Evolution and Genesis account of creation

[NobleMouse]

Secular scientists don’t change their stories. The press gets the story wrong and leaves out important details . Creationist publications do this on purpose as they want people to criticise evolution without actually understanding it.

And so mainstream scientists never follow-up to correct the press?? Really grasping now...

 

[JackRT]

And so mainstream scientists never follow-up to correct the press?? Really grasping now...

Actually we do, but once misinformation gets out, it is out forever. For example, the anti-Semitic publication "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was completely debunked over a century ago but even today there are still gullible and credulous people falling for it.

 

[NobleMouse]

Claim:

“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.” --- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163

Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSEd). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

Skeptical is not the same as questioning... skeptical implies serious doubt.

Also, I generally don't believe people just blindly believe something (or ignore glaring evidence to the contrary) just because of religious beliefs. Evolution is not based upon "agnostic" or unbiased evidence, it is a presuppositional view that interprets the evidence in support of that view. Fossils don't tell you they evolved, DNA doesn't tell you it evolved - it's just mineralized bones and base pairs of proteins. 2 +2 doesn't tell you it equals 4 except you and I know how to interpret it because we've been taught to assign a value to the symbol "2" and that "+" is to be abstractly interpreted as to instruct adding the symbol to the left and right of the "+" sysmbol... then by having memorized the sequence of symbols we can interpret the result to be the symbol 4. In similar fashion, the fossils and DNA doesn't say anything... and these things are not just linear mathematical expressions, so the only way to form a conclusion about them is to apply a metal framework to wrap around everything.

This is true for creationism as well, it's a presuppositional view that operates on the belief the Genesis account is not figurative and interprets evidence in light of that belief. The fundamental issue is not the conclusion, it is the source of authority (because the conclusion is just a product of the source of authority). It is clear that many here feel that what the Bible says is in a box over "there" and what science says is in a box over "here" and what is in "there" should not cross into "here" - mentally siloing Bible truth as just being something "spiritual" and "metaphysical" while science is truth about reality. Am I getting...

closer?
?
?
I think I am.

The problem is that God IS reality, this is HIS reality and if the Bible made no real tangible connection to reality then it really would just be a case of people turning their brains off and believing in something for no reason... hence the common critique of atheists about Christianity and people of faith in general.

The Bible IS grounded in reality - it is why all of us (regardless of our view on evolution) believe it is true. A question I've asked in various threads within this forum and never get a response is: Did God change Moses' staff into a serpent and then back into a staff? Or we could ask other questions: Did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead? I feel we all (well mostly all) believe those miracles. Where do you draw the line on what you do and don't believe? I don't draw a line, I believe it all happened as God has told in his word.

 

[JacksBratt]

. Frogs never become rabbits and lizards never become birds . You’ve demonstrated that you’ve got a poor understanding of evolution and of some basic genealogical lineages. Also science only deals with natural phenomena and natural processes so why are you bringing religious beliefs or the lack thereof, into this ? Your misconceptions of a major science theory don’t negate the theory!

I know... I was not being literal. I was referring to the fact that no one kind developed from the morphing of another kind.

As for my religious beliefs.... I find that evolutionists have much more superior faith than YEC's.

They first need proteins... which are not something that can just randomly happen.. not even one, let alone the many that we have.

Then, you have the amino acids... yep.. another random event that is not the same as adding water to dirt to get mud.

To top it all off, you have to have all of these in specific sequences in order to form DNA..

Even if all of this phenomenally impossible materialization... you then have to have the one thing that kills it dead... you have no LIFE.

That's right.. even if all of this infinitely impossible material was given to you. Placed in your hands as a gift... all the DNA, Protein, and amino acids... All the mitochondria, cell membranes, Lysosomes, Ribosomes, and other parts of a fully functioning cell..

If someone handed them to you... it's still.. dead... no life...

The whole idea of all the things in this universe being here by random spontaneity.... preposterous.

 

[JacksBratt]

JackRT ‘s post was too polite to mention it but creation scientists are considered to be crackpots . No one pays attention to them and they have to publish in creationist publications.

That info is years old so the numbers of creationist life scientists might have gone down from .15%. That does mean that 99.85% of life scientists accept evolution

Thank you ,.. thank you.. thank you..

There you have it...

If you do not conform to the party line, in science... you are labeled a "crackpot".

