Plants

[A_Thinker]

If I have a choice to accept what a scientists says or what a church says . I’ll take the scientist but only because when scientists make claims, they have to back it up with evidence. Churches can say anything, call it a dogma that you just have to believe, and never budge from that stance. So if the bible claims something that turns out later to contradict natural phenomena. I’ll take natural phenomena the way it is and see the biblical claim as a story, allegory, fable or even a fabrication.

It's not quite that simple.

Science has reversed course so often ... that we understand its truths ... as the truths of the moment.

OTOH, religion changes almost as often, either through the generation of new religions ... or adjustments of belief within established religions.

Science and teligion work best TOGETHER, as humans appear to have a need for BOTH.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Sure, if you say so. I've seen testimonies up till today that those things are still in science books.
Sure, Piltdown man was an accident, edited to add: although they still do this whole thing where they discover one piece of a bone and then manage to conjure up a whole illustration and it's okay to stage a scientific experiment then pretend the findings are true when they have been discovered not to be. Sure...
Edited: Plus, I did say this was a small list, yet you are going to waste your time attacking it when there are many more examples.

It's obvious you choose to believe one side over the other. That's okay, but you come off just as disingenuous as those you claim to be disgusted by.

And no, all of this is not from Wells' books although I have them.

Edited: Misspelled word and completing a thought
Edited to add the following sources limited to Ernst Haeckel's drawings in textbooks:
1997 when a British researcher photographed the embryos and discovered Haeckel's images were false: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5331/1435.1
2012 Article analyzing the defense of Haeckel's drawings at that time: https://evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1/
New Scientist 2015 Article admits his drawings were wrong: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...d-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/
NCSE article defending Haeckel's drawings, claiming they weren't fraudulent: https://ncse.com/blog/2013/09/texas-textbook-reviewers-ernst-haeckel-0015026
Haeckel's Drawings reported in Textbooks up until, at least 2015: https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/
2017 article admitting that in later years, despite awareness of controversy, Haeckel's drawing reappeared in recent biology literature: https://www.the-scientist.com/foundations/embryonic-evolution-through-ernst-haeckels-eyes-31585

 

[dreadnought]

Wikipedia actually isn’t a bad source of accurate scientific information. The people who run it don’t let pseudoscience info stay in the real science sections . Because of that policy, conservapedia got started because they could post pseudoscience in their science info which Wikipedia didn’t allow

Does a plant have a soul?

 

[A_Thinker]

Science doesn’t deal with supernatural phenomena and you and brother Roy should know that as you’re both educated adults and this is something that you should have learned in middle school . The fact that you don’t seem to understand that , speaks volumes about the creationist interference with education you’ve been subjected to. As far as natural phenomena, I’ll take a mainstream scientific explanation for that EVERY time

Human history demonstrates that much of what we regard as supernatural today ... really, simply isn't UNDERSTOOD as natural today.

Much of what we recognize today as NATURAL ... would be thought of as supernatural in times past.

Science is constantly learning more and more ... and more correctly ... as time goes on.

Undoubtably, much of what we consider supernatural today ... will be shown to have a NATURAL explanation in the future.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

This is the last thing I'll post then regardless of alerts I'll leave it be.

Modern science today was heavily spearheaded by European Christians. Hopefully, I do not have to list the names from Galileo, Isaac Newton, etc. They started off looking at the world from a Biblical perspective and trying to think God's thoughts after him and investigate Creation in that sense.

This history alone proves there's no basis for detaching Science from Religion or Religion from Science unless you have a bias toward a particular perception of reality. In other words, naturalism, materialism, or physicalism. Each of those views rejects supernaturalism.

Thus when someone who rejects the supernatural looks at the evidence, they only seek a natural cause. Yet, when someone who does not reject the supernatural looks at the evidence they are open to both natural and supernatural causes. The former is a limited, narrowminded view of reality and thus a limited, narrowminded view of science. Science has been limited in this way. It's definition limited to that. Yet, as I have emphasized, it cannot give all the answers to date. Maybe at some point in the unseen future scientists who do not reject the supernatural will return the practice to what it was prior to anti-Supernaturalists taking it over.

 

[Brightmoon]

Galileo was abused by the church for telling the truth about nature. House arrest for the rest of his life and he could have been burnt for heresy. He only got the life sentence because the pope was a friend . Newton’s religious writings are basically ignored nowadays.
Until you have VERIFIABLE PHYSICAL evidence of supernatural causation I’m going to pass . No thanks !

 

[Brightmoon]

Does a plant have a soul?

Since we can’t communicate with them , yet , there’s really no way to tell whether any holy book is correct about that or not.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Galileo was abused by the church for telling the truth about nature. House arrest for the rest of his life and he could have been burnt for heresy. He only got the life sentence because the pope was a friend . Newton’s religious writings are basically ignored nowadays.
Until you have VERIFIABLE PHYSICAL evidence of supernatural causation I’m going to pass . No thanks !

