If you don't accept common descent...

[metherion]

You are typical of evolutionists generally. You are so certain that your beloved theory is correct that you have never even paid any attention to the many scientific claims made by those that reject the theory.

Oh for the love of... it’s not my ‘beloved theory’. It’s the best explanation. That’s how I hold it. And even if it is wrong, it does NOT logically follow that YEC or even OEC is correct.

Also, yes I have. I have heard many. Most of them were unscientific nonsense, things that don’t have anything to do with the validity of evolution, or things that were scientifically wrong. In some cases they filled more than one of the above categories.

Now.

It most absolutely does not show gradual change. It shows a long series of stable ecosystems, each of which suddenly appeared, flourished virtually unchanged for a very long time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be equally suddenly replaced by a different stable ecosystem.

And you realize there have been, how many, six or seven massive extinctions? And how sudden is suddenly? Wikipedia says 5-20, and has a list of 7 with links to their individual pages, so I’d guess those seven are accurate. Also, one of the big cited things, the “cambrian explosion” was no less than, oh, SIX MILLION YEARS.

Furthermore, what about things such as the horse, and the whale, and the many many other species that there are long lineages for? What about those? Do they just not exist? Even if, say, one form appeared per ecosystem, there is still a gradual change from ecosystem to ecosystem across time, is there not?

And by the way, they still happened before mankind, did they not? So even if it is the case that everything got completely 100% wiped off the face of the planet and miraculously replaced by God every time there was an extinction event, there was still death before mankind. So it still would need to be handwaved away for YEC and OEC to be right.

Pressure about this from creationists finally led to an imaginative solution from the evolutionist camp in the formulation of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Without a shred of evidence to back it up except the assumption that evolution must have occurred, they concluded that an ecosystem evolves rapidly until it reaches a state of equilibrium, upon which it becomes stable until something disturbs that equilibrium. This was presented with the deeply scientific assumption of "some unknown force" as the disturbing factor!

Actually, punctuated equilibrium is NOT ‘some unknown force causes rapid evolution, because, after all, evolution MUST occur’ as you seem to suggest.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between geological time and generation time. I’m going to steal and example from wikipedia here.

The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005[wash my mouth]cm per generation (= 50[wash my mouth]cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

Punctuated equilibrium would be the result of allopatric and peripatric where there are complete isolations of populations as opposed to parapatric and sympatric where there is no such complete isolation. And several hundred or thousand generations is STILL several hundred or thousand generations to change, even if it is ‘only’ several tens of thousands of years. And on a geologic timescale, that is a wink of an eye at best. But still hundreds or thousands of generations free to diverge with no intermingling. Furthermore, it does not deal with entire ecosystems, merely single species in isolation. Which we can actually demonstrate with fruit flies.

When I was a student, there were many claims being made about how the presence of vestigial organs are evidence for evolution. But gradually, science began to discover actual uses for all these supposedly useless organs.

Vestigial != useless. Sorry. And some vestigial organs can be removed with little to no harm to the organism, even if they do serve a purpose. Case in point, appendix and wisdom teeth.

The theory that an embryo traces its evolutionary history as it develops was still being taught in the biology textbooks at that time, even though embryologists had realized it was incorrect. And as martheblake has pointed out, this is still being presented as evidence for evolution, even though it has been thoroughly discredited.

I believe you are referring to recapitulation theory, which is put forward by Haeckel.

Apparently Stephen J. Gould book out a book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny in ’77 that spends half the book discussing recapitulation and how it’s been discredited and is no longer used. So go to the museum (I’m not anywhere NEAR Sydney), go to the textbook peoples, and talk to them. But science doesn’t use it anymore.

Such is true of absolutely every item of evidence for evolution that was being presented in the 1960's and I am not aware of even one new piece of real evidence that has been presented since that time.

Oh really? REALLY? So there was never anything, not even one piece of evidence for evolution at ALL in the 60s? And have you paid attention to DNA (ervs and more), homologous structures, the discovery of such things as microraptor, tiktaalik, ambelocetus, and so on? Any of the testable evolutionary pathways for various features to form? Any of the gazillion fruit fly and bacteria experiments? Nylonase? Anything?

