DINOSAURS! Noah's Flood & other awesome questions.

[Speedwell]

.Thus they can never claim that our origins (including the origins of the natural) had nothing to do with God, let alone push a hopeless model down our throats.

Only atheists make such a claim, and they make it on metaphysical, not scientific grounds. The theory of evolution itself makes no such claim, nor does any other scientific theory.

 

[RickG]

Really?
When you adamantly believe in a naturalistic idea to account for our origins, you both ignore AND deny God.
'Creator' is even synonymous to 'God'.

I gather you have no background in any of the physical sciences, thus you do not understand my comments.

 

[Hieronymus]

Wrong. It has been demonstrated that what is presented to the environment for selection is not "corrupted data" but a random distribution (think "bell curve") of variations produced by an orderly and well evidenced process which uses mutation as (only one) of its inputs.

When you start off with an assumed completely functional organism to multiply and speciate, and you have random mutation as the means of changing the data at hand, it is indeed corruption of the previous data.
In information science a mutation is actually "a change" that is made deliberately, by a person.
Well gee wizz, i wonder why they would avoid using the word "corruption" though, huh?

You have got to stop relying on Creationist sources for details about how evolution is supposed to work.

Wow, great argument bro, i'm convinced now..
Seriously though, it would be only fair if you actually had a serious look at the problems of the ToE, which many creationists are very happy to point out to you, so you can form an honest opinion about it.

If you want to maintain that evolution can't work, then PLEASE address your arguments to the real theory, not the bogus version fabricated by Creationist propaganda mills.

Another great argument there brother.
It is you who only hear one side of the story, not me.

 

[Hieronymus]

I gather you have no background in any of the physical sciences, thus you do not understand my comments.

I gather you gather many things.

 

[Hieronymus]

Only atheists make such a claim,

It's the claim the ToE makes concerning the human species.

 

[Colter]

That seems contradictory to me. A Scientist being Christian or Atheist has nothing to do with the quality of their work.

That's true of a real scientist, but I said atheistic scientist, they have an agenda.

 

[RickG]

Wrong. It has been demonstrated that what is presented to the environment for selection is not "corrupted data" but a random distribution (think "bell curve") of variations produced by an orderly and well evidenced process which uses mutation as (only one) of its inputs.
You have got to stop relying on Creationist sources for details about how evolution is supposed to work. If you want to maintain that evolution can't work, then PLEASE address your arguments to the real theory, not the bogus version fabricated by Creationist propaganda mills.

Excellent reply Speedwell. I think an important aspect of "creation science" (creationism) that the people who accept it do not understand that "creation science" presents on original scientific data or research, only opinions and misrepresentations of the sciences.

 

[Hieronymus]

Atheistic evolution is not theistic, theistic evolution is.

repeat: ToE is not theistic.
There is no ToTE (theory of theistic evolution), there is no model for that around (a.f.a.i.k.)

This is all evolution is...

That's ToE, not ToTE.

 

[Hieronymus]

Excellent reply Speedwell. I think an important aspect of "creation science" (creationism) that the people who accept it do not understand that "creation science" presents on original scientific data or research, only opinions and misrepresentations of the sciences.

How would you know?
Did you ever take a serious look,or doyou just gather this too, like you gather ToE is true?

 

[Hieronymus]

That's true of a real scientist, but I said atheistic scientist, they have an agenda.

They also have big funding and huge platform.
Theistic scientists may have an agenda too.

 

[RickG]

It's the claim the ToE makes concerning the human species.

But what you need to understand, rather than condemn, is that many Christians do not view Genesis as literal, especially when many things we know today, make a literal interpretation not only impossible, but paint God as a deceiver. How do you verify Genesis a literal? What evidence is there, especially when it was never written down until thousands of years later.

 

[Hieronymus]

But what you need to understand, rather than condemn, is that many Christians do not view Genesis as literal, especially when many things we know today, make a literal interpretation not only impossible, but paint God as a deceiver. How do you verify Genesis a literal?

Obviously because it is repeatedly confirmed throughout the Bible, even by Jesus.
I have no problem with the Bible, you do.

 

[RickG]

How would you know?
Did you ever take a serious look,or doyou just gather this too, like you gather ToE is true?

I have credentials in the earth sciences and have investigated if for myself. Can you explain the fossil record and the way it is distributed throughout the geologic column without evolution?

 

[RickG]

Obviously because it is repeatedly confirmed throughout the Bible, even by Jesus.
I have no problem with the Bible, you do.

And how do you confirm the bible? Are you aware that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus and especially that of Genesis.

 

[Speedwell]

See, you don; t even understand what they have you believe.
When you start off with an assumed completely functional organism to multiply and speciate, and you have random mutation as the means of changing the data at hand, it is indeed corruption of the previous data.

So what do you think is happening? Are scientists publishing a plausible theory to cover up the fact they they secretly harbor an unworkable theory that only they and you know about? That the theory of the process of variation I just described to you is not the real theory of variation? I don't get it. Why should they use a plausible, well evidenced theory as a cover for one that any reasonable intelligent high school graduate can see is unworkable? Why not just go with the plausible theory?

 

[SnowyMacie]

repeat: ToE is not theistic.

It's not atheist either, it's nothing.

There is no ToTE (theory of theistic evolution)

Technically correct as it's more a philosophical model than it's own scientific theory separate from evolution.

, there is no model for that around (a.f.a.i.k.)

There's actually several, it just depends on how involved God or the Creator was in it.

That's ToE, not ToTE.

The only difference between evolution and theistic evolution is that the latter takes a step outside science to make a claim.

 

[RickG]

That's true of a real scientist, but I said atheistic scientist, they have an agenda.

Colter, I was a research chemist for some 30 years and worked with scientists of all walks of life and many different religions and atheists. Perhaps it would help me to better understand what you are saying with a more detailed explanation by what you mean by atheistic scientist.

 

[Hieronymus]

I have credentials in the earth sciences and have investigated if for myself. Can you explain the fossil record and the way it is distributed throughout the geologic column without evolution?

Asking that seems to me that you have blind faith in established naturalistic beliefs and their ambiguous models and ignore the raised doubts, debunkings and alternatives of these beliefs.
You choose to subscribe to naturalistic models, and only you know why you choose to do so, i don't know why.
The naturalistic models cover many scientific disciplines, and especially assumed huge amounts of time are characteristic.
It seems to me that you have had little to no interest in Flood models and how they account for rock layers with rapidly fossilised animals in them.
You are ignorant of the evidence in support of the Bible.

Let's call this quits though, it's been pointless for a couple of pages now (i.m.o.).

 

[Hieronymus]

It's not atheist either, it's nothing.

I fully agree it is nothing.

 

[Speedwell]

Let's call this quits though, it's been pointless for a couple of pages now (i.m.o.).

It will always be pointless until you face up to what the real theory of evolution actually says and stop tilting at straw men.