Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

Yip. You're a creationist.

Iḿ a silly human being.
You're super-naturalist that wears naturalistic glasses, and then wonders where other super-naturalists see creation.

 

[SteveB28]

Here's good quote:

This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test.
(C Patterson "Evolution" p.15)

And here's an even better one, by the same person.....

"Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[8]"

 

[The Cadet]

By looking, by analysing.

This is not a meaningful answer.

When you find things the laws of nature can not account for,

Like what? You have not presented anything that the laws of nature cannot account for. I'm not even sure how you would establish that something cannot be accounted for by the laws of nature, and given that the "laws of nature" are entirely descriptive, I'm not even sure that's a coherent idea.

and things that are purposeful

Haven't presented that, either...

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
(R Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker")

So even Dawkins admits the evidence points to creation.

See, this is where the fact that you haven't read (or even done the most cursory research of) the source material. The entire point of "The Blind Watchmaker", the central thesis the book defends, is that evolution makes things look designed because evolution, fundamentally is a means of design, an optimization algorithm, and that this will naturally lead to a (false) appearance of design within nature.

It points to a supernatural cause.

How? How does something point to a supernatural cause?

Explanatory power.

What explanatory power does "a supernatural entity did it" have? What predictions can we make as a result of this? How does it further our understanding in any way?

 

[Derek Meyer]

I'm suggesting dishonesty on their part, yes.

So, all those hundreds of thousands of scientists, from all over the world, doing their research and publishing their data for everyone else to see and evaluate all are dishonest?

Only you are right? Sorry, to me it seems as if you're not 'all right'.

 

[Hieronymus]

So you make a whole hullabaloo about scientists not factoring God in to their work, and then when asked how they should do it, you just reply with 'who cares?'?
I think that really says a lot about you, mate.

If that's how you want to dismiss it, fine.
But itś a strawman (or false dichotomy) that you pose.
Because it is not about the scientific aspects of God and how to marry that with science, it is about the origins of existence, which is a set of historical events.
When it is not explained by unconscious natural causes, it is explained by conscious supernatural causes.
For there are just 2 options: chance or design.

I explained this for the n-th time a few posts ago.

 

[Hieronymus]

This is not a meaningful answer.

You think you can get a clue by something other than looking and analysing?

Like what? You have not presented anything that the laws of nature cannot account for.

That's just ignorance on your part, iḿ sorry to say.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If that's how you want to dismiss it, fine.
But itś a strawman (or false dichotomy) that you pose.
Because it is not about the scientific aspects of God and how to marry that with science, it is about the origins of existence, which is a set of historical events.
When it is not explained by unconscious natural causes, it is explained by conscious supernatural causes.
For there are just 2 options: chance or design.

I explained this for the n-th time a few posts ago.

But how are we supposed to use science to prove design if we cannot factor God in to science?
What you are suggesting is not science, it just using blind faith.

Also, you might want to fix your keyboard settings. A lot of times when you try and use a ', it comes across as if you've suddenly lapsed in to Spanish.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Iḿ a silly human being.

Yes, we know.

 

[Hieronymus]

So, all those hundreds of thousands of scientists, from all over the world, doing their research and publishing their data for everyone else to see and evaluate all are dishonest?

It seems you have a highly naive view on humanity and human authority in particular.

 

[The Cadet]

You think you can get a clue by something other than looking and analysing?That's just ignorance on your part, iḿ sorry to say.

"You think you can get a clue by something other than looking and analysing?"

Look, I'm sorry, but when I ask "how do you establish X", saying, "Just look at it" is not a useful answer. I'm looking at this rock formation and analyzing it and I don't see the design. How do you establish whether something is designed or not? Do you even have a way of establishing that something isn't designed? And do you even understand why that's an important question?

 

[Jimmy D]

Not a hoax, but a 'mistake' i.m.o.
"Hoax" implies foul play.

You suggested scientists are lying to us, it seems that you are retracting those claims? You have also failed to demonstrate any mistakes in these cases.

Who cares?
The question is about our origins.
If dead unconscious things can not explain it, but a conscious intelligent creator can, when everything points to "a mind behind it"...
There are only these two options to ascribe our origins to: chance or design.
So i give you the same answer again, i guess...
If thatś how you want to dismiss it, fine.

I'd suggest you give it up mate, if all you have is strawmen (dead things performing miracles), bare assertions (evidence for a creator) and dishonesty (hoax/lying scientists claims and quote mining) you aren't going to convince anyone. I should imagine your 'arguments' would only serve to convince anyone (who might be sitting on the fence on these topics) that creationism is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Derek Meyer]

For there are just 2 options: chance or design.

Nope. Natural selection is the opposite of chance.

 

[Hieronymus]

Nope. Natural selection is the opposite of chance.

You need RANDOM MUTATIONS.
Otherwise there would be nothing new to select now would it?
Try to remember this, if you can grasp it.
You can't simply ignore one of the 2 premises of the ToE to eliminate the chance component.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You need RANDOM MUTATIONS.
Otherwise there would be nothing new to select now would it?
Try to remember this, if you can grasp it.
You can't simply ignore one of the 2 premises of the ToE to eliminate the chance component.

But they aren't random. They are mutations that have been selected by environmental pressures and through the successive breedings of animals with the beneficial mutations.
Nothing random at all.

 

[Hieronymus]

You suggested scientists are lying to us, it seems that you are retracting those claims? You have also failed to demonstrate any mistakes in these cases.



I'd suggest you give it up mate, if all you have is strawmen (dead things performing miracles)

Why is that a straw man? Please explain.

, bare assertions (evidence for a creator)

Evidence for design. Evidence is not proof, but ToE has no proof either.
In this case it's all about explanatory power.

and dishonesty (hoax/lying scientists claims and quote mining) you aren't going to convince anyone.

Not you lot, i know.
Like your church of naturalism, you only consider naturalistic models to explain our existence.
This is disingenuous.

I should imagine your 'arguments' would only serve to convince anyone (who might be sitting on the fence on these topics) that creationism is intellectually bankrupt.

Hahaha!
Iḿ very sorry to break this to you, but creation is irrefutable.
Even if the sciences come up with models that explain everything, it could still have been created.
[added:] But then being adamant about creation would be unreasonable.
But since there are no natural (i.e. unconscious) causes that cover it, the obvious conclusion is a supernatural cause.
A mind behind our reality.

John Lennox put it in words nicely:
(never mind the title of the clip)

 

[Derek Meyer]

You need RANDOM MUTATIONS.
Otherwise there would be nothing new to select now would it?Try to remember this, if you can grasp it.You can't simply ignore one of the 2 premises of the ToE to eliminate the chance component.

Actually, natural selection is the opposite of chance.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Rather lame excuses there, Cadet.
It is quite clear that the scientific community CHOOSES naturalism and DISMISSES God, and not at all because of the evidence.

You keep making posts like this as if there's some evidence of god that the scientific community has refused to consider.

 

[The Cadet]

Iḿ very sorry to break this to you, but creation is irrefutable.
Even if the sciences come up with models that explain everything, it could still have been created.

Right. This makes it a useless hypothesis with zero explanatory or predictive power.

 

[Derek Meyer]

You need RANDOM MUTATIONS.

Random doesn't mean 'by chance'.

 

[Hieronymus]

Right. This makes it a useless hypothesis with zero explanatory or predictive power.

I added: But then being adamant about creation would be unreasonable.
And i continued:
But since there are no natural (i.e. unconscious) causes that cover it, the obvious conclusion is a supernatural cause.
A mind behind our reality.

Check the Lennox clip for a better wording.