This is how it is done folks.. Do not, what ever you do, start presenting anything that may be seen as leaning toward creation. You must keep the academic dogma flowing and on track...

Science used to be based on the understanding that we don't know everything and every observation was uncovering the path... sometimes the path went right. Sometimes it went left.. and.. when all the scientists thought it was going to keep going straight.. they were suprized when it made a sharp jog... But, the path kept unfolding before them and they followed it where the observations lead them.


However, today.. they know where they want it to go.. if you don't keep on the path... your ridiculed and called a crackpot...
If you find something that shows that the path should turn, but acedemia says it must go straight.. don't present it.. you will lose credibility, lose funding, lose credibility and be.. a crackpot.

So, if you find data that is not in line.. bury it, hide it, destroy it...

 

[misput]

I don't draw a line, I believe it all happened as God has told in his word.

In other words if you do not recognize some scripture as metaphorical, figurative or interpreted different than you, then you draw a line. If scripture is not interpreted as a little child would interpret it, you draw a line of unbelief, just as you accuse others of. That's rich : )

PS: It does not matter to me how you interpret scripture, its between you and God. The main reason I post is for entertainment and I have an interest in the subject being discussed.

 

[Brightmoon]

Creationism is like being told that god said that the sky is red with purple spots during noon on a sunny day . And while measuring it with a spectrometer even the machine confirms it’s blue. Then you’re told that you’re a liar and atheist and apostate for believing that the sky is blue, when you can see the sky is actually blue and had had it verified that it is blue. This is THE reason creationist scientists get treated like they are crackpots. The creationists are pretending that confirming evidence doesn’t exist for scientific facts . Mainstream scientists accept how nature really is . Creationists get angry at mainstream scientists because mainstream scientists refuse to accept a fantasy in place of reality.
And mainstream science has nothing to do with atheism. Facts are facts

 

[Brightmoon]

And so mainstream scientists never follow-up to correct the press?? Really grasping now...

. Given that creationists take these stupid stories and pretend that this nonsense is current research even a hundred years later, I don’t think I’m the one grasping at straws. Nebraska man ? How many times have I heard that PRATT

 

[NobleMouse]

In other words if you do not recognize some scripture as metaphorical, figurative or interpreted different than you, then you draw a line. If scripture is not interpreted as a little child would interpret it, you draw a line of unbelief, just as you accuse others of. That's rich : )

PS: It does not matter to me how you interpret scripture, its between you and God. The main reason I post is for entertainment and I have an interest in the subject being discussed.

No. Perhaps unintentional on your part but the argument of saying those who believe Genesis actually occurred as it is written MUST believe every literary style as fact is the standard reductio ad absurdum (reducing an idea to the point that it seems absurd, as an attack or defense strategy).

Do you believe God turned Moses' staff into a serpent then back into a staff, or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Where do you draw the line of what you'll believe and what you won't from God's word?

 

[NobleMouse]

. Given that creationists take these stupid stories and pretend that this nonsense is current research even a hundred years later, I don’t think I’m the one grasping at straws. Nebraska man ? How many times have I heard that PRATT

Not sure what a Nebraska man is or a PRATT is, but do you believe God turned Moses' staff into a serpent and then back into a staff, or do you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead?

 

[NobleMouse]

Creationism is like being told that god said that the sky is red with purple spots during noon on a sunny day . And while measuring it with a spectrometer even the machine confirms it’s blue. Then you’re told that you’re a liar and atheist and apostate for believing that the sky is blue, when you can see the sky is actually blue and had had it verified that it is blue. This is THE reason creationist scientists get treated like they are crackpots. The creationists are pretending that confirming evidence doesn’t exist for scientific facts . Mainstream scientists accept how nature really is . Creationists get angry at mainstream scientists because mainstream scientists refuse to accept a fantasy in place of reality.
And mainstream science has nothing to do with atheism. Facts are facts

Nice analogy, but you don't have a metaphorical spectrometer showing all life evolved from a universal common ancestor or that one fossil came from another. Now, you were saying something about fantasy and reality, please continue...

How long will you and others here will continue to avoid the question of whether you believe God changed Moses' staff into a serpent and then back again, or whether you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Seems you're more interested in supporting that which you truly idolize: scientism.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

No, they didn't suddenly become smarter in 1800. What did happen was that church control of thought was considerably weakened to the point where some brave men were actually allowed to think and question.

