...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[AV1611VET]

Obviously, science relates to matter and its properties.

This is fundamental from the Creation.

Unfortunately, Naturalists promote exclusivity to science by religious belief that by ownership of the Scientific Method they control science.

It doesn't work that way. Science belongs to the Creator. What comes about through science and technology is from the Creator - not Naturalism.

Have you seen the definition of scientism?

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

SOURCE

I believe that, in the Tribulation period, the Antichrist is going to raise science to the level of a religion; and that the Tribulation period is going to consist of Scientism vs. Christianity.

 

[KWCrazy]

Believe what you like, but life evolved, and is still evolving.

Life adapts and is still adapting. Adaptation is a conservative process which can only extinguish certain characteristics but never add to them. The only observed 'evolution" anyone can seem to point to is the change in diet in bacteria. Benevolent mutations never have nor never will increase complexity. This is what the evidence shows. Irradiated fruit flies over thousands of fruit flies never change; never evolve. All evidence shows this. There is no proof of evolution' only hopeful theories supported by those for whom the truth is the illusion and the illusion is the truth.

How sad to be you. Truly sad.

I do it to defend the truth and reason.

Like Jack Nicholson said, "You can't handle the truth."
A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth" - YouTube

 

[Split Rock]

Life adapts and is still adapting. Adaptation is a conservative process which can only extinguish certain characteristics but never add to them. The only observed 'evolution" anyone can seem to point to is the change in diet in bacteria. Benevolent mutations never have nor never will increase complexity. This is what the evidence shows. Irradiated fruit flies over thousands of fruit flies never change; never evolve. All evidence shows this. There is no proof of evolution' only hopeful theories supported by those for whom the truth is the illusion and the illusion is the truth.

The "only" observed evolution is change in diet of bacteria??? Really? You haven't seen more evidence than that here? Resistance to antibiotics and pesticides ring a bell? Observed speciation ring a bell?

The other line I find interesting is: "Benevolent mutations never have nor never will increase complexity." Most creationists here insist there are no benevolent mutations... so, you at least are one step up on them. So, now you have added a caveot, that they do occur, but "never increase complexity." Just how are you measuring "complexity" in this case? Give us an example of a potential change that would increase "complexity." Also, why is an increase in "complexity" necessary?

 

[KWCrazy]

The problem you guys have isn't taking the whole of the bible as "truth." It is misinterpreting some of the scriptures in a way that was never intended by the authors. Your assertion that Jesus was YEC is not at all clear. If Jesus understood GEN1-2 the way it was intended by its authors, then he could certainly refer to it without being YEC.

Amazingly, not a single person who says that the Bible can be interpreted to mean something other than a young earth has ever provided the passages to back their assertion; neither can they seem to rectify the statements by Jesus concerning Adam and Eve, Noah and the great Flood, or Jonah in the belly of the "great fish."

 

[KWCrazy]

The "only" observed evolution is change in diet of bacteria??? Really? You haven't seen more evidence than that here? Resistance to antibiotics and pesticides ring a bell? Observed speciation ring a bell?

Adaptation. Resistance to pesticides is no big deal. You can build up a resistance to nearly anything if you survive the intial dosing, as demonstrate by people who deveolpe a tolerance for snake venom. Is that really the best you've got?

The other line I find interesting is: "Benevolent mutations never have nor never will increase complexity." Most creationists here insist there are no benevolent mutations... so, you at least are one step up on them. So, now you have added a caveot, that they do occur, but "never increase complexity."

Most mutations are deleterious or neutral. The ones that are benevolent are rare, but they do exist. They do not, however, create new genetic information and encode it to the reproductive system. Mutations which result in significant changes always result in sterility.

Just how are you measuring "complexity" in this case? Give us an example of a potential change that would increase "complexity." Also, why is an increase in "complexity" necessary?

From fish to amphibian, and amphibian to mammal, increased complexity plus the addition of genetic information that didn't exist in the parent is required. It has never been observed, and is not possible. It can certainly not be the driving force of all living things.

 

[Ophiolite]

1. You don't need a passage to realise the Bible is open to interpretation. You just have to recognise that humans employ metaphor to explain, describe and educate. I daresay you will respond that this is true of humans, but that the Bible was written by God. And the evidence for that? Of course, there is none - its a matter of faith.

