Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He obviously distinguishes what he chooses to believe, from: actually 'doing science'."Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young Earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
...
But what we actually get is an excruciatingly honest admission that he will (please pay close attention to this bit) ignore the science if it contradicts the word of God!
He obviously distinguishes what he chooses to believe, from: actually 'doing science'.
I don't see a conflict there, as long as he maintains that distinction while he follows the scientific method.
However, this would get very tricky for him when he's asked for his 'opinions' .. (and even trickier for the person asking for them).
Leviticus 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.'Expelled' is a challenge to evolution in the same way that vomiting on the ground is a challenge to the earth.
Okay, "Expelled" was terrible, but it was not that bad.Leviticus 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
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.
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
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.
No, no no. There is no "false narrative". You cannot show that such a narrative exists. They lose in court because judges understand the concept of evidence. Would you like to learn? It is really not that hard to understand.They lose in court because the judges buy into the false narrative that evidence for creation, which has led non creationist scientists such as Paul Davies to say the evidence of design is overwhelming, can’t be science, because science presumes naturalism.
Anyone denying that evolutionary science is completely biased towards atheistic naturalism, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
There's a difference between methodological naturalism - which is a necessary limitation in the sciences - and ontological/metaphysical naturalism. When studying the natural world, it is pointless to consider supernatural causation. Otherwise you throw out some of the fundamental elements of the scientific process (testability, repeatability/replication and verification, to begin with).
All people have biases. These biases become implicit in our systems (of which the sciences are one).
However, some of these biases are NECESSARY. So, when the sciences reject supernatural causation as a point for consideration, it is done so because the alternative is to render any and all parts of the process useless.
No, you cant.
Bicycles and motorcycles don't reproduce with variation. They also aren't subject to any selective pressures on reproduction and survival rates, which would favour one set of characteristics over another within populations.
Your hypothetical, to coin a phrase, is immensely dumb.
Nah. What happened was that a bunch of smart people observed what was happening in nature. Wrote that down. Hypothesized about it. Tested those ideas. Accepted the results, and then refined their ideas.
The result is an edifice built on evidence.
The only thing that's going to tear that down is an idea that provides better explanatory power that the existing theory. And guess what, a "common creator" isn't even an idea that the sciences can consider, let alone observe, test or verify.
Common descent.
Similarities between animals are always assumed to be evidence of evolving from a common ancestor, going back to a single celled organism, instead of similarity coming from a common creator.
Vestigial organs.
The appendix and other organs such as the tonsils, that had no obvious understood purpose, were assumed to be evolutionary leftovers, and so they were surgically removed if they had even minor inflammation or infection.
Junk DNA.
Another evolutionary assumption - because it had no understood function, it was called junk DNA, a leftover from evolution.
Endogenous retroviruses - because some DNA had no obvious apparent function it was assumed to be a viral insertion, instead of having an important function.
No one has found any "facts that falsify abiogenesis". Nor are there any other failures to the theory. Only strawman arguments and outright lies by creationists.Wrong.
Evolution is now an institution that protects itself at all costs.
They have no interest in any facts that falsify abiogenesis, or phyletic gradualism, or any other part of ToE.
He obviously distinguishes what he chooses to believe, from: actually 'doing science'.
I don't see a conflict there, as long as he maintains that distinction while he follows the scientific method.
However, this would get very tricky for him when he's asked for his 'opinions' .. (and even trickier for the person asking for them).
They lose in court because the judges buy into the false narrative that evidence for creation, which has led non creationist scientists such as Paul Davies to say the evidence of design is overwhelming, can’t be science, because science presumes naturalism.
Anyone denying that evolutionary science is completely biased towards atheistic naturalism, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
You didn't understands the article or you would have known that the scientists learned how a cell divides .
'You didn’t understand the article because you presented it as evidence abiogenesis is proven to the point of creating a living cell - the cell is an already existing and dividing bacterium.
They didn’t, and couldn’t create a living cell from scratch, and never will be able to.
All they can do is reprogram one gene from an existing cell, by removing a short section from DNA and inserting a rewritten 4 letter programming code.
Ten years ago those who believed the hype declared confidentiality that a living cell would very soon be made from scratch.
That possibility gets further away each year, not closer, because the more learned about how incredibly complex a single cell is, the more they realize they are light years away from creating one, instead of merely reprogramming a single function in an existing cell.
This is like a guy honestly admits ro being a back robber.
But won't rob yours?
Open about being intellectually dishonest, how
could you trust anything he says. Anyway if he has
gone to work for a creationist boiler room, all traces
of professionsl integrity are gone.
With God, the angels and all creation
on their side it's just weird the creationists
have only such as that to support their claims.
Why?Wrong.
Evolution is now an institution that protects itself at all costs.
They have no interest in any facts that falsify abiogenesis, or phyletic gradualism, or any other part of ToE.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?