Do evolutionists silence the critics?

[kaotic]

Any Christian who is anti-scientific should nto be towards true science, which as I said in the above post, never contradicts God's Word. What true Christians should be is anti towards your science, the science that is not based on fact but belief, and the science that elevates sceince above the LORD Jesus.

Science is all about facts.

And anyone who rejects God's Word (wether Creation or Christ) is being decieved by Satan and drawn away by selfish desires. Satan has a hold over anyone who rejects the truth.

Satan isn't doing anything to me. And there is christians here that believe in evolution. I guess they are just being lied to, and so are everyone in the wolrd.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
Any Christian who is anti-scientific should nto be towards true science, which as I said in the above post, never contradicts God's Word.

If good science never contradict's God's word, we could use that fact to finally test whether a literal interpretation of the Bible is, in fact, God's word as so many people claim. Brilliant! Of course, evolution is good science and it is that which the anti-scientific Christians are most fond of being anti-scientific towards. They generally leave well enough alone in other fields.

What true Christians should be is anti towards your science, the science that is not based on fact but belief, and the science that elevates sceince above the LORD Jesus.

Sorry, you must be mistaken. I don't have any personal science - and especially not one like what you describe. That wouldn't even be science. If you run across such a thing, let me know - is it like those perpetual motion fanatics? 

And anyone who rejects God's Word (wether Creation or Christ) is being decieved by Satan and drawn away by selfish desires. Satan has a hold over anyone who rejects the truth.This is true, and thats why you see how degraded the Church is today. But, there still is a believing remnant, that will stand, because we are founded on the Eternal, Living Word of God, Jesus Christ.

That's kind of harsh. I think that creationists are indeed misled, as you suggest, but I don't think many of them are drawn away from the truth as revealed through creation by selfish desires. I think most of them are drawn away by fast-talking con-men  who know how to manipulate an overly literalist bent in a person.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
That's about the best answer I could have hoped to get. Do you travel with lots of scientists or mostly the ones in your university? Which university is it, by the way? Whose lab do you work in? What is your area of research?

I'd like to know if what you see happening every day is representative of the behavior of scientists as a group - that's why I ask..

No university. Government. And I peer review articles prior to publication. And I have a pretty wide circle of peers. My area of research is environmental science.

 

[Jerry Smith]

No university. Government. And I peer review articles prior to publication. And I have a pretty wide circle of peers. My area of research is environmental science.

So, can you give me the name of a creationist paper that was submitted to you and your colleagues that they laughed at and round filed? How many are in your section?

 

[notto]

lambslove,

Would you recommend a paper for publication that requires one of the following for it to assert its conclusions?

1) a radical change in the known laws of physics at sometime in the near past.

2) an unknown force that is tinkering with the results

3) data extrapolation that falls outside of the accuracy and error thresholds of the measurements.

 

[Athlon4all]

Science is all about facts.

I really think that if you look at the processes that are used to optain "proof" of evolution involve guesswork rather than facts. Not to mention the things that indicate a young earth (like current soil production rates, water production rates, the volcanos (based on current eruption rates, if the earth were billions of years old, there would be enogh lava to be equal to the current size of the earth), magnetic field at the moment of creation of the universe based on current degredation rates, and more). Like with radiometric dating. There are so many assumptions (like in Uranium-lead dating, there is the assumption thgat there was all uranium and no lead in the rock when it was made, also that the rate of degredation is constant, and also that none of the byproducts escaped the rock).

Sorry, you must be mistaken. I don't have any personal science - and especially not one like what you describe. That wouldn't even be science. If you run across such a thing, let me know - is it like those perpetual motion fanatics?

See above.

If good science never contradict's God's word, we could use that fact to finally test whether a literal interpretation of the Bible is, in fact, God's word as so many people claim. Brilliant! Of course, evolution is good science and it is that which the anti-scientific Christians are most fond of being anti-scientific towards. They generally leave well enough alone in other fields.

It doesn't. And the example you described, is outside the realm of science. That is determining truth about spiritual things, which can be taught only by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthains 2).

That's kind of harsh. I think that creationists are indeed misled, as you suggest, but I don't think many of them are drawn away from the truth as revealed through creation by selfish desires. I think most of them are drawn away by fast-talking con-men who know how to manipulate an overly literalist bent in a person.

