If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[doubtingmerle]

God shows in the rock record His Ways of Creating, which is Creating immature life forms first, and a sequence of Creating more complex life forms over time. There would be zero transition fossils in the rock record in His Way of Creating Earth. Many stumble at this very point - the Creator and His Ways of Creating.

They also miss the essential point that He chose to make the Earth have an Apparent Mature Age, when He Created the world less than 10,000 years ago. Many stumble at how the Earth looked like after Creation Week. Even how Genesis list Earth's Creation process.

Do you mind if I refer to this as the popcorn view of creation?

It is rather unusual. So the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and during that period life has been progressively popping into existence out of thin air, with progressively more complex creatures popping up as time progressed?

Oh, dear. There are about 8 million species on earth today, with millions of extinct species. If 10 million species popped into existence over a period of 10,000 years, that is a thousand new species a year, almost 3 a day! Image a world like that--here a zebra pops up--there a shark pops up--here a cow--there a pig. Put it all in fast motion, and it must look like a popcorn popper out there.

What a strange view this is.

I'll let you know if I see anything pop.

 

[Speedwell]

In the context of evolution.

So the definition of science can only be those who believe in evolution? "True scientists" can only be those theories that support evolution? So a person who believes in creation and studies scientifically in support of creation can not be a scientist and considered credible?

No, because they take the position from the outset that nothing may be concluded which contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. A person who knows from the outset what his conclusions must be is not a scientist.

A couple renown scientists who believed in creation were Albert Einstein and Sir Issaic Newton ... are they not recognized by the scientific community? Yes

They were not creationists; they weren't even Protestants.

Definition of Science -
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Are creation scientists not capable of "
observation and experiment?

No, they are not. In science, the observation and experiment must be carried out without deciding in advance what the results must be.

Are we to dismiss ANY science that is put forth by those who believe in creation? Or is it just the science that is related to evolution.

No, but the results must be examined very carefully, to see if the science has been twisted to make it conform to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[xianghua]

However, there are consequences. The first program will consume more energy, due to unecessary background processes. The same goes for our eyes. Our brains need to consume extra energy to rectify the image due to the blind spots.

maybe yes and maybe not. since non of us is a creature engineer we cant realy know. if you think you know better then lets see you create a creature with a better eye. but you cant. right? since its to complex to design such a thing.

Then you can't use it as an argument either.

actually i may can:

"And there is. It helps us see in color better, Ribak and his colleagues reported at a meeting of the American Physical Society."

Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian

 

[xianghua]

There are literally tons upon tons of evidence of evolution.

such as?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

that means it was totally surrounded and immersed 2 Pet 3:6 in the water of the Multiverse.

Wait, You claimed just a day or two ago that the Multiverse was "full of Dust"! You're STILL LYING AMAN!

Were you lying then Aman, or are you lying now?

 

[DogmaHunter]

does it ever disturb you to see?

EDIT: my mistake, i had already replied to the post I quoted.

It must be monday.

 

[DogmaHunter]

maybe yes and maybe not.

There is no "maybe" here. It is, the way it is.

since non of us is a creature engineer we cant realy know

I'm an engineer and I know.

if you think you know better

I don't think so. I KNOW that I know better then you.
Your posts demonstrate that every day.

then lets see you create a creature with a better eye. but you cant. right? since its to complex to design such a thing.

I don't have to.

Eventhough I'm a software engineer, I'm nowhere near skilled enough to create an operating system for example. But that doesn't stop me from being able to point out bad design in operating systems.

I'm not an electrician, but that doesn't stop me from realising that an electrical circuit which has a bunch of unnecessary "dead wires", is a bad / wastefull design.

actually i may can:

No, you cannot. You can't have your cake an eat it as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

********

Definition of Science:
In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence

Considering all things needed to happen for life to begin on planet earth "science" can not provide "repeatable evidence". That is why it is a theory. Nor, is there "repeatable evidence" from a creator aspect either. Both are theories. People choose what they believe.

1. evolution and the origins of life, are not the same thing

2. a scientific theory, is the graduation-stage of any idea in science. It is a body of knowledge that is supported by empirical evidence and which has withstood rigorous testing. It is not some opinion or hunch of guess. It is essentially a hypothesis that is considered to be confirmed / proven (to the extent that anything in science can be considered "proven" - which never gets to 100% in terms of certainty).

