Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[AV1611VET]

I was talking to a religionist earlier and he disagreed with you.

Disagreeists sometimes do that on principle.

A religionist disagreeist disagrees with almost everything.

 

[Jesusfann777888]

... a disagreement over basic reality?

I find a lot of discussions with creationists seem to be boil down to disagreement over the nature of reality. And I'm not sure that there is a way to bridge such disagreement.

The nature of reality is based Conceptually on all of what is defined Conceptually as real, what exist's in relation to and responsible for human existence.

there is no disagreement about the nature of what is perceived or known.

science bases everything first, conceptually with concepts that are fundamentally contradictory and irrational. I always use the example that science ridiculously and falsely asserted that space expand's and space is expanding because they observed planets that are father apart than when first originally observed.

1. Space, lacks physical dimension. I trust nothing said from people who can't even conceptually realize that such a blatant disregard for what is obvious, could then ever possibly use their perception's as a tool in research where all of their perception's of what they observe are false. science is false, it's exceptionally obvious to everyone and anyone. expieriences people have they try to force within belief systems that actually have the same exact origin.those simple problems get changed. You can't always be wrong about everything and then say your theory isn't conceptually irrational when it is based on premises that turned out to be false that a theory is associated with and was initially dependant on.

That like saying if I changed parts of God's word until it made sense but then said The Doctrine of Jesus can't change. science is the religion of the unrepentant and I don't see how when it literally isn't hard to repent and live a normal Christian Life.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

The nature of reality is based Conceptually on all of what is defined Conceptually as real, what exist's in relation to and responsible for human existence.

there is no disagreement about the nature of what is perceived or known.

science bases everything first, conceptually with concepts that are fundamentally contradictory and irrational. I always use the example that science ridiculously and falsely asserted that space expand's and space is expanding because they observed planets that are father apart than when first originally observed.

1. Space, lacks physical dimension. I trust nothing said from people who can't even conceptually realize that such a blatant disregard for what is obvious, could then ever possibly use their perception's as a tool in research where all of their perception's of what they observe are false. science is false, it's exceptionally obvious to everyone and anyone. expieriences people have they try to force within belief systems that actually have the same exact origin.those simple problems get changed. You can't always be wrong about everything and then say your theory isn't conceptually irrational when it is based on premises that turned out to be false that a theory is associated with and was initially dependant on.

That like saying if I changed parts of God's word until it made sense but then said The Doctrine of Jesus can't change. science is the religion of the unrepentant and I don't see how when it literally isn't hard to repent and live a normal Christian Life.

It may seem conceptually absurd to you, but the idea that space is expanding was first proposed 100 years ago by a Christian Priest in order to make sense of astronomical observations. It has been confirmed to a greater degree ever since by measurements that were not even possible when the theory was proposed.

Interesting that you discount the Big Bang theory since the name comes from a sarcastic comment by an atheist that the theory sounded to much like a religious argument in that it proposed an origin to the universe.

If you wish to bring any facts to your argument from incredulity we would be happy to discuss them.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you wish to bring any facts to your argument from incredulity we would be happy to discuss them.

The Bible speaks of God stretching the universe.

Psalm 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

To conceptualize this, blow some smoke into a balloon.

Now, in a moment of time, stretch that balloon to a mile in diameter.

The smoke begins expanding in all directions, until it reaches maximum entropy.

 

[Astrid]

The nature of reality is based Conceptually on all of what is defined Conceptually as real, what exist's in relation to and responsible for human existence.

there is no disagreement about the nature of what is perceived or known.

science bases everything first, conceptually with concepts that are fundamentally contradictory and irrational. I always use the example that science ridiculously and falsely asserted that space expand's and space is expanding because they observed planets that are father apart than when first originally observed.

1. Space, lacks physical dimension. I trust nothing said from people who can't even conceptually realize that such a blatant disregard for what is obvious, could then ever possibly use their perception's as a tool in research where all of their perception's of what they observe are false. science is false, it's exceptionally obvious to everyone and anyone. expieriences people have they try to force within belief systems that actually have the same exact origin.those simple problems get changed. You can't always be wrong about everything and then say your theory isn't conceptually irrational when it is based on premises that turned out to be false that a theory is associated with and was initially dependant on.

That like saying if I changed parts of God's word until it made sense but then said The Doctrine of Jesus can't change. science is the religion of the unrepentant and I don't see how when it literally isn't hard to repent and live a normal Christian Lif it is against forum rules to 5e.

In part because it is false and absurd to call science a religion.
The reference to those who do understand
science as not being true Christians is
likewise dubious.

 

[chad kincham]

No, you seriously do not understand it. Your posts keep indicating that. And you clearly do not understand scientific evidence. Just for fun, what do you say that we go over the basics?

And once again you refer to a liar. A man that like Ray Comfort dishonestly edited interviews after they were taken. Alarms should be going off when the only people that you can find that support your claims are liars and fools.