What I said isn't happy, but its what the Bible teaches. James 1:13-14 says "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." And it is clear in the Bible that it is Satan is the one who tempts man (I Corinthians 10:13, Matthew 4:1) to sin.

Satan isn't doing anything to me. And there is christians here that believe in evolution. I guess they are just being lied to, and so are everyone in the wolrd.

See above, and it doesn't matter what Christians say, all that matters is what the LORD says, and there is not one indication of Evolution in the Bible. Some can pull out interpretations to indicate a much other earth than the Literal Genesis...but there is absoltely no indication of Evolution in the Bible, and the Bible quite contrary, rejects the idea that God used Evolution to create the earth. Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world by man, and Genesis 3:14-19 in the curse put on man because of sin, God tells Adam that because of his sin, he shall "return to the dust." This is clearly speaking of the physical body dieing. This is completly incompatible with Evolution. Evolution requires death before man evolves, and thus before man could've ever sinned to bring physical death (for not just man, but animals too) into the world.

 

[Jerry Smith]

It doesn't. And the example you described, is outside the realm of science. That is determining truth about spiritual things, which can be taught only by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthains 2).

You said true science never contradicts God's Word. If that is true, then we can use the following logic:

Evolution is true science (all hand-waving aside, we all know this. If you don't already, it will be easy for you to find out.)

Evolution contradicts certain hyper-literal interpretations of the Bible.

We can therefore conclude that if your first premise is true, then it must follow that certain hyper-literal interpretations of the Bible must not be God's word.

The logic is unavoidable.

 

[Jerry Smith]

What I said isn't happy, but its what the Bible teaches. James 1:13-14 says "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." And it is clear in the Bible that it is Satan is the one who tempts man (I Corinthians 10:13, Matthew 4:1) to sin.

Well, perhaps the misunderstandings the creationists are so full of are not sin -- perhaps they are just honest mistakes. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn them myself.

 

[Jerry Smith]

There are so many assumptions (like in Uranium-lead dating, there is the assumption thgat there was all uranium and no lead in the rock when it was made, also that the rate of degredation is constant, and also that none of the byproducts escaped the rock).

Radiometric dating methods do each require certain initial conditions and are generally only employed where we can safely assume that those initial conditions were in place. However, there are methods for identifying those few times when the assumptions are incorrect. You should learn what Christians believe about radiometric dating. Here is a good place to start:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

About the lava remark - its clear you have been subjected to an especially cunning creationist & I understand why you have fallen for his or her sales pitch. Go back to them and ask them to explain erosion and subduction...

Or just ask them about Morton's Demon

Seriously guy -- you are being led astray.

 

[Athlon4all]

I have skimmed over that article about radiometric dating and...I will trust my source, Bob Jones University about it because the person who wrote it claims that the earth is Billions of years old, which is false. If it was showing Radiometric dating methods to give dates no higher than 10,000 years then I might be intersted, but it doesn't, he still claims sadly, like most "Christians", that the earth is billions of years old.

About the lava remark - its clear you have been subjected to an especially cunning creationist & I understand why you have fallen for his or her sales pitch. Go back to them and ask them to explain erosion and subduction...

Again, I'll trust Bob Jones University, who havbe the correct bias based on what the Bible teaches.

Or just ask them about Morton's Demon

Honestly, I wills ay that I am not an "expert" like you and many people on this forum are in your personal beliefs, but, I guarantee you that as I do learn more about the universe, no evidence that anyone shows me will convince me of Evolution because the Bible clearly states that it is not true.

As I have said before, Evolution, and Creationism, while are nearly the opposites of each other, are similar in one regard. Those who support them are supported by faith and then the believers in them interprete all the physical evidence according to that belief. If I were a sceintist, I would look at the exact same evidence you do, and would arrive at a Biblical Creationist conclusion. everyone is always going to interprete evidence based on their bias, and I don't think I can convince you that you are being decieved. I think only the Holy Spirit can. The LORD is knocking on the door of your heart, and I pray you will be convicted by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
I guarantee you that as I do learn more about the universe, no evidence that anyone shows me will convince me of Evolution because the Bible clearly states that it is not true.