I am aware of many allegations about observations of evolution it action, but I have not seen even one such allegation that was not based on the comparatively recent redefinition of evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population.

As opposed to what definition you have been using? And what about the rise of new species and such? If they CAN and DO arise, why couldn’t they have in the past?

Using this definition, it is easy to demonstrate evolution in action.

Maybe that’s because it does?

But this is based on an assumption that evolution is indeed a fact.

What are you defining evolution as? I mean, you’ve just it ‘it is easy to demonstrate evolution in action’ ‘but this is based on the assumption that evolution is indeed a fact’. If it can be demonstrated why does it need to be assumed? *facepalm*

I have not personally studied every modern claim of having observed the rise of beneficial mutations, but at least most of these claims are known to be based in inferences, not on provable data.

So antibiotic resistance is NOT beneficial to bacteria in a person taking antibiotics? So the ability to digest nylon does NOT benefit bacteria by opening up a new food source? So the gene that helps resist the bubonic plague current studies are showing are fairly widespread among Europeans and originates from the time the Black Death wiped out a third of Europe wasn’t beneficial? And remember, it doesn’t have to benefit the creature in every way ever for all time under ANY situation. For a mutation to be beneficial, it has to help the organism survive in its current environment.

But without ironclad proof that beneficial mutations actually exist, even the possibility of evolution being factual remains to be demonstrated.

Okay. Nylonase and antibiotic resistance. Done.

Metherion

 

[Smidlee]

Antibiotic resistance most often have a fitness cost. Just like a lot of medicines which are beneficial to someone who is ill yet often have side-effects. The same with a doctor having to cut off a cancer patients limb to save the person would be considered beneficial even with the loss of that limb.
YouTube - Creation vs Evolution - Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

 

[metherion]

Antibiotic resistance most often have a fitness cost. Just like a lot of medicines which are beneficial to someone who is ill yet often have side-effects. The same with a doctor having to cut off a cancer patients limb to save the person would be considered beneficial even with the loss of that limb.

Actually, it's pretty much COMPLETELY different.

If the bacteria did not have resistance, they would all die. Period. End of story. That's what anti-biotics do. Do you disagree?

Now, since evolution states that those organisms most fit for the environment will out-reproduce those less fit and their genes will be passed on.

So, if you have the resistance, you live. If you don't, you die. If you're that bacterium, of course. So it is a beneficial mutation as without it that bacterium would die. Does the effect on the bacterium outside of an anti-biotic environment matter towards it being beneficial? No. Because that's not the environment it is in.

I also like the moving of the goalposts about new species, as well as completely ignoring the difficulties of determining new species at the bacterial level and I'm pretty sure the outright lie about no new species. But it's not my speciality, it could be right, and everything just be subspecies. When something asexually reproduces I have no clue where the line is. Furthermore, I thought evolution was blind? Isn't it? It can't look ahead. It selects what is good NOW. What survives NOW. Just because it isn't a benefit overall, it doesn't mean it's not beneficial. I mean, a thicker coat of fur will be better on a bear in the arctic than on a camel in the Sahara. Changing the environment and saying 'Ah-ha! This mutation isn't so good in a different environment' is pointless and dishonest.

Also, it isn't the same as the cancer patient losing a limb. Actually, that's more in line with the dishonest bait-n-switch pulled in the video. You don't pass on the missing limb to your descendants, do you? And for you personally, being cancer free and armless you are MORE LIKELY to survive then if you are cancer-ridden but with both arms, right? But then the switch is pulled and you say 'ah ha, now you are armless and cancer free, but that is less fit that two arms and cancer free, so it fails!' But the choice WASN"T between one and two arms cancer free, it was between two arms and cancer and one arm with no cancer.

Similarly, the bacteria are either dead or alive near the antibiotic. To then remove them from the antibiotic is the same thing. It's not between anti-biotic resistant and non resistant AWAY from the drug, it's between dead or resistance near the drug.

