Is it a hoax?

[pitabread]

Science cannot re-create events that have past.
But it can imagine that it can. Fiction always wins.
Even when they lose to new fictions, it's called a win.

"Fiction always wins"? What is that even supposed to mean?

Look, it's simply the reality that biological evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology and a useful, applied science.

Meanwhile, creationism isn't.

That's not "fiction". That's just the way things are.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Fiction always wins"? What is that even supposed to mean?

I understand the desire to always wish one were correct.
But history shows that old fictions are replaced by new ones.
Which are later replaced by new stories.
It's an established fact.

Meanwhile, creationism isn't.

Look, it's simply the reality that biological evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology and a useful, applied science.

When in a corner, attack the opposing viewpoint. I get that.
Unfortunately for your effort, I'm not arguing Creationism at this time.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have read that God's prophecies are history written in advance, which so far has been proven true.

Which ones are next then?

 

[dmmesdale]

all you've done is give your opinion - what evidence is there that the kinesin motor is not the product of evolution.

Unguided? The same type which would be used to distinguish your post as evidence of intelligent causation over natural processes. If the description is a motor then it presupposes intelligent causation. If they wish to depict the motor as nonintelligent causation then they better use different terminology. If it looks like a motor and functions like a motor then depicting as a motor is fine. If described as a motor then that is direct evidence of intelligent causation given its alternative of step by step blind processes. What you mean by evolution and what they mean are two different things.

My point is that too often we Christians refute anything that doesn't fit tightly into the literal translation of the bible despite the steady stream of scientific evidence that builds. That IMO just makes us seem closed minded and stuck in the 1st century.

1st century truth does not change. If you wish to reference the Bible then there is zero evidence validating any of the current assumptions for blind watchmaker evolution or common descent as they believe.

Whats more absurd is that we are happy to embrace science when it suits us..eg the very internet your using is based on many scientific discoveries.

They are two different types. Not the same. Our problem is with atheistic interpretations of history under the guise of science.

But when similar evidence is put forward eg Big Bang then too many Christians simply wont even consider it basing there refute on the literal words in the bible.

Why do you keep throwing out the word literal since anyone interprets passages within their context?

The purpose of the bible is not to be a scientific text.

It has science implications. Healthy eating, diets, sanitation practices. Fixed order of the stars,

It isnt a manual on how to fix your computer and it isnt a manual for matters related to astrophysics.

And you won't find the characteristics of God in them manuals, so?

Its intended purpose is a paradigm on how to live our lives and to love god, and not as the textbook of science and biology. We misuse use it and then get into illogical debates with reputable science.

Unguided Evo is not reputable in the first place.

 

[pitabread]

I understand the desire to always wish one were correct.
But history shows that old fictions are replaced by new ones.
Which are later replaced by new stories.
It's an established fact.

Again, what is it exactly you're trying to say here? Is this supposed to be commentary on the ever improving repertoire of scientific knowledge the human species has gathered?

In fact, if you look at pretty everything in society, there is always change whether it be cultural norms, religious beliefs, you name it.

So I'm really not sure what your point is yet.

 

[pitabread]

If the description is a motor then it presupposes intelligent causation. If they wish to depict the motor as nonintelligent causation then they better use different terminology.

This makes zero sense whatsoever. It make come as a surprise, but words are not immutable and can refer to different things, especially when one is doing so in an analogous sense.

 

[SkyWriting]

Again, what is it exactly you're trying to say here? Is this supposed to be commentary on the ever improving repertoire of scientific knowledge the human species has gathered?

In fact, if you look at pretty everything in society, there is always change whether it be cultural norms, religious beliefs, you name it.

So I'm really not sure what your point is yet.

You are imagining that your fictional stories about past events are facts.
I'm explaining they are Science/Fictions. That is a permanent diagnosis.
It might take you years to comprehend that. It did me.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am claiming that if historians can use evidence available in the present to write about events in the past, evolutionary biologists can do likewise.

Subject to the same biases. All history is Faith based.