Because creationists interpret the data differently than evolutionists, means they can’t possibly understand the science, or they’d agree with you?

This is the same old, tired, worn out, ridiculous statement, repeated by those of your ilk.

Even though there are thousands of creationists with PhDs, it doesn’t matter - they don’t understand the science - even those who are former evolution proponents such as Dean Kenyon, or Professor Gary Parker who are creationists based ON the science, they don’t understand it, or they’d still be evolutionists

 

[chad kincham]

I agree but you are not doing research.

Which does not stop science from understanding the cell.
Scientists built a perfectly self-replicating synthetic cell

Not even close.
Science can’t even replicate the complex cell membrane.
All they can do is hijack an already existing cell, snip out a portion of the DNA, and insert a synthetic DNA gene, to change the programming of the cell, and give it a new function.
They cannot, and have not, and will not, be able to make a living cell from scratch.
DNA is the programming code that runs cells. Rewriting part of that code that tells the cell what to do, is light years removed from creating a living cell.
That’s like me learning computer programming code language, then adding some new code to the Windows operating system, then bragging I built the computer.
I can learn programming code, but can’t build the hardware - the case the power supply, the motherboard, the hard drive, sound card, video card, modem, etc. - I can’t create any of those things.
And neither can science build a living cell.

 

[Speedwell]

Not even close.

Nope, not yet. Why is that a problem?

 

[chad kincham]

Ben Stein's Expelled Exposed

A film challenging evolution by game show host and financial analyst Ben Stein
is a case study in antiscience propaganda​

That’s a hit job on the movie, which was made to show the bias and censorship against anyone daring to challenge evolution at any level.

 

[Shemjaza]

Because creationists interpret the data differently than evolutionists, means they can’t possibly understand the science, or they’d agree with you?

This is the same old, tired, worn out, ridiculous statement, repeated by those of your ilk.

Even though there are thousands of creationists with PhDs, it doesn’t matter - they don’t understand the science - even those who are former evolution proponents such as Dean Kenyon, or Professor Gary Parker who are creationists based ON the science, they don’t understand it, or they’d still be evolutionists

It's not that they disagree, it's that they don't use the scientific method to interpret the data.

All the qualifications in the world don't matter if your justification and methods fly in the dace of actual evidence and logic.

 

[Shemjaza]

That’s a hit job on the movie, which was made to show the bias and censorship against anyone daring to challenge evolution at any level.

It was a lying propaganda piece.

With all their millions the DI and others can only present marketing champagnes, not science.

They can't even use the normal definition of science to make their hypothesis work.

 

[chad kincham]

I agree but you are not doing research.

Which does not stop science from understanding the cell.
Scientists built a perfectly self-replicating synthetic cell

PS here’s a quote from that article:

This bare-bones cell was crafted from the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, a sexually transmitted microbe, which scientists stripped of its natural DNA and replaced with their own engineered DNA.

Exactly what I said - they created no living cell - they reprogrammed a cell that they can’t create, with a small portion of new DNA - they try to make it sound like they replaced all the DNA with their own, which they did not.
Scientists can’t even rewrite the full DNA code, they just snip out one gene, and insert a new one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because creationists interpret the data differently than evolutionists, means they can’t possibly understand the science, or they’d agree with you?

This is the same old, tired, worn out, ridiculous statement, repeated by those of your ilk.

Even though there are thousands of creationists with PhDs, it doesn’t matter - they don’t understand the science - even those who are former evolution proponents such as Dean Kenyon, or Professor Gary Parker who are creationists based ON the science, they don’t understand it, or they’d still be evolutionists

This is why I am very sure that you do not understand the basics of science. Creationists do not use the scientific method. In fact at practically all creationist sites one must swear not to use it. Creationists also do not seem to understand the concept of scientific evidence. No one has ever posted any that I have seen. So it is not my understanding that is wrong. It is that of creationists. I constantly offer to go over the basics, but since creationists know that in reality they do not understand no one has taken me up on my offer.

Gary Parker is nowhere near being an expert in the field. He is an engineer and though he understands some geology, even that is outside his area of expertise. Where are his peer reviewed papers in support of creationism? And pretend creationist "journals" do not count.

Dean Kenyon may have been a biologist, he is also a loon. He was supposed to testify in the creation vs. evolution court case of McLean vs. Arkansas, but when it was clear that the McLean team knew what they were doing he turned tail and ran:

"Dean Kenyon, a biologist from San Francisco State University, fled town after watching the demolition of four of the state's witnesses on day 1 of the second week. And Henry Voss, a computer scientist from California, was rapidly withdrawn at the last minute when, in pretrial deposition, he too began to expound on things satanic and demonical.[8]"

Dean H. Kenyon - Wikipedia

See if you can find any real science that supports your beliefs and people will take you seriously. That means real peer reviewed science from well respected professional journals. Not journals where one has to swear not to use the scientific method.

