Many people quote the events of genesis but there seem to be two versions. The differerences occur about the appearance of the sun and the origin of of adam and eve.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Genesis chapter one
- Thread starter JohnR7
- Start date
bloody probability arguments, they're totally pointless because you can't calculate the probability of anything evolving with any accuracy because you have to know the starting life form and then you have to know the environment at every stage in the evolutionary process, which is also contingent upon the lifeforms which are evolving - thats why I have no time for probability arguments, its basically just the invention of large numbers by the serial multiplication of numerous assumptions
Upvote
0
Well for some reason the top evolutionists scientists think it is possible to do so, read: non-creationists. You have to know the starting life form? Well that's the catch isn't it? According to the evolutionary school of thought, life came from non-life, abiogenesis. So the starting life form was nonexistent. Then there was a bang. Funny that you would dismiss leaders of your own cause when their findings are contradictory to what you want. You don't ignore results of experimentation or of study when the results are contrary to your hypothesis .. you get a new hypothesis. That is very bad science. To say that life can evolve by chance given enough time is also bad science. Half of the scientific method is left impaled on the horns of chance. In fact, for science and philosophy to continue in a fruitful fashion, the modern penchant for chance must be abandoned once and for all. If not, the stakes are not insignificant - the very possibility of doing science lies in the balance.
Upvote
0
Futher exploring the probability idea.....
If, in ultimate terms, there are only two possible answers to the question of origins, then the disproving of one should logically prove the other. If A or B is the only possible explanations of an event, and A is disproved, only B can be considered the cause. If the chances of evolution occurring are e.g., "1" in 10^100,000,000,000, then the chances of creation occurring would have to be its opposite - the odds being 99.9 (followed by 10 billion more 9's).
If, in ultimate terms, there are only two possible answers to the question of origins, then the disproving of one should logically prove the other. If A or B is the only possible explanations of an event, and A is disproved, only B can be considered the cause. If the chances of evolution occurring are e.g., "1" in 10^100,000,000,000, then the chances of creation occurring would have to be its opposite - the odds being 99.9 (followed by 10 billion more 9's).
Upvote
0
Well, since we've seen evolution occur, I guess that puts the chance of evolution occurring at 1.0. By your logic, then, the chance that creation is correct is a big fat goose egg.
Upvote
0
Really, the question is: Is there a God, or not. How you answer this question has a direct impact on your opinion of the evolution vs creation debate.
Upvote
0
I think you mean "scientific school of thought", which encompasses both evolution and abiogenesis.
Perhaps quite literally. Lightning strikes (bang!) on the early earth may well have been involved in the creation of life.
What is bad science? Developing a new hypothesis when new data is contradictory to your old one? That's a funny definition of bad science.
Bad religion, maybe...
To say that life evolves by chance alone is to represent evolutionary theory in bad faith.
Quick! Someone phone the quantum mechanics guys!
LOL! In spite of your rant to the contrary, science seems to be doing just fine.
Upvote
0
Isn't that obvious? The only people who hold the opinion that creationism is correct are those who believe in a certain kind of God.
Upvote
0
We have seen evolution occur?!?!? I assume you are talking about micro-evolution, variation and adaptation within a species. Man has not seen macro-evolution. It is impossible to see that in our short span here on Earth.
By the way ... if you are sticking to your guns about seeing macro-evolution, please notify all the top scientific journals. They would parade you as man of the year if you can substantiate this claim.
Upvote
0
No I wouldn't call it scientific school of thought since close to half of all scientists (a little less) don't believe in macroevolution. I call it the evolutionary school of thought.
It is bad science because the hypothesis remains the same .. that life came from nothing. They never change this idea. If the data is contradictory to the hypothesis then it is claimed that the data was faulty.
Either life happened on its own, due to chance or there was an intelligent being that caused it. The lightening strikes you speak of are involved in the calculation of chance. Heck, lightening strikes by chance as well. And we are speaking of a finite amount of material and a finite amount of time, even with evolutionist's reckoning.
Upvote
0
You just referred to "evolution" in your original post. You made no distinction between micro- and macro-.
Would you like a chance to recast your original probability argument with an explicit distinction between the two?
Upvote
0
Support this assertion please, and provide references.
What data is contradictory to the hypothesis that life arose from non-living sources? Where do scientists claim such data is faulty?
Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
Ever hear the saying "Once in a million happens ten times a day in New York City"? Small probabilities are meaningless without context.
Upvote
0
sorry, who are the leaders of scientific thought who came up with this probability? what is your reference for this?
Upvote
0
hang on, I understand it now, Sagan is talking about the probability that evolution would occur to produce the outcome that it did, not the probability of evolution in general. It's also just an estimate because it doesn't take natural selection into account
Upvote
0
I believe 100% in micro-evolution. You knew what I was talking about anyway. You are trying to catch me in word games to appear intellectually elite.
Upvote
0
No, I don't. I don't understand how you can construct a macroevolutionary probability argument from microevolutionary probability assumptions.
I'm trying to point out the errors in your thinking, for your benefit and mine.
What does a good scientist do when someone points out the errors in his or her analysis?
Upvote
0
"I fail to see how the natural man can scoff at the faith of a Christian who believes in one miracle of creation, when the unbeliever accepts multiplied millions of miracles to justify his violation of every known law of biology and every evidence of paleontology, and to cling to the exploded myth of evolution."
Dr. Harry Rimmer (SC.D, D.D) who was allegedly one of only 12 men around 1940 capable of understanding Einstein's theory of relativity.
Harry Rimmer, The Magnificence of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1943), p. 116.
Dr. Harry Rimmer (SC.D, D.D) who was allegedly one of only 12 men around 1940 capable of understanding Einstein's theory of relativity.
Harry Rimmer, The Magnificence of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1943), p. 116.
Upvote
0
He takes the beaker of HCl acid on his desk and flings it at the other scientist. *Smile*
Upvote
0
Similar threads