Metherion

 

[Biblewriter]

Oh for the love of... it’s not my ‘beloved theory’. It’s the best explanation. That’s how I hold it. And even if it is wrong, it does NOT logically follow that YEC or even OEC is correct.

Also, yes I have. I have heard many. Most of them were unscientific nonsense, things that don’t have anything to do with the validity of evolution, or things that were scientifically wrong. In some cases they filled more than one of the above categories.

Now.



And you realize there have been, how many, six or seven massive extinctions? And how sudden is suddenly? Wikipedia says 5-20, and has a list of 7 with links to their individual pages, so I’d guess those seven are accurate. Also, one of the big cited things, the “cambrian explosion” was no less than, oh, SIX MILLION YEARS.

Your meaning here is not quite clear. The cambrian explosion refers to the sudden (in geologic time, of course) appearance of life forms for which there is absolutely zero previous record. If you mean that these appeared over a period of six to seven million years, that still does not explain their absolute absence from earlier strata.

Furthermore, what about things such as the horse, and the whale, and the many many other species that there are long lineages for? What about those? Do they just not exist? Even if, say, one form appeared per ecosystem, there is still a gradual change from ecosystem to ecosystem across time, is there not?

I worked for many years as a designer. After many years in the same corporation, I was standing one day in the hall, looking with a colleague at a magazine article. Another colleague passed by, looked at it, and said, "That looks like something Jim Morris would design." My other colleague answered, "you meaan you didn't know? - You guessed it! It looked like something I would design because I had designed it.

Designers tend to produce similar designs, and new designs are typically revisions of older designs.

These sequences can just as erasily be argued to demonstrate a single designer as to demonstrate evolutionary descent.

And by the way, they still happened before mankind, did they not? So even if it is the case that everything got completely 100% wiped off the face of the planet and miraculously replaced by God every time there was an extinction event, there was still death before mankind. So it still would need to be handwaved away for YEC and OEC to be right.

This is a YEC arguement, and I have already answered it. it does not apply to OEC theory.

I do not have any more time to devote to this pointless discussion.

 

[metherion]

There is not an absolute lack. The reason there are so many more after the explosion is because of hard body parts. Soft body parts are still fossilized AND found before and after then, but much more rarely.

Designers tend to produce similar designs, and new designs are typically revisions of older designs.

These sequences can just as erasily be argued to demonstrate a single designer as to demonstrate evolutionary descent.

This leads to several problems. Everything could conceivably serve as proof for a designer, no matter what. But in this case, it is no longer scientific, and evolution is the better example because it is scientific because it is falsifiable. Also, Occam’s Razor. If both explain it equally well, the simpler is generally the better.

Or, we take a look at things like vertebrate homology, which really doesn’t make sense for a common designer. I mean, a bike, a car, and a plane don’t all have the same basic blueprints, but birds, lizards, and humans all do. Real designers don’t restrict themselves that way.

Also, isn’t there a form follows function rule of thumb out there somewhere? So what about the fact that we see similar forms for similar functions (i.e. all the primate hands), similar form different functions (spider webs for various things such as catching prey, reinforcing tunnels, etc), and different form similar function (the wide difference between bat, bird, and pterodactyl wings)?

Also, there are no predictions of what we would expect from a designer so we can see what would and would not make sense coming from one. So ANYTHING can be said to this evidence for this nebulous designer.

Metherion

 

[Smidlee]

Actually, it's pretty much COMPLETELY different.

If the bacteria did not have resistance, they would all die. Period. End of story. That's what anti-biotics do. Do you disagree?

This seems to be true on a small scale like a test tube but on the grand scale the non-resistance bacteria has the advantage. So while the resistance bacteria win the battle in a local situation, it eventually loses the war. So I disagree it is the end of the story.

The whole point of losing the limb because of cancer was an example of something can be beneficial at the same time comes with a high cost.

One of the problem with selecting "what good right now" often can have a extremely high price later down the road. This applies in a lot of areas in life. This is one reason why we are in a economic mess as well as so many Americans has so much credit card debt. It's the very reason that natural selection is so short-sighted I believe limits it influence on nature.