Maybe you should read the few paragraphes on www.notjustatheory.com
It will only take a couple of minutes.

To say that religious creationism is "just as much a theory" like evolution (or indeed any other scientific theory) is to expose a serious lack of understanding of how science is done.

There have been many scientific articles/journals/studies supporting creation verses evolution.

No, there hasn't.
And creationist blogs etc do not count.

Who is actually correct?

The scientific explanations.

For one, No one can estimate the age of the earth.

That is simply false.

There are theories in an attempt to do so ... however either way evolution or creation can not be scientifically proven because it can not be duplicated.

Evolution theory makes an almost inumerable amount of testable predictions. Evolution theory is extremely testable. Both experimentally as well as circumstantially.

They are both theories and will remain so.

Theories remain theories, yes.

But creationism is not an evidence-based scientific theory. Instead, it's faith based religion.

You believe in evolution, that's fine .... I believe in creation, also fine.

Sure, it's fine. You can believe whatever you want.
But one of us is wrong.
And it's not me.

Something to consider though ..... if evolution is correct .... does one have life after earthly death?

Evolution is about the development of life and the origins of bio-diversity.
It doesn't have anything to say about supernatural religious claims, nore does it concern itself with such.

Having said that, the Pope doesn't have any issues with evolution theory (neither do world-reknown evolutionary biologists and devout christians like Francis Collins and Ken Miller) and I'm pretty sure they have religious beliefs about the afterlife.

So they don't seem to be incompatible.

..... if creation via Almighty God is correct .... there is .... and eternal life for those who believe in Jesus.

So what?

Eternity ..... think about it.

Why?

I am however curious about something.

Atheists being defined as lacking belief in the existence of God or gods
why do atheists participate in christian forums?

Entertainment, interest, out of sociological concern, educational purposes, ....

I imagine lots of reasons.

Why is that relevant to you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have not seen one paper that supports creationism that has been accepted by the scientific community, or even published in peer-reviewed journals.

Or which was even submitted to such a journal to attempt to get it reviewed / published.

Creationists like to cry about how the scientific community "ignores them" or how "they refuse to publish their creationist findings"...

But the fact of the matter is that not a single one of these "creation scientists" has ever even attempted to get a paper published. Because all of them actually know that they got nothing. It's just dishonest propaganda and in some cases straight up lies about how they are "ignored".

There's nothing there to ignore, in reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. Doesn't matter if it is a False Theory. It's based on known facts and what the majority of scientists believe. The best example is the False ToE since it's the easiest to refute.

If it is "so easy to refute", then how come nobody has succeeded in doing exactly?

Changing the name from descent with modification within kinds to magical "evolution" and force teaching the ToE as fact, to our children, is blasphemy

"blasphemy"? You seem to be off the opinion that everybody should submit to your religion of choice.

No thanks. We live in a secular democracy (thank goodness...) and your religion is irrelevant to the rest of us.

2. Adam's Earth was a Flat Earth. It was only 22.5 feet to the top of it's highest mountains Gen 7:20 and it had ONE River which split into four Rivers and watered the small, flat Earth of Adam. Gen 2:10 Texas alone, has thousands of Rivers and they don't all come from the same source. You have confused Adam's Earth, which was totally destroyed in the flood, with the present Earth which will be burned. More study is indicated. Read ll Peter 3:3-7

Uhu, uhu.

ps: are there actually christians out there who share these wacky beliefs with you?
I said this before, but I don't think I've ever met a christian who "interprets" genesis etc, like you do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In the context of evolution.

In context of science.

So the definition of science can only be those who believe in evolution? "True scientists" can only be those theories that support evolution? So a person who believes in creation and studies scientifically in support of creation can not be a scientist and considered credible?

No. A scientific theory, is a scientific theory.
Evolution is one. Atoms is another.

We all know that you have emotional, dogmatic religious issues with evolution... but your objections are not actually rooted in the underlying science. Your objections are rooted in a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.

Your religion is the reason why you object to a selection of scientific theories.
In fact, I'm sure that there are scientific theories out there that you do accept, because they don't conflict with your religious beliefs (or you don't really realise that they conflict with your beliefs), which in reality are actually far less solid and established then evolution.