2. In contrast science does not, as you seem to think, employ naturalsim. It employs methodological naturalism. That means, for convenience, we choose to investigate those phenomena which are natural. i.e. they are subject to laws which can, through diligent experiment, be determined. Science chooses to ignore the supernatural since it, by definition does not follow discernible laws.

Some scientists mistakenly believe the decision to ignore the supernatural, means it doesn't exist. Not so. It simply means science has no interest in it. Thus far this approach has yielded amazing insights into the nature of the world.

If there is a God I rather suspect she would be quite pleased at how scientists have honoured his creation by studying it. (And I daresay I can find scriptural support for that view.) I'm not too sure how she would feel about your refusal to use your intelligence and your power of reason; or how she would feel about you doubting what she has placed so plainly for you to see.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Amazingly, not a single person who says that the Bible can be interpreted to mean something other than a young earth has ever provided the passages to back their assertion; neither can they seem to rectify the statements by Jesus concerning Adam and Eve, Noah and the great Flood, or Jonah in the belly of the "great fish."

Glenn Morton did a good job. Look at his theology pages here, http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/Glenn+Morton's+Pages+-+Home

But even if you think he failed, who cares?

 

[Split Rock]

Amazingly, not a single person who says that the Bible can be interpreted to mean something other than a young earth has ever provided the passages to back their assertion; neither can they seem to rectify the statements by Jesus concerning Adam and Eve, Noah and the great Flood, or Jonah in the belly of the "great fish."

Did Jesus not teach by using parables? Will you insist now that his parables were all historical events he was relating? If not, then where are the passages that tell us they were not historical? It should be painfully obvious that GEN 1 and 2 are poetic stories written to teach theological concepts and not to relate historical facts. Talking snake, man made from dust, rib-woman, trees of life and knowledge.. etc. What passages in Dr. Suess books tell us they are not historical? Yet, even a children books, these stories serve to teach valuable lessons. You would read "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" and insist that there once was a Grinch and a Whoville occupied by Whos. That is not "truth."

Adaptation. Resistance to pesticides is no big deal. You can build up a resistance to nearly anything if you survive the intial dosing, as demonstrate by people who deveolpe a tolerance for snake venom. Is that really the best you've got?

Adaption IS evolution. Do not think you will be allowed to re-define terminology just to suit your failed arguments. That is not the best I have, but some of the instances that creationists like yourself cannot reject. You were the one who claimed that bacteria changing their eating habits was all there was. You are Wrong.

Most mutations are deleterious or neutral. The ones that are benevolent are rare, but they do exist. They do not, however, create new genetic information and encode it to the reproductive system.

Define "new genetic information" in this context. What would "new genetic information" look like? I am still waiting for a definition of "complexity."

Mutations which result in significant changes always result in sterility.

Absolutely false. References to support this assertion, please.

From fish to amphibian, and amphibian to mammal, increased complexity plus the addition of genetic information that didn't exist in the parent is required. It has never been observed, and is not possible. It can certainly not be the driving force of all living things.

What do you mean by "addition of genetic information that didn't exist in the parent?" If a gene is duplicated in the offspring, and then mutated in later generations until it performs a new function, would that qualify?

 

[AV1611VET]

It should be painfully obvious that GEN 1 and 2 are poetic stories written to teach theological concepts and not to relate historical facts.

QV please: Is the Genesis Creation Account History?

 

[Heissonear]

Did Jesus not teach by using parables? Will you insist now that his parables were all historical events he was relating? If not, then where are the passages that tell us they were not historical? It should be painfully obvious that GEN 1 and 2 are poetic stories written to teach theological concepts and not to relate historical facts. Talking snake, man made from dust, rib-woman, trees of life and knowledge.. etc. What passages in Dr. Suess books tell us they are not historical? Yet, even a children books, these stories serve to teach valuable lessons. You would read "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" and insist that there once was a Grinch and a Whoville occupied by Whos. That is not "truth."


Absolutely false. References to support this assertion, please.
?

Do you have the correct answer about if Genesis 1 & 2 are historical?

Are you led by the Holy Spirit?

 

[BarryDesborough]

QV please: Is the Genesis Creation Account History?

