Share good examples of Christian Science

[1rreducibly Complex]

Except that it's clearly not basic knowledge otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There are no scientific arguments for creationism because creationism isn't science.

You would have to be all knowing and omniscient to say conclusively: "there are no scientific arguments for creationism".

Yeah. Let me know if that ever happens.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You would have to be all knowing and omniscient to say conclusively: "there are no scientific arguments for creationism".

Yeah. Let me know if that ever happens.

And you would have to be all knowing and omniscient to say that evolution is being pushed by a shadowy worldwide group to undercut creationism.

Don't throw stones in glass houses. It's not a good look.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Really has no bearing on what I said at all. Creationism isn't in a competition with any science because it's not even in the race. It's not even at the starting line. Heck, it's not even in the same state.

Creationism and evolution are competing theories.

The problem in my opinion is, people being skeptical only towards ideas which conflict with their own beliefs. Skepticism and questioning selectively target only that which differs from their own.

People need to know both competing theories to properly put things into perspective. But not many are willing to go that far to scrutinize and challenge their own beliefs and ideology.

 

[Shemjaza]

Above is Lee Strobel's creationism documentary entitled "The Case For a Creator".

I first saw this documentary maybe 5 years ago and remember it as good content for anyone interested in alternatives to evolutionary theory. It is a good watch for those interested in the scientific side of creationism in general.

Please watch and enjoy~

And share other examples of science that christians might be interested in or learn from.

Okay I've watched the first 15 minutes and it's pretty bad.

Misleading information and outright lies.

So far all he's doing is saying "If Abiogenesis and evolution aren't true, then Creation must be." which is a garbage argument on its own.

Firstly, he points out that the Miller Urey experiment didn't use accurate models of the ancient Earth, (more recent experiments have used them and still developed amino acids). But the significant issue is that the failure of any particular experiment to study abiogeneis doesn't necessarily demonstrate that it's impossible, and so doesn't actually work as "negative evidence" as it is claimed.

The next section is about evolution and it goes from misleading to outright falsehoods.

Claiming that "Transitional Fossils have never been found". Just the human lineage alone has a multitude of fossils showing a gradual change from a more chimp like ancestor to modern man.


So, I think for now I will stop watching this video, unless 1rreducibly Complex can actually present some scientific evidence?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Creationism and evolution are competing theories.

The problem in my opinion is, people being skeptical only towards ideas which conflict with their own beliefs. Skepticism and questioning selectively target only that which differs from their own.

People need to know both competing theories to properly put things into perspective. But not many are willing to go that far to scrutinize and challenge their own beliefs and ideology.

Except that they aren't competing theories. Creationism isn't a theory nor a hypothesis. It's just religion disguised as science and it falls heavily against any sort of scrutiny.

 

[Shemjaza]

Creationism and evolution are competing theories.

The problem in my opinion is, people being skeptical only towards ideas which conflict with their own beliefs. Skepticism and questioning selectively target only that which differs from their own.

People need to know both competing theories to properly put things into perspective. But not many are willing to go that far to scrutinize and challenge their own beliefs and ideology.

Yet Creationists never seem to be able to put forward actual scientific evidence.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

And you would have to be all knowing and omniscient to say that evolution is being pushed by a shadowy worldwide group to undercut creationism.

As said before, its basic history.

There are always movers and shakers who have the money, power and means to make things happen in the world.

In human history, which demographic would you say wields the most political power and has been responsible for the majority of trends?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As said before, its basic history.

There are always movers and shakers who have the money, power and means to make things happen in the world.

In human history, which demographic would you say wields the most political power and has been responsible for the majority of trends?

Yeah, when all else fails, bring on the conspiracy theories to try and explain why no-one agrees with you!!

Serious question now: would you admit that you could be wrong about anything and everything you know?

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Yet Creationists never seem to be able to put forward actual scientific evidence.

Like I said before, most christians function on faith alone.

And neglect the truth seeking and knowledge aspect of christianity.

Except that they aren't competing theories. Creationism isn't a theory nor a hypothesis. It's just religion disguised as science and it falls heavily against any sort of scrutiny.

Religion and atheism are in competition.

Creationism and evolution are mere offshoots of it.

Claiming that "Transitional Fossils have never been found". Just the human lineage alone has a multitude of fossils showing a gradual change from a more chimp like ancestor to modern man.

So, I think for now I will stop watching this video, unless 1rreducibly Complex can actually present some scientific evidence?

If it is true that Darwin's theory of evolution says all plants today evolved from a single plant. Then transitional fossils revealing branch points from a single origin ancestor should exist. That's the basic argument, which you somehow seem to have not fully understood. Ditto with what you said about abiogenesis.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Religion and atheism are in competition.

Creationism and evolution are mere offshoots of it.