Nope, not even close Galileo got himself in trouble for how he presented views, but not for his scientific findings. Find a place to teach you some real history.
Regardless of exposure to Newton's religious writings, my point still stands.

You don't even have verifiable physical evidence of Evolution. You have a large amount of extrapolation, interpolation, and educated guessing going on because nobody, absolutely nobody living today can observe it. And don't throw at me adaptation = evolution, as in jumping species, cause it doesn't. Especially when we go back to, for instance, those Finches on Galapagos and they were always still Finches, only their beaks were different.

The last alert I'm replying to.

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolutionnews is a creationist shill paper . NCSE and others pointed out that Haeckels original drawings were done for a laymen’s publication and the complaints about them were overblown as they weren’t that inaccurate . NCSE is a legitimate science site.

 

[Brightmoon]

Have you read the starry messenger by Galileo . He presented both sides -the geocentric and the heliocentric “universes “ . Verifiable evidence for evolution? Are you kidding?!?!. Any polyploid species meets that standard. Here’s some you’d be familiar with . Most domestic and wild roses , corn - Zea mays , both bread and macaroni wheat,

 

[Strathos]

Bible says Christ rose from dead , science says people don't rise from the dead and that it's impossible . Evidence says people don't rise from the dead . You accept what in this situation the evidence or the faith ?

I have no problem accepting that God is not bound by the laws of nature and that miracles defy physics. What I have a problem with is when the physical evidence shows something completely different happened - that would make God a liar.

To use your example, say they found the tomb of Jesus and His body was still there, and they were somehow able to confirm that it was Him. That would be strong physical evidence against the Resurrection. What creationists do is the equivalent of responding to this evidence by saying that God created a decoy body of a false Jesus, forged all the records, made it look like the tomb had never been opened, etc. just to deceive people.

Now obviously no such evidence exists, so this Christian has no reason to doubt the Resurrection.

 

[Chinchilla]

I have no problem accepting that God is not bound by the laws of nature and that miracles defy physics. What I have a problem with is when the physical evidence shows something completely different happened - that would make God a liar.

To use your example, say they found the tomb of Jesus and His body was still there, and they were somehow able to confirm that it was Him. That would be strong physical evidence against the Resurrection. What creationists do is the equivalent of responding to this evidence by saying that God created a decoy body of a false Jesus, forged all the records, made it look like the tomb had never been opened, etc. just to deceive people.

Now obviously no such evidence exists, so this Christian has no reason to doubt the Resurrection.

You should not be bothering about something which did not happend.
What if you were only a brain created by some scientist with previous memories , alive since an hour or two ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately I’ve had to see creationists try to change the meanings of scientific definitions and make up terminology for DECADES.

Like "child" to "fetus" or "miracle" to "magic"?

How's it feel?

 

[Ophiolite]

I would think an honest approach would be to admit first and foremost, Evolution, although sold to the public and portrayed in academia as perfect, is not a perfect theory of the origin of the universe. Even some Evolutionists criticize it.

This is profoundly ignorant*. You are attacking a strawman. Why do I make this assertion?

• If evolutionary theory were perfect there would be no need for thousands of researchers in palaeontology, biology, genetics and the like to be conducting research on the subject.
• All evolutionists, if they are properly educated in the matter, will criticise aspects of evolutionary theory. That is how science works. If there were no criticism, there would be no advance.
• The only times I have seen Evolutionary theory described as perfect is when it is being attacked by Creationists.
• I could produce hundreds, probably thousands, of examples of "attacks" on evolutionary theory by evolutionists. In practically every case they would be attacks on specific details, not on the broad sweep. I suggest you contemplate the potential dishonesty of a statment that implies it is the concept of evolution itself that is being criticised.

*Please note I am asserting you are profoundly ignorant of the Theory of Evolution, not that you are, in general, ignorant. (The content of your posts demonstrates both of these points. i.e. you are well informed on many matters, but you are ignorant of evolution.)

 

[Strathos]

You should not be bothering about something which did not happend.
What if you were only a brain created by some scientist with previous memories , alive since an hour or two ?

I have always found solipsism to be pointless.

 

[Chesterton]

I have always found solipsism to be pointless.

You evaded the question. I want to know, what if you were only a brain?

 

[Strathos]

You evaded the question. I want to know, what if you were only a brain?

If there was no way to tell that existence apart from my current one, then why would it matter?

 

[Chesterton]

If there was no way to tell that existence apart from my current one, then why would it matter?

Good answer. I mean, good question.

 

[AV1611VET]

You evaded the question. I want to know, what if you were only a brain?

Well ... he wouldn't be a scientist, that's for sure.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have always found solipsism to be pointless.

Well, obviously. That's just the way I want you to think.