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

[DogmaHunter]

Creationism has led to nothing of value outside your religion.

I'ld even go a step further here....
Not only did creationism never lead to anything of value outside the religion...
Even within the religion, it does nothing but damage.

There's this infamous statement (don't know the original source) that says:
"Creationists do a much better job at exposing the nonsense in religions then any atheist could ever do"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Have you ever prayed and experienced a miraculous answer?

I'll assume that you'll go ahead and claim that you have.

So, how did you establish the causal relationship between "praying" and the alledged event?
And how do we, as third parties, verify this claim?

Do you expect to just be believed?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is something I experienced personally. Make of it what you choose...

This happened to me some years ago. I'm not going to press the point, but I leave it with you. You decide for yourself if the power of "my belief" / placebo etc made this happen.

My brother had a girlfriend when he was about 17 who had some very severe back trouble. She had a twisted spine and was given till her mid 20s before she would wind up in a wheelchair. She lived a few hours away from us and had come to visit with her friend for the weekend. That particular weekend Jim Sepulvida was sharing his experiences at an auditorum near to us and we had all wanted to hear him speak so we went.

Just to mention, this was 25 years ago and Jim is no longer with us but I found a YouTube video of his testimony.

Anyway, at the end of the meeting, he went into a time of praying for the sick. Various people had gone up to the front but she didn't. There was a pause and Jim stopped, saying that the Lord was telling him there were five women there with back trouble.

Four came forward...

Jim stopped and said there was still a woman with back trouble that needed to come forward. She told me afterwards she thought at that moment 'I'm 17 - that means I'm a girl - it's not me'

Jim paused, then said 'OK, will the GIRL with back trouble please come forward!'

She did.

No-one touched her and she was certainly not a regular at 'that' sort of church, but as Jim prayed for her she fell backwards and looked like she was fast asleep!!! When she came to after a little while, she was smiling from ear to ear and ran up the steps to us, then round the hall again... When she had calmed down a bit she told us that she had felt the love and presence of God as she lay there and had the physical sensation of her spine being knocked into line!

Returning the doctors she had a series of tests and was pronounced inexplicably healed.

I heared a story like that once.

Only, it was at a hindu temple and Shiva took the credit.

 

[DogmaHunter]

nothing I say will make a shred of difference to you...

You certainly got that right. Nothing you say will make any difference in my acceptance of established scientific theories.

If you wish to change my mind (about anything), you're going to have to do a lot better then just making bare claims.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Good question - it comes down to the old question "What is truth?"

If God is real then truth > naturalism, even if the basic framework / experimental assumption of this kind of debate is that truth = naturalism.

My mention of my own experiences is to whet the scientific minds here with the possibility that my experiential knowledge may include events that, while true in all meaningful senses, are beyond the realm of naturalism.

When considering origins, with an eye to truth, theistic interpretations of events are not automatically less "true" than materialistic ones. That was perhaps the understanding I wanted to convey.

"true" is that which corresponds to reality.

Creationistic claims can't be shown to correspond with reality. In fact, depending on the type of "creationism", several claims thereof are demonstrably false.

Evolution theory, on the other hand, CAN be shown to correspond to reality.

And that's the difference between established science and religious belief.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

There's this infamous statement (don't know the original source) that says:
"Creationists do a much better job at exposing the nonsense in religions then any atheist could ever do"

I think I heard Richard Dawkins say something like that - either he, or Christopher Hitchins...

 

[xianghua]

The oldest confirmed DNA extraction from a fossil is from one 800,000 years old. There are certainly people over the years that have claimed to have extracted older DNA, but none confirmed. The super old ones from bacteria were complicated by the potential for said bacteria to actually have been in a prolonged state of stasis rather than dead for the entire time frame they were buried, but it is possible that the circular DNA conformation associated with them is more stable. That being said, dinosaurs don't have linear DNA.

However, even if we did find a dinosaur fossil that had DNA present and we could confirm that it wasn't contamination from any organism that came into contact with it, that wouldn't inherently mean that the fossil was less than 1 million years old. After all, we could simply be incorrect about how long DNA can last. The best way to make the determination of which was the case would be to replicate the conditions the fossil experienced to the best of our ability, as well as radioactive dating methods (our understanding of radioactive decay exceeds our understanding of DNA decay, making it a more reliable dating method).

But, we'll see what happens if we ever find dinosaur DNA. The closest thing to finding such DNA that we have found is dinosaur proteins, which is certainly neat. One can derive a sequence (sans introns) that would produce such a protein if it is complete. Which is neat.

so basically we cant predict if we will find a dino DNA or not. since we can always say that its survived somehow if we will find such s thing.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

You certainly got that right. Nothing you say will make any difference in my acceptance of established scientific theories.

If you wish to change my mind (about anything), you're going to have to do a lot better then just making bare claims.

It really isn't my business to try to persuade anyone of anything. As a Christian, I am called as a "witness". That means I have to live it and experience it to take the stand and testify. The jury are free to make up their own minds!!!