Really? Where? I've read the Bible (parts, anyway, including Genesis) and it doesn't even mention the word evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I have skimmed over that article about radiometric dating and...I will trust my source, Bob Jones University about it because the person who wrote it claims that the earth is Billions of years old, which is false.

Whoooooaaahhh... You really need to read the link I posted about "Morton's Demon".. You will find it eerily familiar.

As Harcoff pointed out, the Bible never mentions evolution. I've read all of it and studied it in depth. Evolution is never mentioned. Bob Jones (or someone) is pulling the wool over your eyes!!!

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Evolution is true science 

Evolution theory is so filled with holes, because so much of it has been proved NOT to be true. Now you want to try to convince us that what is left is true, when so much has been proven not to be true by the very people who support the theory.

 

[Jerry Smith]

As I have said before, Evolution, and Creationism, while are nearly the opposites of each other, are similar in one regard. Those who support them are supported by faith and then the believers in them interprete all the physical evidence according to that belief.

History says you were wrong. Darwinian theoy had to overcome the bias of the prevailing paradigm by evidence, evidence and more evidence before the scientific community accepted it. Of course, you do describe "scientific creationism" accurately - but don't assume everyone shares the faults of your allies and teachers. The evidence from nature is incompatible with recent special creation. The evidence from nature strongly confirms neo-darwinian evolution. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

If I were a sceintist, I would look at the exact same evidence you do, and would arrive at a Biblical Creationist conclusion.

Again, you have a kindred spirit (or did have...)
Morton's Demon

.. or a living example, not autobiographical though:
Sadly, an honest creationist

This guy reminds me of you.

Remember: Bob Jones is not the mouthpiece of God. The doctrine you learn there is subject to human error. Loads of it. Not just about science: also race issues, catholocism & doubtlessly quite a few other topics.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
...no evidence that anyone shows me will convince me of Evolution because the Bible clearly states that it is not true.

That about sums it up then, eh?

 

[kaotic]

JohnR7: What holes are you talking about? Well duh it will never be proven. Almost every theory in science todate will never be proven, or will take a while to be proven. Huh what has been proven not true?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Evolution theory is so filled with holes, because so much of it has been proved NOT to be true. Now you want to try to convince us that what is left is true, when so much has been proven not to be true by the very people who support the theory.

Give me an example of a statement that is an actual accepted part of evolutionary theory, that is taught as such, which lacks sufficient evidence for acceptance. Leave your "proven" word behind - gravity isn't proven: it is observed. Evolution is also not proven: it is observed. We are in the science forum now -- words like "proven" have no meaning here.

If you can give the example, and it turns out to be valid, then we will consider you have a point. I won't hold my breath.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Evolution theory is so filled with holes, because so much of it has been proved NOT to be true.

Please, John, show us one part of "evolution theory" that has proven, in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, not to be true.

Why do you keep making false claims like this? Doesn't the Bible's command against bearing false witness mean anything to you?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Oh, sorry, I misread you. I thought you said "not proved to be true". You said "proven not to be true.." Yeah.. still a "for instance" is in order. I'm still not holding my breath.

Better question:

Evolution theory is so filled with holes, because so much of it has been proved NOT to be true.

Who sold you that line of horse manure?

The answer: Someone saw you coming.

You need to be more careful before you take the word of a "denier" (whether that's an evolution-denier, holocaust-denier, moon-landing denier, spherical earth-denier, HIV-denier, or any combination of the above.) Just because their glib sales pitch appeals to your current understanding of scripture doesn't make it any more likely to be correct. In this case they were extremely off base & you didn't notice because it sounded good at the time.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Orihalcon
and how can you be so absolutely certain that the sun is the center of the solar system? it's only got so much evidence for it, but there's always a few small problems with the theory...

What we are absolutely sure of is that the earth is not the center of the solar system.  In the strict sense, no theory can be absolutely certain.  No matter how many times you test a theory, there is always an infinite number of times to test it. Who knows? The next planetary probe might not make it to its destination.

However, there comes a time when it is perverse not to accept the theory as (provisionally) true until and unless some new data comes up to falsify it.  That's why we take heliocentrism as (provisionally) true and calculate trajectories of planetary probes based on it.  That the probes end up where and when they are calculated to becomes more evidence for the theory.

For instance, what "small problems" do you see with heliocentrism?