 

[metherion]

This seems to be true on a small scale like a test tube but on the grand scale the non-resistance bacteria has the advantage. So while the resistance bacteria win the battle in a local situation, it eventually loses the war. So I disagree it is the end of the story.

The whole point of losing the limb because of cancer was an example of something can be beneficial at the same time comes with a high cost.

So, in the environment of being permeated by anti-biotics, anti-biotic resistance is beneficial. And when you take it out of that environment, it stops being beneficial.

Does this make anti-biotic resistance NOT beneficial? No, it determines that in some environments, it is,but not all. Which is the heart of the matter. It is more fit and survives in anti-biotic heavy environments, but not in all.

Let me go to my other example of a heavier coat. If the area is getting colder, then it IS a benefit. If the area is getting warmer, then it is not. Correct? Does this mean a heavier coat will never ever be considered beneficial? No.

Also, to compare the anti-biotic resistant bacteria to normal ones, you have to take normal ones that were not subjected to the anti-biotics. Correct? If the normal ones had also been exposed, they would be dead. So to compare it to others, you have to take it OUT of the environment it was beneficial in. Do you see how that defeats the point?

Also, I don’t get how you went from natural selection being blind to economics.

Metherion

 

[Biblewriter]

This leads to several problems. Everything could conceivably serve as proof for a designer, no matter what. But in this case, it is no longer scientific, and evolution is the better example because it is scientific because it is falsifiable. Also, Occam’s Razor. If both explain it equally well, the simpler is generally the better.

Here lies the central error of your entire position. You say that concluding that anything is evidence of a designer is unscientific. This is simply incorrect. An assumption that there was no designer is absolutely as unscientific as an assumption that there was a designer.

As we discussed earlier, science is agnostic. It can neither allege not discount a designer. The facts must speak for themselves.

My point was not that science must conclude that there was a designer because of the evidence. My point was that the homologous argument is not evidence of common ancestry unless we begin with an assumption that there was no designer. If we hold both the ideas of common ancestry and intelligent designer in abeyance, we realize that homology can equally indicate either concept.

My point was not that this is evidence against evolution, but that this particular argument no more indicates evolution than it does a common designer. My general point in this entire discussion is that every argument presented as evidence for evolution contains this kind of flaw.

In some cases, such as recapitulation, the error is so manifest that science as a whole has realized it. In other cases, such as vestigial organs, science is gradually finding uses for almost every organ originally alleged to be vestigial. In other cases, such as the one before us at the moment, the argument contains a fundamental logical flaw. I have yet to see even one allegation of evidence for evolution that did not fit into one of these classes.

Finally, you appeal to Occam’s Razor. I maintain that Occam’s Razor teaches us to take the simpler choice, that there was a creator.

 

[metherion]

Here lies the central error of your entire position. You say that concluding that anything is evidence of a designer is unscientific. This is simply incorrect. An assumption that there was no designer is absolutely as unscientific as an assumption that there was a designer.

There may have been a slight miscommunication here. I am not saying 'accepting that anything is evidence for a designer is unscientific'.

I am saying 'being so vague as to the test for design so that anything conceivable can be turned into evidence for one renders the concept of the designer unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.'

And with no predictions as to what a designer may or may not do, or how they may or may not design, the idea of a designer offers no explanatory power and is worthless as science. And if life needs design, who designed the designer?

In other cases, such as vestigial organs, science is gradually finding uses for almost every organ originally alleged to be vestigial.

Vestigial does NOT equal useless. So saying that we are finding uses for vestigial organs is not a point against evolution.


I maintain that the simplest explanation is the one with the fewest unexplained entities. On one hand you have natural physical laws, on the other you have a nebulous, unexplained designer that cannot be tested, confirmed, denied, nothing can be concluded about he, she, or it, even his, her, or its existence.

Occam's Razor would lead towards no designer as the simplest.

And there's also my point about how if designers normally follow a pattern such as for-> function or function -> form, this guy is all over the place and certainly not consistent.