I love this quote...

"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Paul Simon

 

[DogmaHunter]

It really isn't my business to try to persuade anyone of anything. As a Christian, I am called as a "witness". That means I have to live it and experience it to take the stand and testify. The jury are free to make up their own minds!!!

I utterly disagree. I'm not by any means "free" to make up my mind about any given claim.
I am not "free" to believe or disbelieve claims.

I can only honestly believe those things that convince me. Mere words will never convince me of fantastical claims or claims that fly in the face of actual well-evidenced models of reality.

I love this quote...

"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Paul Simon

I like that too. But off course, it is only applicable to you in this case.
You're the one who needs to disregard "the rest" in order to stick to your a priori religious beliefs. I have no such desires or motivations.

Here's another quote that I like a lot:

"We should all have an open mind. But not so open, that our brains are falling out..."
Richard Dawkins.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I utterly disagree. I'm not by any means "free" to make up my mind about any given claim.
I am not "free" to believe or disbelieve claims.

I can only honestly believe those things that convince me. Mere words will never convince me of fantastical claims or claims that fly in the face of actual well-evidenced models of reality.



I like that too. But off course, it is only applicable to you in this case.
You're the one who needs to disregard "the rest" in order to stick to your a priori religious beliefs. I have no such desires or motivations.

Here's another quote that I like a lot:

"We should all have an open mind. But not so open, that our brains are falling out..."
Richard Dawkins.

Given your distaste for explanations that step beyond naturalism, what attracts you to a Christian forum?

What do you do when reality is wider than the "well evidenced model" allows? For example, what do you do when you personally receive an impossible healing following prayer on the way to a clinical pathology lecture where you are told that there is nothing beyond the physical, and that all good scientists take a reductionist view of the universe? What do you do with prophecies that were written on scrolls thousands of years ago start coming true? You get the idea...

Just asking...

 

[Aman777]

I'm sorry Aman, you post so much incoherent and inconsistent nonsense that I've long stopped taking you seriously - in fact, I can only hold a conversation with you knowing you're just a Po, because the stuff you parrot just couldn't be proposed seriously by anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of reality.

All that rhetoric and no actual evidence that what I post disagrees with Scripture, Science nor History. Name calling is useless since I don't know what a Po is, just like you obviously don't know what an idgit is. Do you? Why do all unbelievers have to act like Trump when they get ready to run away before they show their abject ignorance, again?

Picture me standing on the seashore waving a fond farewell to just one more evol who cannot refute me in ANY way. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

The oldest confirmed DNA extraction from a fossil is from one 800,000 years old. There are certainly people over the years that have claimed to have extracted older DNA, but none confirmed.

Thanks Sarah. This also confirms the scientific fact that the sons of God (prehistoric people) came from the common ancestor of Apes and remained as innocent animals UNTIL they married and produced children with Humans (Adam's descendants) Gen 6:4 who arrived on planet Earth 11k years ago. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE That is God's Truth Scripturally, scientifically and historically. Amen?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Given your distaste for explanations that step beyond naturalism,

That's a false representation of me. What I distaste are "explanations" that really aren't explanations at all, as they have zero explanatory power, and which are just bare claims without any supporting evidence.

Claims of the supernatural, just happen to fall in that category. That's not on me.

what attracts you to a Christian forum?

Discussion, entertainment, education.
Not that I have to explain myself to you though...

What do you do when reality is wider than the "well evidenced model" allows?

How would I know, if the "wider part" isn't included in the well-evidenced model?
Are there things about reality that we don't know about? Obviously ... it's why we still train scientists to learn more.

What's your point?

For example, what do you do when you personally receive an impossible healing following prayer on the way to a clinical pathology lecture where you are told that there is nothing beyond the physical, and that all good scientists take a reductionist view of the universe?

What do you do about the many millions of people who pray for healings and don't receive it?

I am unaware of "the impossible" ever happening. I know theists of various religions love to claim miracles, but I'm unaware of any of these claims ever being validated with sufficient evidence.

Why doesn't god heal amputees?

What do you do with prophecies that were written on scrolls thousands of years ago start coming true?

I'm unaware of such as well.

You get the idea...

I get the idea.... You expect me to just take theistic claims at face value.
Sorry, I don't. Again, you're going to have to do a whole lot better then "mere words" before I'll accept fantastical claims like that.

Just asking...

Just answering

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

That's a false representation of me. What I distaste are "explanations" that really aren't explanations at all, as they have zero explanatory power, and which are just bare claims without any supporting evidence.

Claims of the supernatural, just happen to fall in that category. That's not on me.



Discussion, entertainment, education.
Not that I have to explain myself to you though...



How would I know, if the "wider part" isn't included in the well-evidenced model?
Are there things about reality that we don't know about? Obviously ... it's why we still train scientists to learn more.

What's your point?



What do you do about the many millions of people who pray for healings and don't receive it?

I am unaware of "the impossible" ever happening. I know theists of various religions love to claim miracles, but I'm unaware of any of these claims ever being validated with sufficient evidence.