It's a historical record of what this bunch of guys thought.

How the heck it came to be regarded as literally authoritative is a grotesque joke.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a historical record of what this bunch of guys thought.

How the heck it came to be regarded as literally authoritative is a grotesque joke.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you have the correct answer about if Genesis 1 & 2 are historical?

Are you led by the Holy Spirit?

If you ask the vast majority of historians, no, the bible is not considered to be reliable from a historical standpoint. This is what historians do for a living; they determine "what most likely happened" in the past. To accomplish this, they follow a certain method to be as objective as possible and they go to work.

Look up historical method and it may be helpful.

 

[bhsmte]

It's a historical record of what this bunch of guys thought.

How the heck it came to be regarded as literally authoritative is a grotesque joke.

IMO, it gained momentum as the authority for the following reasons; powers at be wanted to control society and understand the world, so the story in the bible did that as well as any other. This is why the bible has a consistent theme of intimidation and fear; believe in me, follow the rules, follow this book as my word, or you are doomed forever. People back then weren't the most literate and this strategy worked well on them.

If today, people came forward with a similar story (without evidence), they would be viewed as needing psychological help.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you ask the vast majority of historians, no, the bible is not considered to be reliable from a historical standpoint. This is what historians do for a living; they determine "what most likely happened" in the past. To accomplish this, they follow a certain method to be as objective as possible and they go to work.

Look up historical method and it may be helpful.

Would these be the same historians that say Jesus didn't rise from the dead?

 

[AV1611VET]

People back then weren't the most literate and this strategy worked well on them.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is what historians do for a living; they determine "what most likely happened" in the past.

I'll bet most of them have a second job.

 

[KWCrazy]

1. You don't need a passage to realise the Bible is open to interpretation.

"The evening and the morning" does not leave room for interpretation.
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day..." doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.
Trees on day three and the sun on day for doesn't leave much room for evolution.
Your statement is often repeated, but never validated.

2. In contrast science does not, as you seem to think, employ naturalsim. It employs methodological naturalism. That means, for convenience, we choose to investigate those phenomena which are natural. i.e. they are subject to laws which can, through diligent experiment, be determined. Science chooses to ignore the supernatural since it, by definition does not follow discernible laws.

Chosing to ignore the supernatural does not in any way mean that it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, many internet scentists cannot grasp that fact. They believe that things which are supernatural and are not easily proven must therefore not exist.

Some scientists mistakenly believe the decision to ignore the supernatural, means it doesn't exist. Not so. It simply means science has no interest in it.

Some scientists and most internet scientists believe that. Science is the study of the physical world. It is not capable of studying the supernatural.

If there is a God I rather suspect she would be quite pleased at how scientists have honoured his creation by studying it.

Studying the creation is good. Attacking His word, calling it a book of mythology, and attacking the faith of His followers is not. Teaching falsehoods which are in contrast to the Bible and calling them facts is not good.

I'm not too sure how she would feel about your refusal to use your intelligence and your power of reason; or how she would feel about you doubting what she has placed so plainly for you to see.

Why do you refer to the Creator as a female when Christ claarly called Him Father??

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Adaptation. Resistance to pesticides is no big deal. You can build up a resistance to nearly anything if you survive the intial dosing, as demonstrate by people who deveolpe a tolerance for snake venom. Is that really the best you've got?

Most mutations are deleterious or neutral. The ones that are benevolent are rare, but they do exist. They do not, however, create new genetic information and encode it to the reproductive system. Mutations which result in significant changes always result in sterility.

From fish to amphibian, and amphibian to mammal, increased complexity plus the addition of genetic information that didn't exist in the parent is required. It has never been observed, and is not possible. It can certainly not be the driving force of all living things.

8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

 

[Mr Strawberry]

CabVet, I go out and get a PhD in evolution, then come back and state that God created the earth in six literal days.

If you're telling me that NOW you'll accept what I'm saying, just because I have a PhD now, then I disagree.

It will only make matters worse.

I say alcohol is a sin -- you can say I need a PhD in chemistry, and I go get one and come back -- I'll still say alcohol is a sin.

If you did attempt to go and get a PhD from scratch it would at least keep you more constructively occupied for the next ten years than posting the oceans of total drivel on the internet that you are going to spend your time doing instead.