Metherion

 

[Smidlee]

Also, to compare the anti-biotic resistant bacteria to normal ones, you have to take normal ones that were not subjected to the anti-biotics. Correct? If the normal ones had also been exposed, they would be dead. So to compare it to others, you have to take it OUT of the environment it was beneficial in. Do you see how that defeats the point?

In the early 90's there was a fear that these anti-biotic bacteria were becoming "super" bugs and they were losing the war against bacteria/infections ( evolutionary thinking). I'm thankful that a few year later they learned these "super" bugs were not super after all but were in fact less fit. Doctors had to be a little more careful writing prescriptions for anti-biotics since these "handicap" bacteria can't compete with the normal ones.
While this was a blow against evolution (more like devolving) it was a big plus when it comes to the war on infections.

This is the big problem with "survivor of the fittest". Here we have an example the "less" fit surviving because something else is wiping out the "most" fit. It's like an overweight person running a 1000 meter races against the fastest runner in the world yet winning the race only because fastest runner was shot in the head from someone in the audience.

 

[metherion]

But if it survived, then it was more fit. That's the point. The fat guy would the fittest one in the race because he's the one left. He can outcompete everyone in the race. Just because someone in a different race can beat him does not make him less fit for the race he's in.

It isn't a blow versus evolution, it's a complete misunderstanding.

Metherion

 

[Embalmer]

This is simply incorrect. Science is not a methodology to understand the natural. It is a methodology to understand facts. If the evidence leads to an understanding that no natural phenomena can explain the observed facts, then science must conclude that something supernatural caused them.

[/quote]

NO...you are the one that is incorrect. Science deals exclusively with the natural. If we find a situation that known natural phenomena cannot explain, scientists accept that it must be an unknown natural phenomenon that is causing the effect. That is, we say we dont know.

"We don't know" is the default position, not "Godidit" or "Fairies at the bottom of the garden did it". This is the false dichotomy that you guys get into. God is not the only alternative. He's not even the most likely alternative.

I have to seriously doubt your biography if you fail on this simple but fundamental point.

 

[marktheblake]

"We don't know" is the default position, not "Godidit" or "Fairies at the bottom of the garden did it". This is the false dichotomy that you guys get into.

Its fascinating that you 'guys' can stand on "we dont know" and thats a satisfactory position, but we cant say "we dont know".

The only persons i ever hear saying "Godidit" are 'guys' like you claiming we 'guys' fall back to that.

 

[Embalmer]

Its fascinating that you 'guys' can stand on "we dont know" and thats a satisfactory position, but we cant say "we dont know".

The only persons i ever hear saying "Godidit" are 'guys' like you claiming we 'guys' fall back to that.

But we don't stand on "we don't know", we use it to drive us on to find the solution. And don't make me laugh. Christians have been using God as an excuse to kill learning for centuries.

 

[marktheblake]

But we don't stand on "we don't know", we use it to drive us on to find the solution

The "we" in your sensitive is not exclusive to "you", *everybody* follows that principle.

Christians have been using God as an excuse to kill learning for centuries.

Your claiming the righteousness of science then use biased and prejudiced opinions - how very unscientific of you.

 

[Darkness27]

Your claiming the righteousness of science then use biased and prejudiced opinions - how very unscientific of you.

Are you saying that the Church has never killed scientific inquiry? The most famous example is Galileo, and many would say creationism in general kills scientific inquiry.

 

[IFG1P315]

Are you saying that the Church has never killed scientific inquiry? The most famous example is Galileo, and many would say creationism in general kills scientific inquiry.

I was once 19, Methodist, and from Virginia. I know what its like.

Sorry to say, but you happen to be a little off base here. Galileo had problems with the church because of his attitude rather than any of "his" science. And his punishment was something I'd be glad to put up with. Living in a sweet villa in rural Italy. Not bad.

That being said, even if his problems with the church had been scientific, and even if they had slowly gutted him like a fish, it wouldn't mean much. Using the history of the Roman Catholic Church to establish anything other than history of the Roman Catholic Church is not a good idea. It doesn't assert much of substance over the catholic (or universal) church or any particular strains of Christian thought. Except perhaps hamartiology, I'd say it could have some bearing there.