Why doesn't god heal amputees?



I'm unaware of such as well.



I get the idea.... You expect me to just take theistic claims at face value.
Sorry, I don't. Again, you're going to have to do a whole lot better then "mere words" before I'll accept fantastical claims like that.



Just answering

I'll leave you to it then...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thanks Sarah. This also confirms the scientific fact that the sons of God (prehistoric people) came from the common ancestor of Apes and remained as innocent animals UNTIL they married and produced children with Humans (Adam's descendants) Gen 6:4 who arrived on planet Earth 11k years ago. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE That is God's Truth Scripturally, scientifically and historically. Amen?

Based on how inheritance works anyways, there weren't enough people on Noah's ark (even if they made it their goal to have as many children as possible) to have much of an influence on any population. Additionally, you can look up Noah's family line, and note that by the time of Abraham, there would still have to be far more "pure blooded prehistoric peoples" than those that are a part of Noah's line. Yet, none are mentioned. You'd think that if there were a bunch of Neanderthals wandering around with their high pitched voices, large eyes, and tool use that they'd be mentioned. Historically, we know that Neanderthals took far more than 10,000 years to go extinct after contact with our ancestors, yet biblically, around 900 years exist between the birth of Noah and the birth of Abraham.

Additionally, the "prehistoric peoples" that are distinguishable from our species didn't live in the region we occupied. There aren't any "Neanderthals of the Fertile Cresent".

 

[Thomas1987]

Not sure if serious...

But this type of denialism does seem rampant amongst creationists on this forum. Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

Biology disproves evolution especially if you study mutations , they do not have same chance to appear actually if you study it you will find out that our DNA should have only Thymine and life would be not existing . Atm every creature is dying and thier DNA is getting more corrupted over time , nothing is evolving .
Satan usually take what is true and turns it into lie by making exactly opposite like with Big bang that it occured at the beginning while in Bible God said big bang is in the end .

 

[PsychoSarah]

so basically we cant predict if we will find a dino DNA or not. since we can always say that its survived somehow if we will find such s thing.

There aren't any natural conditions that make uranium decay faster to any relevant extent, so if dinosaur bones are found that contain usable DNA and radioactive dating methods show the fossil to be 80 million years old, it means the DNA is 80 million years old, not that it must be 1 million years old or less. Radioactive isotope decay is far more consistent than DNA decay, making it a more reliable method of dating items in all cases.

 

[pitabread]

Biology disproves evolution especially if you study mutations , they do not have same chance to appear actually if you study it you will find out that our DNA should have only Thymine and life would be not existing .

I always find it hilarious when creationists suggest that studying biology somehow disproves evolution, given that evolution is foundational to the study of modern biology.

Methinks more creationists should take their own advice.

 

[Speedwell]

I always find it hilarious when creationists suggest that studying biology somehow disproves evolution, given that evolution is foundational to the study of modern biology.

Methinks more creationists should take their own advice.

By "study biology" they mean to consult crypto-Christian creationist websites like AiG, ICR or CMI.

 

[Aman777]

Based on how inheritance works anyways, there weren't enough people on Noah's ark (even if they made it their goal to have as many children as possible) to have much of an influence on any population.

Noah had many grandsons and they had their pick of the native population. Noah's grandson Cush had Nimrod, the builder of the FIRST Human city on Earth. Gen 10:10

Additionally, you can look up Noah's family line, and note that by the time of Abraham, there would still have to be far more "pure blooded prehistoric peoples" than those that are a part of Noah's line. Yet, none are mentioned.

Only the "living" are mentioned. The living are those who have been born again Spiritually. God doesn't list the dead. That's why Ussher made such a mistake in dating, supposing that the first day of creation was 6k years ago, corresponding with the dating of the ancient Jewish theologians, quite conveniently.

You'd think that if there were a bunch of Neanderthals wandering around with their high pitched voices, large eyes, and tool use that they'd be mentioned. Historically, we know that Neanderthals took far more than 10,000 years to go extinct after contact with our ancestors, yet biblically, around 900 years exist between the birth of Noah and the birth of Abraham.

Humans had contact with Cro-Magnon people or as Scripture calls them, the sons of God. Scripture refers to them as sons of God because they were innocent, unlike reasoning Humans (descendants of Adam). Today, Scripture includes Christians as sons of God AFTER they have been born again Spiritually. Rom 8:14

Additionally, the "prehistoric peoples" that are distinguishable from our species didn't live in the region we occupied. There aren't any "Neanderthals of the Fertile Cresent"

There were plenty of sons of God who lived in the valleys just SW of Lake Van, Turkey, where the Ark arrived bringing Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's, Gen 3:22 to our planet of the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes. There were enough native beauties to produce the 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) alive today, in only 11k years. It's a lot more than "Nature" produced in the more than 6 Billion years, since the population of prehistoric creatures was about a Million, before the Ark arrived. It's because God has a big heaven to fill with His children. God Bless you