In reality, evolution theory is one of the most solid, robust, well-evidenced and established theories in all of science.

I'm sure you'll object to that, but again... your objection isn't rooted in the science. It's rooted in your a priori religious beliefs. And those beliefs, I'm sorry to inform you, are irrelevant when discussing scientific topics.

A couple renown scientists who believed in creation were Albert Einstein and Sir Issaic Newton ... are they not recognized by the scientific community? Yes

Einstein? Really?
The guy who said that belief in the biblical god is juvenile and childish?

Anyhow... the beliefs of scientists (just like your beliefs) are irrelevant when it comes to the science.

Definition of Science -
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Are creation scientists not capable of "observation and experiment"? Of course they are and also in the same scientific fields as you referenced.

Once more, there's no such thing as a "creation scientist".
"creationism" is religion. Not science.

Find me a single scientific publication concerning creationism.

They are .... and they have

They have not. Show me wrong. Cite a single paper.

It takes faith (complete trust) to believe either one and neither one can definitively be proven.

Religion (creationism) requires faith.
Science (evolution) has evidence and no need for faith because of it.
In fact, whenever you require faith - you just left the realm of science.

Are we to dismiss ANY science that is put forth by those who believe in creation?

No. We are to dismiss science that isn't science.
And religious faith-based ideas (like creationism), are not scientific ideas.
Which is why you won't find a single scientific publication about that.
Which is also why there's no such thing as a "creation scientist" or "creation science".

It's contradiction in terms.

In the end people choose to believe what they believe based on what they feel comfortable putting their faith (trust) in

Nope. That's what YOU do.
I don't. In fact, I actively try NOT to let my emotions and "comfort zone" cloud my judgement. It's fallacious reasoning if you don't.

My beliefs are determined by the evidence, not by my psychological needs and desires.
I sure would find it a lot more comfortable to believe that I don't have lungcancer... but if the scans actually demonstrate that there's a cancerous tumor there - it wouldn't be smart of me to believe the "comforting" thing.

I like to hold accurate beliefs and I think that being justified in my beliefs is more important then being comfortable.

Each of us formulate our own beliefs and we personally develop them and we each own them.

I don't. I don't "choose" my beliefs.

I don't "want" to believe.
I am rather compelled to believe.

I can't "choose" to believe that santa is real.
I can't "choose" to believe that jumping from the empire state building will not mean certain death.

Not without lying to myself or self-brainwashing, anyway.

 

[xianghua]

There is no "maybe" here. It is, the way it is.

the fact that its work just fine falsify this claim. but you are welcome to believe otherwise.

I'm an engineer and I know.

you arent a creature engineer and this is a big difference.

I don't have to.

because you cant. if it was so easy to do so you were already do that.

Eventhough I'm a software engineer, I'm nowhere near skilled enough to create an operating system for example. But that doesn't stop me from being able to point out bad design in operating systems.

so lets see. here is one example:

according to your criteria this is a bad design since its seems to be very odd to put a wheel in this part of the car. (image from wiki)

 

[Aman777]

Wait, You claimed just a day or two ago that the Multiverse was "full of Dust"! You're STILL LYING AMAN!

Were you lying then Aman, or are you lying now?

Sorry, but some have a problem understanding. The Multiverse is the 3rd Heaven which is much larger than our small Cosmos. The Multiverse consists of enormous quantities of air, dust and water, the building blocks of everything which exists physically. Add fire/life from the Creator and you have living creatures.

Our Universe, unlike Adam's which was in WATER, Gen 1:6 is in the midst of the enormous quantity of ground without form/dust in the Multiverse. That is WHY it's dark and why we cannot see the enormous Light in the Multiverse. It's ALSO why Adam's world did not need a Sun Moon nor Stars since it received light from the Multiverse.

This also explains Dark Energy, since something is causing the Galaxies to increase in speed as we near the solid boundary of dust which will destroy our Cosmos. It's the gravity of the larger mass in the Multiverse which is forcing this event. Some God haters prefer to stay in our burned out world and the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever Rev 14:11 trapped forever in outer darkness. Mat 25:30

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry, but some have a problem understanding. The Multiverse is the 3rd Heaven which is much larger than our small Cosmos. The Multiverse consists of enormous quantities of air, dust and water, the building blocks of everything which exists physically. Add fire/life from the Creator and you have living creatures.