 

[pitabread]

You are imagining that your fictional stories about past events are facts.
I'm explaining they are Science/Fictions. That is a permanent diagnosis.
It might take you years to comprehend that. It did me.

Then why does the science of biological evolution have real world applications? I mean, if it's such 'fiction' as you claim, seems odd it would also be a useful science. Bit of a contradiction, that: Evolutionary principles and their practical application

 

[pitabread]

Subject to the same biases. All history is Faith based.

The only real "faith" required is that the universe exists and is not inherently deceptive. Which is a bit ironic, given that creationist beliefs appear to run contrary to the latter.

 

[lesliedellow]

Subject to the same biases. All history is Faith based.

So it is a matter of faith that Elizabeth I was Queen of England, and that Shakespeare was her contemporary?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand the desire to always wish one were correct.
But history shows that old fictions are replaced by new ones.
Which are later replaced by new stories.
It's an established fact.

Meanwhile, creationism isn't.


When in a corner, attack the opposing viewpoint. I get that.
Unfortunately for your effort, I'm not arguing Creationism at this time.

Creationism was shown to be wrong over a hundred years ago and you have not followed the apologists for the errors of Genesis. Their stories are constantly changing.

 

[SkyWriting]

Creationism was shown to be wrong over a hundred years ago and you have not followed the apologists for the errors of Genesis. Their stories are constantly changing.

When in a corner, attack the opposing viewpoint. I get that.
Unfortunately for your effort, I'm not arguing Creationism at this time.

 

[SkyWriting]

The only real "faith" required is that the universe exists and is not inherently deceptive. Which is a bit ironic, given that creationist beliefs appear to run contrary to the latter.

When in a corner, attack the opposing viewpoint. I get that.
Unfortunately for your effort, I'm not arguing Creationism at this time.

 

[SkyWriting]

So it is a matter of faith that Elizabeth I was Queen of England, and that Shakespeare was her contemporary.

I was not aware of that.

 

[pitabread]

When in a corner, attack the opposing viewpoint. I get that.
Unfortunately for your effort, I'm not arguing Creationism at this time.

There's no "attack" nor is anyone in a corner here. It's just an observation based on over a decade of having these discussions.

Creationist views typically run contrary to what we observe in the natural universe. Which is why creationists are generally at odds with the science which contradicts their beliefs about the universe.

 

[SkyWriting]

The only real "faith" required is that the universe exists and is not inherently deceptive. Which is a bit ironic, given that creationist beliefs appear to run contrary to the latter.

Science was founded by Creationists. So I guess not.

 

[SkyWriting]

There's no "attack" nor is anyone in a corner here. It's just an observation based on over a decade of having these discussions.

Creationist views typically run contrary to what we observe in the natural universe. Which is why creationists are generally at odds with the science which contradicts their beliefs about the universe.

Why do you keep bringing them into the discussion?
We are discussing the limitations of Science and how
past events cannot be repeated, unless you have a
time machine to observe the original event.

 

[pitabread]

Science was founded by Creationists. So I guess not.

First of all, there was no singular 'group' of specific believers that founded science. The persuit of scientific knowledge grew out of numerous different cultures and beliefs around the world.

Second, when I'm referring to creationists, I'm referring to them in a modern sense, particularly the creationist beliefs that are pervasive in the U.S. today. Just so there is no confusion.

 

[pitabread]

Why do you keep bringing them into the discussion?

This is a C/E board. And this is a thread started by a creationist claiming that evolution is a hoax.

You do the math.

We are discussing the limitations of Science and how past events cannot be repeated, unless you have a time machine to observe the original event.

We observe the outcomes of past events and formulate hypotheses as to their mechanisms and then test those hypotheses, and so on, eventually building a body of knowledge around whatever specific thing it is we are studying (biology, geology, cosmology, etc).

Which is why we have the sciences of today and why the observations about our Earth and universe have yielded the various results they have (biological evolution, 4.5 billion year old Earth, ~13 billion year old Universe, etc).

So what is the issue exactly? I'm honestly not really sure as to the point of your continued line of discussion.