• 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.

Scientific vs Wrong

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I mean your claim that science accepts that all things come from God.
God is energy....

Of course some people don't believe a fetus is a human being either, so how you convince them that God exists would be just as impossible as convincing them of the other...... Although I made my statement about freedom of choice.... and hence freedom of belief. You are entitled to belief that the universe randomly came from nothing.....
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You have not shown this.

You can't make claims like this, provide no supporting evidence whatsoever, and expect me to believe it.

Why not, you expect me to believe a fetus isnt a human being..... with no supporting evidence whatsoever......
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,260
13,065
78
✟435,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
We agree that computers are created from science.

Hence our confidence that science can give us accurate understanding of the physical universe.

Randomly throwing in parts would not a computer make....

Nor would mere random variation give us the diversity of life we see. Darwin's great insight was that evolution is not a random process.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why not, you expect me to believe a fetus isnt a human being..... with no supporting evidence whatsoever......

And I also expect you to believe that a seed is not a tree, a pile of bricks is not a house...
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
Closer than any other video you can produce to show orbital motions. So let's find out, produce your correct motion of orbits or just admit you follow one even more incorrect..... Then we will all know which one you favor and the double-talk and avoidance will end....
Your logic is flawed. Science is not conducted by video comparison, and the contents of a video are correct or incorrect regardless of the contents of other videos. The video you posted is incorrect, and I gave you a link that explains why in some detail.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Hence our confidence that science can give us accurate understanding of the physical universe.
Agreed. But then I don't consider hypothesizing magical bent, accelerating, expanding nothing in opposition to the laws of thermodynamics as science........ Nor do I consider hypothesizing two birds mating right in front of your nose in opposition to the scientific definitions to be separate species science either.

Nor the trash that bacteria could not process citrus by aerobic means. The greatest fraud circulated in evolutionary history besides piltdown man and Nebraska man.

Despite claims to the contrary bacteria survived in this environment for 31,000 to 31,500 generations before supposedly gaining the ability by mutation to do so. So apparently they already possessed this ability, albeit to a lesser extent, else they would not have survived in that environment to reproduce for 31,000 generations. All the mutation did was take an "already existing" ability and make it dominant. Nothing new was created. Evident in the fact that the bacteria not only survived, but gained enough energy to reproduce for 31,000 generations before they "as claimed" gained the ability to do so.

Only someone suffering from cognitive dissonance would believe that bacteria which could not process citrus by aerobic means somehow survived for 31,000 generations in such an environment. Clearly they could do so from the beginning. Cognitive dissonance prevents people from realizing the difference between something that exists to a lesser extent and something that doesn't exist at all. If they never possessed that ability they would have starved to death and died out long before the 31,000th generation. Happily I don't suffer from this condition and can recognize the absurdity of claims that they could never process citrus aerobically before.....


Nor would mere random variation give us the diversity of life we see. Darwin's great insight was that evolution is not a random process.

There is no evolution. Stop confusing adaptation within the species as meaning macroevolution.

All you have is randomness. From climate from generation to generation, to geological changes to whatever force you want to claim caused the mutation.

Mutations have been shown to be random. therefore it is just pure dumb luck that IF a mutation happens to be beneficial, that it just happens to allow a creature to survive, or even prosper in the current condition. like those bacteria that already could process citrus aerobicly, because if they couldn't, they would not have survived to the 31,000th generation. All the mutation did was turn a recessive ability into a dominate ability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

"Mutations result from errors during DNA replication..."

Mutations are errors, mistakes in copying..... only pure dumb luck makes it able to allow a creature to survive or even prosper in the environment. it is so incredibly random that it isn't even worth discussing that falsity of thought that it isn't random. There is nothing planned to it. Errors can never be planed for the environment, nor be in response to the environment. They are caused because something went wrong during the copying process, nothing more, nothing less. That they may enhance an ability already existing is blind luck, pure randomness.......
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,260
13,065
78
✟435,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian observes:
Hence our confidence that science can give us accurate understanding of the physical universe.

Agreed. But then I don't consider hypothesizing magical bent, accelerating, expanding nothing in opposition to the laws of thermodynamics as science........

Let's test your belief on this. Show me any process, required by evolution, that is ruled out by any law of themodynamics. Let's see what you have.


Evident in the fact that the bacteria not only survived, but gained enough energy to reproduce for 31,000 generations before they "as claimed" gained the ability to do so..[/quote]

Hall's bacteria, through a series of mutations, evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Would you like to learn how that happened?