As for creationism killing scientific inquiry, I'd say that's a rather unfortunate assertion. As a creationist I'm pretty sure I have absolutely nothing to fear from scientific inquiry. At all. Its produced lots of great stuff. A great deal of it confirming things I believe. And let's say there were something that conflicted with my beliefs and couldn't be dismissed by presupptions or bogus conclusions. Then don't I have every reason in the world to support further scientific inquiry?

Just sayin.

 

[Darkness27]

I was once 19, Methodist, and from Virginia. I know what its like.

What part of VA?

Sorry to say, but you happen to be a little off base here. Galileo had problems with the church because of his attitude rather than any of "his" science.

His science was also ridiculed by the Church, in the time the geocentric model was in use and the heavens were thought to be perfect. Galileo showed that things revolved around other planets (Galileo moons of Jupiter), that the moon wasn't a perfect circle, it had mountains and valleys. And he supported the heliocentric model both with the moons of Jupiter and the stages of Venus (think lunar stages but with Venus) that could only be seen through a telescope and couldn't be accounted for in a Ptolemy universe, but a heliocentric model could.

That being said, even if his problems with the church had been scientific, and even if they had slowly gutted him like a fish, it wouldn't mean much. Using the history of the Roman Catholic Church to establish anything other than history of the Roman Catholic Church is not a good idea. It doesn't assert much of substance over the catholic (or universal) church or any particular strains of Christian thought. Except perhaps hamartiology, I'd say it could have some bearing there.

Catholics are Christians, the majority of Christians actually, so when the Catholic church does something they do it in the name of Christianity. And if the Catholic church hinders science than at the very least some Christians hinder science.

As for creationism killing scientific inquiry, I'd say that's a rather unfortunate assertion. As a creationist I'm pretty sure I have absolutely nothing to fear from scientific inquiry. At all. Its produced lots of great stuff. A great deal of it confirming things I believe. And let's say there were something that conflicted with my beliefs and couldn't be dismissed by presupptions or bogus conclusions. Then don't I have every reason in the world to support further scientific inquiry?
Just sayin.

So what do you say when scientific inquiry tells us that the Earth and universe is billions of years old, and that things evolve?

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry to say, but you happen to be a little off base here. Galileo had problems with the church because of his attitude rather than any of "his" science. And his punishment was something I'd be glad to put up with. Living in a sweet villa in rural Italy. Not bad.

Way off base actually, Galileo had no less then 6 audiences with Pope Urban, some that lasted over two hours. Galileo never got into trouble for geocentrism, what he did at Piza was to question whether Aristotlean mechanics was worth saving. When he argued effectively against the egg heads and they couldn't refute him scientifically they went to theologians who painted him as a Protestant which was absurd.

Galileo built the second telescope after a guy named Lipperman had invented it, Galileo's could magnify the heavens 35X. Once Catholics got their hands on telescopes they concluded the same astronomical observations Galileo did, that's not what the problem was. Aristotle was the Darwin of his day and he challenged the status quo which always comes with consequences.

That being said, even if his problems with the church had been scientific, and even if they had slowly gutted him like a fish, it wouldn't mean much. Using the history of the Roman Catholic Church to establish anything other than history of the Roman Catholic Church is not a good idea. It doesn't assert much of substance over the catholic (or universal) church or any particular strains of Christian thought. Except perhaps hamartiology, I'd say it could have some bearing there.

His problems with the church were scientific but they had nothing to do with geocentrism. It is deeply significant since without the Protestant Reformation there would have been no scientific revolution and the conflict between Galileo and the Church would never have happened. Protestant thought went down the road of leaving religion and science alone and treating them as separate issues which the bulk of Christians do. It is the Darwinian that wants to make the two subjects, one issue because Darwinism is one long argument against traditional theism, nothing more.

As for creationism killing scientific inquiry, I'd say that's a rather unfortunate assertion. As a creationist I'm pretty sure I have absolutely nothing to fear from scientific inquiry. At all. Its produced lots of great stuff. A great deal of it confirming things I believe. And let's say there were something that conflicted with my beliefs and couldn't be dismissed by presupptions or bogus conclusions. Then don't I have every reason in the world to support further scientific inquiry?