So how do you explain Christians who accept evolution as scientific fact then?

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Yeah, when all else fails, bring on the conspiracy theories to try and explain why no-one agrees with you!!

Serious question now: would you admit that you could be wrong about anything and everything you know?

Looking around the world today. Who has more influence and power.

Ruling elites or yourself?

If you think its a "conspiracy theory" to say ruling elites are responsible for the large majority of agendas and trends.

I don't know what to say.

A billionaire or ruling elite can call a governor or President on the phone and talk to them if they're unhappy about something and want it changed. Average, ordinary people and those living in poverty couldn't get the phone number of a governor or President.

So eh. I would think the answer here was obvious. But somehow. Its not.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

So how do you explain Christians who accept evolution as scientific fact then?

They accept the basic concept of certain genetic traits being passed on to offspring.

But reject the philosophical aspect of evolution which claims the process is random or wholly unrelated to a Creator or God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Looking around the world today. Who has more influence and power.

Ruling elites or yourself?

If you think its a "conspiracy theory" to say ruling elites are responsible for the large majority of agendas and trends.

I don't know what to say.

Yeah, no spit that the ruling elite have more power. That's why they're called 'the ruling elite'. But you're going into a whole different territory when you say "Hey, these guys want to suppress a religious view from the specifically American brand of Christianity that has only be around for the last hundred years or so!".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They accept the basic concept of certain genetic traits being passed on to offspring.

But reject the philosophical aspect of evolution which claims the process is random or wholly unrelated to a Creator or God.

I very much doubt that because there are many Christians on here who do accept the random nature of evolution or is unrelated to a Creator or God.

 

[Shemjaza]

Einstein had issues with the "spooky action at a distance" element of quantum entanglement.

Which the "God does not play dice with the universe" quotation does not cite.

The quote has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

Do you have a source for that?

He was absolutely was talking about quantum mechanics.

What Einstein meant by ‘God does not play dice’

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Yeah, no spit that the ruling elite have more power. That's why they're called 'the ruling elite'. But you're going into a whole different territory when you say "Hey, these guys want to suppress a religious view from the specifically American brand of Christianity that has only be around for the last hundred years or so!".

Christians in the united states are the strongest supporters of 2nd amendment gun rights for citizens. Christians believe God grants them rights and freedoms.

Atheists in australia the UK and elsewhere have no such ideology.

Which ideology are ruling elites more likely to target and attack given the above description.

 

[Shemjaza]

Like I said before, most christians function on faith alone.

And neglect the truth seeking and knowledge aspect of christianity.

Then present it.

Religion and atheism are in competition.

Creationism and evolution are mere offshoots of it.

Not true.

In the United States, Christians who accept evolution outnumber atheists of all varieties.

Even Charles Darwin was still a Christian at the publication of Origin of Species.

If it is true that Darwin's theory of evolution says all plants today evolved from a single plant. Then transitional fossils revealing branch points from a single origin ancestor should exist. That's the basic argument, which you somehow seem to have not fully understood. Ditto with what you said about abiogenesis.

It's also nonsense.

Fossilisation is not a universal process. So not every species will be preserved... it's always going to be snapshots.

We don't have the complete picture, but we have an extensive one.

But, the significant evidence is found in the pattern of genetic relatedness of extant life forms and that is lining up with the fragmentary fossil evidence.

Abiogeneis isn't even a scientific theory, it's merely a hypothesis. But it's hardly without evidence.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Do you have a source for that?

He was absolutely was talking about quantum mechanics.

What Einstein meant by ‘God does not play dice’

I don't know if I can find a good source for it. Here's a hint.

We can see from Stephen Hawking's later retort to Einstein.

That quantum mechanics was not the topic they were addressing.

These are very controversial quotations as they invoke creationism to a degree. But not many know or are aware of it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Christians in the united states are the strongest supporters of 2nd amendment gun rights for citizens. Christians believe God grants them rights and freedoms.

Atheists in australia the UK and elsewhere have no such ideology.

Which ideology are ruling elites more likely to target and attack given the above description.

Nonsensical non-sequitur and meaningless tautology. I've seen American Christians lambast and deride the 2nd Amendment as much as I've seen British atheists support the right to bear arms.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you can't support Creationism as a scientific idea!!

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't know if I can find a good source for it. Here's a hint.

We can see from Stephen Hawking's later retort to Einstein.

That quantum mechanics was not the topic they were addressing.

These are very controversial quotations as they invoke creationism to a degree. But not many know or are aware of it.

Let me see if I have this right,
your scientific evidence for Creationism is:
"A pantheist scientist once used the word God poetically... then many years later, an atheist scientist responded using God in the same poetic context."

That is a pretty serious misunderstanding of how either science or evidence work.