Barbarian observes:
Nor would mere random variation give us the diversity of life we see. Darwin's great insight was that evolution is not a random process.

There is no evolution.

It's directly observed. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" is.

Stop confusing adaptation within the species as meaning macroevolution.

Yep. You don't know what it is. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. However, adaptation within a species is evolution, just as speciation is evolution. Both have been directly observed.

All you have is randomness.

No, that's wrong, too. As you just learned, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

From climate from generation to generation, to geological changes to whatever force you want to claim caused the mutation.

If all there was, was random mutations, we'd never get the variety of life we see. But as Darwin showed, it is natural selection (which is not random at all) which makes the difference.

Mutations have been shown to be random. therefore it is just pure dumb luck that IF a mutation happens to be beneficial, that it just happens to allow a creature to survive, or even prosper in the current condition.

It's a matter of chance which organism happens to get a useful mutation. But it's not a matter of chance that such organisms tend to leave more offspring. And each generation, those new mutations are the basis for further evolution. That's how it works.

like those bacteria that already could process citrus aerobicly, because if they couldn't, they would not have survived to the 31,000th generation.

You've been misled. Barry Hall's bacteria, over a series of mutations, evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Here's how that happens:

"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

"Mutations result from errors during DNA replication..."

Right. Most of them don't do much of anything. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection tends to preserve the useful ones and remove the harmful ones. And that's all that is needed.

Mutations are errors, mistakes in copying..... only pure dumb luck makes it able to allow a creature to survive or even prosper in the environment.

Right. In Hall's bacteria, for example, there were many more harmful mutations than useful ones. But each generation, it was the useful ones that persisted, and were the raw material for the next round of mutations. It's such an efficient way to improve fitness that engineers have started to copy it for problems that are too complex for design. God knew best, after all.

it is so incredibly random that it isn't even worth discussing that falsity of thought that it isn't random.

Remember, mutations are random, but natural selection is not. And that's why the process isn't random. If you don't understand why, I can give you an experiment that would help you see why.

There is nothing planned to it.

Right. It's like capitalism. It works, even though it's not planned, even if no one understands why it works. It's just the way God created things.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can something be scientific and wrong at the same time?

Most everything scientific claims to be unbiased and true, even as they admit that the basis of science is challenge and replacement of old facts as new data is considered.

So while hoping to be right for as long as possible in this world, science admits everything they produce may be considered wrong next week. And they hope and pray they continue to get a paycheck every two weeks anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Jon Osterman

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
716
473
Glasgow
✟66,548.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Most everything scientific claims to be unbiased and true, even as they admit that the basis of science is challenge and replacement of old facts as new data is considered.

No. What good scientific papers do is present a hypothesis that explains scientificically procured data, explaining how that data was obtained and the assumptions they have made. The hypothesis should hopefully make a new prediction that can be tested with more data, and the good scientist will not be biased as to whether or not this data supports the hypothesis. If it supports the hypothesis, more predictions are made and tested. If it does not, the hypothesis is rejected or amended in some way.

I don't understand how good minded Christians can be opposed to this. This is an honest invesigation of God's creation. In fact, Christians who reject science itself (that is, the investigation of God's world) are sinfully rejecting His natural revelation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Strathos
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,260
13,065
78
✟435,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Most everything scientific claims to be unbiased and true, even as they admit that the basis of science is challenge and replacement of old facts as new data is considered.

No. Unlike creationism, facts are not flexible in science. New theories replace old theories if they better explain the facts, but facts aren't disposable.

So while hoping to be right for as long as possible in this world, science admits everything they produce may be considered wrong next week.

Nope. Science goes from being wrong to being more subtly wrong. No theory is absolutely true; it's merely a useful way of understanding what went on. For example, carbon-14 dating wasn't invalidated by varve data showing slight changes in atmospheric C-14 over time; it merely became more accurate thereby. Newton's laws weren't invalidated by Einstein's discoveries; they merely became more accurate when relativity was considered.

That's how it is. Here's a good illustration of the difference between science and creationism:

5-cartoon.jpg
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,260
13,065
78
✟435,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't understand how good minded Christians can be opposed to this. This is an honest invesigation of God's creation. In fact, Christians who reject science itself (that is, the investigation of God's world) are sinfully rejecting His natural revelation.

Pretty much. Science is the most effective way to find the truth about His creation. And God being truth, a Christian should never be afraid of the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strathos
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Pretty much. Science is the most effective way to find the truth about His creation. And God being truth, a Christian should never be afraid of the truth.
God is Spirit, so any scientist knows better.
Except for Ghost -chasers on TV.
 
Upvote 0