K
kenvin
Guest
Correct. The largely U.S. protestant phenomena of YEC is what is opposed to science and proper education.
Upvote
0
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.
FYI, Galileo was not excommunicated.
IMHO, there really doesn't have to be a science vs religion thing. Theologians such as Karl Rahner took scientific learning into account, including evolution. Tielhard de Chardin was a scientist and had an evolutionary theology. So, every Christian is not opposed to science, and every scientist is not opposed to Christianity.
I'm talking about the problem of mutations and genetic degradation. Most mutations are so small ns will likely not act upon them, many mutations are preserved and not repaired by the cells, after awhil fertility and vital processes are effected this endangers the whole species. The upper limit calculated for the longevity of the human species is 1.5 million years and a lower limit of only a couple thousand years.
Mutations are evolutions end
Too often debunked creationist sites do not help your argument. Since they are wrong well over 90% of the time, very often they try to make their claims with falsehoods, I ignore any links to them.
How many of these proclaim disorder and randomness?
What? Are you trying to claim that evolution proclaims disorder and randomness? If so you don't understand evolution.
Looking at the history of different species today we see that they go practically unchanged for millions some time tens or hundreds of millions of years with all kinds of selection pressures such as changes in CO2 levels, massive climate changes, the rise and fall of different prey and predators, extinction of critical vegetation, tectonic activies seperating species and many other things. Mutations happen all the time and they happen at random. Mutations do occur in hot spots in the genome, but this fact would be an advocate for evolution. Yet! So many changes are minute.
Umm, no. The species that go unchanged are in very stable environments. I doubt if you could name a specie that has not evolved for hundreds of millions of years.
without it evolution doesn't get off the blocks. Seems like this should be the starting point, but the evolutionists argument though starts backwards and is conjecture all the way back to the beginning.
What? It does not matter how the first cell appeared. Evolution would occur even if God made the first cell directly. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different subjects. Most biologists believe that natural aboigenesis is the answer. That does not mean it has to be the answer, though I believe it too.
Yes, really.Really???
If they did back then, then I don't blame them. I probably would have as well, and I would venture to say you would, too.Christians thought the Earth was the center of the Universe...
Until science proved otherwise, I'm sure science taught it as fact.... until science proved otherwise;
As I said, I'm sure science taught it at one time as well.... they thought the moon emitted light, the Earth was flat, and that the Earth preceded the Sun until science proved otherwise.
And I'm sure Galileo was ridiculed by his scientific peers as well.Remember it was only 500 years ago that Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for having the audacity to suggest that the Earth orbited the Sun rather than the other way around. Now Christians admire his work.
That's a little melodramatic; and I believe, as I said above, that Christianity wasn't alone in believing those things.No my friend; Christianity didn’t abandon any holes; they were dragged kicking and screaming away from them and replaced with science by those more interested in the truth than personal agendas.
The church didn't make those holes ... scientists did.Only the blissfull ignorant would consider those holes not worth filling.
I'm not too worried about whether it's Craig's claim or someone else's - I'm still waiting to hear just what these conjectures are.I know not whether the reference to conjecture on ReasonableFaith.org referred to WLC's own objections or not. That's a question for further study if it reaches your interest threshold.
As a physicist, allow me to assure you that no foundational problems to radiometric dating has been found. If you think you, or someone you've read, has found one, I'll be happy to point out their error - or, if they're actually right, I'll concede defeat.As a liberal arts graduate, I assert no facts here. What I know of the subject is based on secondhand sources at best, which I must weigh according their own motives of credibility.
Since no one makes that claim, your worries are moot. Let's review the discussion we've been having:I can say, however, that I find the claim to be highly questionable that methods used for dating great spans of time in the remote past involve no conjecture or working assumptions whatsoever.
Again, what's your source? If you believe that Carbon dating yields varying results, why do you believe that? Who told you, and what studies or research papers do they have to back up their claims?That carbon-14 dating, e.g., has produced varying results when correlated is axiomatic among YEC scientists.
No. I was being facetious. Notice that I prefaced my statement with "By your logic..." - I'm saying that your own argument makes that conclusion. It's obviously a silly conclusion, and as such we know that your argument is, somewhere, false.Your latter two comments support my skepticism. Theists have a personal bias but atheists do not?
Personal experience is a very poor method to judge whole populations by. Read up on confirmation bias for an explanation as to why.As a longtime Christian and longtime acquaintance of other Christians, I am not so sure that Christians are as likely as the next person to lie.
The evidence does not support your claim. The more heavily religious a country, the lower its levels of happiness and education (source, source).The law of God, where known, serves as a check on bad tendencies even in the broader culture, but especially on Christians. Thanks be to God that Christian influence is significant where I live.
As for prejudice, how can anyone who denies that lying is a sin avoid a credibility problem? Seriously.
The term is Biologist not evolutionist.
Biologist is a broader term. As there is a growing group of biologist who are disassociating themselves with the theory, I don't think it fair.
Evolutionist is not a word. It is Biologist. Did you make the word up?
Sadly I disagree. So many have used that term so it can be found on several online dictionaries:
evolutionist - definition of evolutionist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Evolutionist | Define Evolutionist at Dictionary.com
and several others.
I do agree that biologist is a better term. A fraction of a percent of biologists do not believe the theory of evolution. It is very safe to categorize them as a fringe element.
Tom,
thanks for admitting there are assumptions/conjectures involved. That has been my only point on radiometric dating. Atheists and theists use assumptions and quite reasonably so. A problem arises, though, when conjecture becomes fixed dogma, as happened with the theory of evolution itself.
As for prejudice, how can anyone who denies that lying is a sin avoid a credibility problem? Seriously.
I would suggest that this is an extremely dishonest interpretation of my post. You have either not read it carefully, not understood it, or you are twisting what it says.Tom,
thanks for admitting there are assumptions/conjectures involved. That has been my only point on radiometric dating. Atheists and theists use assumptions and quite reasonably so.
The theory of evolution is not, and has never been dogma. It is an extremely well-supported conclusion from the data.A problem arises, though, when conjecture becomes fixed dogma, as happened with the theory of evolution itself.
Which atheist denies that lying is wrong? That atheists do not use the word "sin", does not mean they do not hold similar concepts. Again, your statements to me do not seem to be very honest.As for prejudice, how can anyone who denies that lying is a sin avoid a credibility problem? Seriously.
So you pick the words you want to hear, and then ignore the rest of his post which explains that the assumptions/conjectures in science are NOT equal to the colloquial stabs in the dark that you are making them out to be.
Typical.
If they did back then, then I don't blame them. I probably would have as well, and I would venture to say you would, too.
The church didn't make those holes ... scientists did.
A problem arises, though, when conjecture becomes fixed dogma, as happened with the theory of evolution itself.
Biologist is a broader term. As there is a growing group of biologist who are disassociating themselves with the theory, I don't think it fair.
As a liberal arts graduate, I assert no facts here.
What I know of the subject is based on secondhand sources at best, which I must weigh according their own motives of credibility.
I can say, however, that I find the claim to be highly questionable that methods used for dating great spans of time in the remote past involve no conjecture or working assumptions whatsoever.
That carbon-14 dating, e.g., has produced varying results when correlated is axiomatic among YEC scientists.
And the smear campaign continues. Please keep posts like these coming AV, they further strengthen my point that YEC are threatened by science.
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?