earth was created by God through the evolutionary process. 100% of the instances where science and the Bible disagreed and science uncovered evidence on that subject, the new discovery supported the Bible and proved science wrong.
Upvote
0
has very relevant findings.
He proved again mankinds understanding and conceited belief in that science is silly. By proving Einstein and Newton theories that have been assumed factual are not logical.
He proved again mankinds understanding and conceited belief in that science is silly. By proving Einstein and Newton theories that have been assumed factual are not logical.
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
at least google offered the alternative spellings that probably hit your reference.
Mordechai "Moti" Milgrom
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/physics/staff/milgrom.htm
however i am still unable to locate his papers.
perhaps if you post a link????
Upvote
0
You obviously are not interested in scientific truth as any true scientist would recognize that these three branches of scientific thought concerning evolution does exist and have their followers. You appear to be pretending to be what you are not just to push your own thought agenda rather then being interested in truth by respecting those you disagree with. Your scheme of presenting theories without foundational support are often used tatics by those who are opposed to truth and often times God. At the same time, they downgrade all who oppose them because they have nothing of substance to offer. What do you have to hide by refusing to admit which one of the evolution theories you support?
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
So you just made it up then. Thanks.
I accept the scientific definition of evolution and the scientific conclusions based on multiple lines of independent evidence that lead to the conclusion of common descent. This definition and the theories that explain it have are based on observed mechanisms.
You seem to be confusing science with morality or philosophy or evolution with atheism. That is what confused by by your definitions. They don't make any sense related to the scientific theory of evolution.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