Our Universe, unlike Adam's which was in WATER, Gen 1:6 is in the midst of the enormous quantity of ground without form/dust in the Multiverse. That is WHY it's dark and why we cannot see the enormous Light in the Multiverse. It's ALSO why Adam's world did not need a Sun Moon nor Stars since it received light from the Multiverse.

This also explains Dark Energy, since something is causing the Galaxies to increase in speed as we near the solid boundary of dust which will destroy our Cosmos. It's the gravity of the larger mass in the Multiverse which is forcing this event. Some God haters prefer to stay in our burned out world and the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever Rev 14:11 trapped forever in outer darkness. Mat 25:30

Earth, air, fire and water. How quaint.

 

[Aman777]

Religion (creationism) requires faith.
Science (evolution) has evidence and no need for faith because of it.
In fact, whenever you require faith - you just left the realm of science.

False, since evolution is ignorant of the difference between Humans (descendants of Adam) and prehistoric people (descendants of the common ancestor of Apes). Today's Science falsely assumes that Humans must have "evolved" by FAITH since they have NO evidence which is not easily refuted. Want to try?

 

[Aman777]

Earth, air, fire and water. How quaint.

Actually, God didn't "create" the water. It came from the Heaven/air. The preciseness is because God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, MUST be precise. Jesus took some of the clay and made Humans and breathed life into us Gen 2:4-7 BEFORE any other living creature. We are God's children.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

I don't have to finish your second sentence to do that.
Before one gets to your period you write "Most of evolution happened in the distant past, after all. We claim that humans and chimpanzees descended from a single ancestral species over millions of years,"
Your bias against God is obvious. Not only have you not read all 1,189 chapters of his book the Bible, you seem to have not even read chapter one or verse one. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." If you were to go on and read the rest of the story (the Bible) you could trace back to the beginning in some 6,000 yrs, or if using modern versions of the Bible (which say there are gaps in the chronology of the Bible) some 10,000 years. When God shows us that the material universe is only 6-10,000 years old, and men say that it is millions of years old, then that is "distorted." If one will not even read outside of the realm of secular scientists, is not one biased in their thinking? Of course the argument/debate expands continually with questions/attacks, points and counterpoints, ad infinitum.

Disagreeing with a literal interpretation of the bible does not mean bias against God. Every Christian I know disagrees with a literal interpretation of the bible on some point.

Please answer: Do you agree 100% with every word in the bible in a literal sense?

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Actually, God didn't "create" the water. It came from the Heaven/air. The preciseness is because God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, MUST be precise. Jesus took some of the clay and made Humans and breathed life into us Gen 2:4-7 BEFORE any other living creature. We are God's children.

If it was true that God "MUST be precise" we would not have the thousands of different sects of Christianity, each with their own idea on what the bible states.

pre·cise
prəˈsīs/
adjective
adjective: precise

1. marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail.
   "precise directions"
   synonyms: exact, accurate, correct, specific, detailed, explicit, unambiguous, definite
   "precise measurements"

For an example, if precise the bible would not state the circumference of a circle is three.

 

[Aman777]

If it was true that God "MUST be precise" we would not have the thousands of different sects of Christianity, each with their own idea on what the bible states.

It accomplishes God's will that ONLY by Faith can one be saved. You certainly cannot accept the theology of the more than 30k denominations. I think that's smart. It's the work of the Holy Spirit. Amen?

For an example, if precise the bible would not state the circumference of a circle is three.

The Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, obviously rounded off the number. Otherwise, the Bible would go on forever since the number never ends. Amen?

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

It accomplishes God's will that ONLY by Faith can one be saved. You certainly cannot accept the theology of the more than 30k denominations. I think that's smart. It's the work of the Holy Spirit. Amen?

I say this is an example of the bible not being precise. If it was precise, there would not be thousands of different interpretations.

The Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, obviously rounded off the number. Otherwise, the Bible would go on forever since the number never ends. Amen?

I agree that it is nothing to argue about. But this is not precise, which is what you said God "MUST" be. (The capitalization is yours)

Precise would be to state it is approximately three. Or that 22/7 is approximately pi. But just saying pi is three is not precise, at least as the dictionary I quoted defines the word.