 

[chad kincham]

It's not that they disagree, it's that they don't use the scientific method to interpret the data.

All the qualifications in the world don't matter if your justification and methods fly in the dace of actual evidence and logic.

That’s a completely wrong claim.

They don’t use the presupposition of naturalistic materialism to interpret the data.
And there are some honest evolutionists who admit science today indeed uses biased interpretation of the facts.
I can prove by using a presupposition of naturalism to interpret the facts, that bicycles and motorcycles weren’t created, they evolved
The unicycle is the common ancestor, then it branches out from there to the two wheeled bicycles with the pedal on the front wheel, with another branch adding a third wheel to become a tricycle- then branching out to the modern two wheel bicycle with the pedal in the middle of the bike and adding a driver chain - then the simple one cylinder engine evolved, and replaced the pedals, while keeping the drive chain, and continued branching out with bigger motorcycles with more complex multi cylinder engines.
I can build an entire evolutionary tree that proves bicycles and motorcycles evolved from the common ancestor of the single wheel unicycle - the equivalent of a single cell - by using the same presupposition that there is no creator that built them but they arrived by completely natural processes.
And that’s exactly how evolutionists interpret the data, with the bias of naturalism and materialism.
A common creator fits the facts better than evolving from a common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s a hit job on the movie, which was made to show the bias and censorship against anyone daring to challenge evolution at any level.

No, it showed how the makers of the movie were dishonest. Weren't you the one that made the mistake of posting the video "Expelled"? Now you know why it is a joke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s a completely wrong claim.

They don’t use the presupposition of naturalistic materialism to interpret the data.
And there are some honest evolutionists who admit science today indeed uses biased interpretation of the facts.
I can prove by using a presupposition of naturalism to interpret the facts, that bicycles and motorcycles weren’t created, they evolved
The unicycle is the common ancestor, then it branches out from there to the two wheeled bicycles with the pedal on the front wheel, with another branch adding a third wheel to become a tricycle- then branching out to the modern two wheel bicycle with the pedal in the middle of the bike and adding a driver chain - then the simple one cylinder engine evolved, and replaced the pedals, while keeping the drive chain, and continued branching out with bigger motorcycles with more complex multi cylinder engines.
I can build an entire evolutionary tree that proves bicycles and motorcycles evolved from the common ancestor of the single wheel unicycle - the equivalent of a single cell - by using the same presupposition that there is no creator that built them but they arrived by completely natural processes.
And that’s exactly how evolutionists interpret the data, with the bias of naturalism and materialism.
A common creator fits the facts better than evolving from a common ancestor.

Sorry, presuppositionalism is the purest of nonsense. It is not the scientific method. You keep refuting your claim to understand the scientific method.

There is a very good reason that creationists always lose in court. Judges have to understand the nature of evidence. They can see that there is no reliable evidence for creationism.

 

[Astrid]

Because creationists interpret the data differently than evolutionists, means they can’t possibly understand the science, or they’d agree with you?

This is the same old, tired, worn out, ridiculous statement, repeated by those of your ilk.

/QUOTE]

It's so worn out it has its own acronym..SEDI. Use it and sva time. "Same Evidence Different Interpretation".

Could you identify some data for an example of something to
interpret in different ways?

How do we determine which is the best interpret!tion?

 

[Frank Robert]

Not even close.
Science can’t even replicate the complex cell membrane.
All they can do is hijack an already existing cell, snip out a portion of the DNA, and insert a synthetic DNA gene, to change the programming of the cell, and give it a new function.

You didn't understands the article or you would have known that the scientists learned how a cell divides .

They cannot, and have not, and will not, be able to make a living cell from scratch.

DNA is the programming code that runs cells. Rewriting part of that code that tells the cell what to do, is light years removed from creating a living cell.
That’s like me learning computer programming code language, then adding some new code to the Windows operating system, then bragging I built the computer.

When did you get a working crystal ball?

I can learn programming code, but can’t build the hardware - the case the power supply, the motherboard, the hard drive, sound card, video card, modem, etc. - I can’t create any of those things.
And neither can science build a living cell.

Perhaps not, but abiogenesis is a young science and they are not just computer programers

 

[Frank Robert]

PS here’s a quote from that article:

This bare-bones cell was crafted from the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, a sexually transmitted microbe, which scientists stripped of its natural DNA and replaced with their own engineered DNA.

Exactly what I said - they created no living cell - they reprogrammed a cell that they can’t create, with a small portion of new DNA - they try to make it sound like they replaced all the DNA with their own, which they did not.
Scientists can’t even rewrite the full DNA code, they just snip out one gene, and insert a new one.

Yes it was crafted and it worked, now they know the minimum that it takes for a working cell. One small step at a time, just like evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

That’s a hit job on the movie, which was made to show the bias and censorship against anyone daring to challenge evolution at any level.

That is the best example of projection that I have seen in long time. I need to stop drinking coffee when I read your remarks, I just blew out another key board.