Just sayin.

Science is about tools, mental and physical, nothing more. It is about directly observed and demonstrated principles that have real world applications. God an be a subject of a 'scientific' inquiry but only indirectly, the reason is what theologians call the aseity (utter independence) of God from the created universe. The rhetoric of modernism says since science neither proves or disproves God he is not subject to scientific inquiry. That's perfectly fine since it's properly called natural science but they make a giant leap as say since God cannot be a cause for anything from the big bang to the second coming.

There is more going on here then a dispute between science and religion, there is an ongoing invasion into religion by secular humanists.

 

[metherion]

Aristotle was the Darwin of his day and he challenged the status quo which always comes with consequences.

*facepalm* Aristotle was considered the pinnacle of philosophical thought in most of the Middle Ages, not the founder of one of the most well founded scientific theories of the modern era.

It is deeply significant since without the Protestant Reformation there would have been no scientific revolution and the conflict between Galileo and the Church would never have happened. Protestant thought went down the road of leaving religion and science alone and treating them as separate issues which the bulk of Christians do.

Well, alternate timelines isn’t my point of strength, but I would definitely hesitate to throw that ‘never’ out there.

Further, it is currently a certain sect of Protestantism which attempts to retard.. let’s see here... astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, physics, that I can name off the top of my head on religious grounds.

It is the Darwinian that wants to make the two subjects, one issue because Darwinism is one long argument against traditional theism, nothing more.

*facepalm* Nope. It is the religious attempting to spew the rhetoric and make the science into a worldview that it is not. After all, you need a religion to oppose a religion, and since it is science opposing the religion, gotta warp and twist it and then lie to convince people about the warping. But it’s okay, it’s for GAWD.

Darwinian evolution is one aspect of one field that combines with all the ones I listed above to show evidence against one particular religious interpretation that is a stretch almost certainly against how said holy book was intended to be used in which religion has overstepped its bounds and now wages a propaganda war because it has nothing else to stand on.

Science is about tools, mental and physical, nothing more. It is about directly observed and demonstrated principles that have real world applications.

No. Science is about using tools, some physical and some mental, to increase the knowledge of mankind about the universe around us. Certainly, most forms have real world applications. Certainly most forms are directly observed. But just as in criminal forensics, directly observed events are not always available and may certainly be validly extrapolated. Unless you plan to call foul on forensics, of course.

God an be a subject of a 'scientific' inquiry but only indirectly, the reason is what theologians call the aseity (utter independence) of God from the created universe.

Then how can He be studied even indirectly?

The rhetoric of modernism says since science neither proves or disproves God he is not subject to scientific inquiry.


Which is not rhetoric but is true.

That's perfectly fine since it's properly called natural science but they make a giant leap as say since God cannot be a cause for anything from the big bang to the second coming.

*facepalm* If it can’t say anything about Him then it can’t say He isn’t the cause. If also can’t say He IS the cause. It could certainly say ‘we don’t know the cause’ or some other phrase communicating that idea, certainly. Heck, I can provide examples of where it does that off the top of my head. What causes gravity? “We dunno.” How can we stop (insert currently uncurable disease or cancer)? “We dunno”.

So if it were “Why does the earth look like it just came into being 6,000 years ago suddenly?” “We sure as heck don’t know”. But that ISN”T the case. Unless you’re resorting to the evil atheist conspiracy card which somehow manages to never include any members that later convert to a religion, manages to never include any theists, and see thru any theists that might convert to and from atheism, or any agnostics, etc etc etc.

There is more going on here then a dispute between science and religion, there is an ongoing invasion into religion by secular humanists.

In a few cases, yes. I would agree with you. Case in point people like Richard Dawkins.

BUT.

Overall mostly it consists of dishonest people like CSE and AIG handwaving away science, slandering science and scientists, bearing false witness right and left, trying to destroy science and substitute their religion in its place and stunt the growth on mankind’s knowledge based on falsehoods. In other words, an invasion of science by religion on willfully false pretenses.

Metherion