Funny, church power didn't keep the protestants from breaking off. church power didn't keep the catholics and orthodox from breaking off from each other. Church power didn't keep the muslims from coming about. Jewish "church" power couldn't prevent the Christian church from being formed and growing. And, in fact, the courageous heathen in the first few centuries were killing Christians for believing in Christ Jesus. So, when exactly was the church so powerful that courageous heathen couldn't exist--so that there needed to be courageous heathen to speak to the contrary of the Scriptures? I can't seem to find a time in history that didn't have unbelievers. Can you point me to that time?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Secular scientists don’t change their stories. The press gets the story wrong and leaves out important details . Creationist publications do this on purpose as they want people to criticise evolution without actually understanding it.

The concept of us evolving from apes is a lie OR God lied. It's that simple. So, you decide who you want to believe and deal with the consequences of that choice. I'm sticking with God and the consequences of that choice.

 

[JackRT]

So, when exactly was the church so powerful that courageous heathen couldn't exist

Church power was at its peak in the centuries following Constantine. The early Christians were certainly occasionally persecuted before that but the persecution of the pagans that followed was constant and unremitting --- probably the worst persecution in human history.

 

[Brightmoon]

Nice analogy, but you don't have a metaphorical spectrometer showing all life evolved from a universal common ancestor or that one fossil came from another. Now, you were saying something about fantasy and reality, please continue...

How long will you and others here will continue to avoid the question of whether you believe God changed Moses' staff into a serpent and then back again, or whether you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Seems you're more interested in supporting that which you truly idolize: scientism.

. Scientism is what? No idea what you mean. Beliefs aren’t relevant for science.

Science describes natural phenomena as accurately as it’s possible. Creationist organisations usually lie about that fact and they want you to believe the silly fantasies about science that they tell you

 

[Brightmoon]

Nice analogy, but you don't have a metaphorical spectrometer showing all life evolved from a universal common ancestor or that one fossil came from another. Now, you were saying something about fantasy and reality, please continue...

How long will you and others here will continue to avoid the question of whether you believe God changed Moses' staff into a serpent and then back again, or whether you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Seems you're more interested in supporting that which you truly idolize: scientism.

actually we do have a sort of spectrometer that points to all life having a common ancestry. But we usually call it genetics!

PRATT - points refuted a thousand times. Another PRATT for you -the common creationist claim that evolution has been discarded or refuted by the scientific community. And still another- That macroevolution doesn’t happen

 

[Brightmoon]

The concept of us evolving from apes is a lie OR God lied. It's that simple. So, you decide who you want to believe and deal with the consequences of that choice. I'm sticking with God and the consequences of that choice.

another PRATT . Humans ARE great apes along with orangutans gorillas bonobos and chimpanzees. Family Hominidae

Aside from that I’m a Christian so I’ll stick with God myself . Which is why I find creationist lies about nature to be offensive

 

[misput]

No. Perhaps unintentional on your part but the argument of saying those who believe Genesis actually occurred as it is written MUST believe every literary style as fact is the standard reductio ad absurdum (reducing an idea to the point that it seems absurd, as an attack or defense strategy).

You have misunderstood what I am saying.

[/QUOTE]Do you believe God turned Moses' staff into a serpent then back into a staff, or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Where do you draw the line of what you'll believe and what you won't from God's word?[/QUOTE]Your questions appear absurd. Would you care to get real?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

another PRATT . Humans ARE great apes along with orangutans gorillas bonobos and chimpanzees. Family Hominidae

Aside from that I’m a Christian so I’ll stick with God myself . Which is why I find creationist lies about nature to be offensive

Well, I guess we'll see if God agrees with you in the end. I'm sticking with God's account of creation not yours. My God doesn't lie. The men you believe do.

 

[NobleMouse]

. Scientism is what? No idea what you mean. Beliefs aren’t relevant for science.

Science describes natural phenomena as accurately as it’s possible. Creationist organisations usually lie about that fact and they want you to believe the silly fantasies about science that they tell you

Failed [again] to answer a few basic questions about the Bible.

Scientism is (per Wikipedia): "an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." In less polysyllabic terms: that it is the unbiased and ultimate way to truth... and I will say it seems you hold the views of science in higher regard from our interactions thus far - especially given you have so little to say regarding the Bible and your views about the statements it makes... such as whether you believe God changed Moses' staff into a serpent and then back into a staff, or whether you believe Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead.