Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[joshua 1 9]

Any objective evidence that prayer is effective?

First you have to know what an effective prayer is. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." If you want to fly an airplane then you have to use the right formula. If you want answer to prayer you have to know how to pray.

 

[Phenotype]

I am looking at what God gave me to look at and I am trying to understand the message that He has in it for me to understand. "The LORD by wisdom founded the earth, By understanding He established the heavens."

There is a physical world and there is a spiritual world. There is a lot in the Bible that is testable, they have been using archaeology for a long time to show the Bible is accurate and true. Even if you reject the spiritual, the physical is still testable.

I can't go in to the scholarly literature here on the consensus amongst the archaeologists with no agenda to verify the bible, but simply to interpret evidence, or tellingly, seeing the total lack of evidence to support biblical accounts of events so vital to the Christian religion, in the 'Holy Land.'

You will have to absorb it for yourself. Good luck with that.

You claim to be only looking for the truth. Can you really handle the truth like an adult?

Cognitive dissonance is the term describing when one's beliefs do not equate with internal and external reality. The solution to the problem, the neurosis, is to critically examine the received beliefs, see them for what they are, which in the case of religion, is a most serious impediment to the understanding, the intellect and sound knowledge, and then abandoning the deleterious beliefs.

One can't just abandon a whole way of thinking and having everything invested in religion without concertedly replacing it with a new and better understanding. Otherwise you will end up in the foetal position on the floor from the Void.

 

[Phenotype]

Irrelevant is one thing; "nonexistent" and/or "didn't happen" is another.

When science tells me Jonah being swallowed by a whale and lived is irrelevant ... okay ... I won't argue.

But when science tells me Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale (for whatever reason) ... science can take a hike.

Jonah called it a "fish."

Jonah 1:17a Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.

Jesus called it a "whale."

Matthew 12:40a For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;

Linnaeus says: whales ≠ fish.

AV1611VET says: Linnaeus can take a hike.

Where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong.

This is all tripe. What you are expounding says nothing substantive and everything about you.

You're not up for this, are you? Neither was I, so I need to remain mindful and gracious. You need to put in probably 10 years minimum of study in sound science and scholarship before you will be on the way to addressing the ignorance.

Don't worry. We are incredibly fortunate to be living in a time when popular science and scholarship are enjoying a renaissance.

As I say, atheism has a big future. Some day it will happily be irrelevant.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Cognitive dissonance is the term describing when one's beliefs do not equate with internal and external reality. The solution to the problem, the neurosis, is to critically examine the received beliefs, see them for what they are, which in the case of religion, is a most serious impediment to the understanding, the intellect and sound knowledge, and then abandoning the deleterious beliefs.

Of course your tenancy toward projection is just a ego function in an attempt to cope by establishing defense mechanisms. There is no reason for you to tell on yourself by trying to project your neurosis out on me. There is no dissonance for me because there is no conflict between science and religion. They get along like two peas in a pod. Mendel's Genetics established this at the time of Darwin.

 

[Phenotype]

And do what?

Become a fool?

You are not as confident as you would want me and everyone else to think. Could it be you are obsessive? Understanding and education fosters security within. I can attest to it.

 

[Phenotype]

I think you are quite honest in your approach, but the details show a great confusion in your mind.

Personally, I am a big fan of Popper, because he tried (unsuccessfully) to place science on a sound logical footing. It seems that you admire him too, but I wonder whether you understand him.

I myself wouldn't be found trivialising Popper's insight, falsificationism.

Darwinism is just a theory. You said that evolution has never been falsified -- only verified. Unfortunately, Popper himself noted that verification is worthless. He talked about how Marxists could open a newspaper and find a constant stream of verification and confirmations of Marxism in everything the paper said (or didn't say). What does this prove? It only proves that the theory is flexible enough to admit any data presented to it and nothing more

.

Indeed you are correct. Evolution has not been conclusively verified. Every finding in science remains tentatively acceptable, in case a better description supplants it in the future. We can happily live with that. We don't need to allow that to induce insecurity. Reality remains yet to be wholly explained. Science is ever providing a better description of reality. This is not to aver that reality is somehow necessarily transcendental, beyond the empirical means for forming epistemology and ontology, like the ever higher than I God or something.

And yet evolution has never been falsified. Richard Dawkins calls evolution a theorum, it is that sound. This is a new term he has coined. He also authored the insightful term meme, a cultural self replicator that rides in minds, brains. Religion is a meme. Some memes are benign, some are deleterious. You well know what I am alluding to.

Why should I give any greater status to Darwinism than to Marxism?

Marxism is and has been open to wide interpretation according to the political/economic/social context of the states wherein it has been applied. Can it work in perpetuity? People thrive on competition. That has an evolutionary explanation, especially in Homo sapiens, although we are also oriented to be cooperative as we are a highly social species.

Darwinism is not amenable to relativism. Science identifies what obtains.

Nor is it necessarily true that theories can be falsified. Let's take Newton's Law of Gravitation. It was discovered that Newton's Laws did not predict the precession of Mercury. So what happened? Rather than discard the theory, scientists postulated that there was another, yet-to-be-discovered planet closer to the sun than Mercury. The planet, called Vulcan, has yet to be found. Still, that wouldn't stop someone if he were determined to continue. Couldn't the planet be composed of dark matter? Of course it could. This same tactic has been used to explain the failure of Keppler's Laws to explain the rotation of galaxies.

Regarding the anomalous procession of Mercury, Einstein realised that light and indeed space-time are bent by gravity. You should know this.

Do you seriously think that other Darwinists on the forum consider evolution to be merely a working hypothesis that cannot be claimed true?

Do please elucidate. Is this afterthought an apologia to Darwinism after all the above I have had to address?

 

[Phenotype]

Of course your tenancy toward projection is just a ego function in an attempt to cope by establishing defense mechanisms. There is no reason for you to tell on yourself by trying to project your neurosis out on me. There is no dissonance for me because there is no conflict between science and religion. They get along like two peas in a pod. Mendel's Genetics established this at the time of Darwin.

Sigmund Freud was an atheist. No, religious doctrine, it's theology and science are not compatible. At all.

 

[As I was saying]

Could you explain that mechanism in more detail?

How´s that statement different from "God invented cancer" when cancer is part of the laws that God created?

Cancer is not part of the laws that God created. Atheists who do not believe God exists seem to like to blame him for everything negative whereas in fact we only have ourselves to blame.

When God created heaven and earth and everything in it you will see that he deemed it to be good. Adam and Eve were created by God and put into a world that was good (perfect). That means no cancer. The sin of man has slowly brought about the degradation of society so cancer is the product of our sin.

That is why we look forward to the new Jerusalem where their will be no sin or suffering.

 

[As I was saying]

Creationism is apologetics. The implications for Genesis being mythology are historic, seismic. That renders Calvary meaningless, because there was no Adam and Eve, no Fall, no inherited sin nature to be redeemed from before an absolutist God. Hence the Christian life is puerile. Christianity is really the Jesus cult. Thank you, Saul of Tarsus.

God is redundant, superfluous.

I don't have a faith.

Another atheist who is an expert on something that does not exist according to them and who makes sweeping claims that are totally unprovable.

So, as for Genesis being mythology, you have no proof.

Saying calvary was meaningless is devoid of reality as you do not believe Jesus existed so you can't say that something does not exist and then say it is meaningless because if it does not exist, it cannot be anything.

You do not know there was no Adam and Eve and if there is no inherited sin nature, where did sin come from?

As for christianity being puerile, you have chosen to ignore the fact that there are many brilliant men and women with minds that are able to compute the most difficult of problems that have embraced christianity.

In addition christianity is the Jesus cult as the original church was a branch of Judaism that was known as "The Way" with Jesus as their Messiah and which became the most successful of all belief systems in terms of followers.

As for God being redundant. You wish. Today all over the world christianity is growing at a phenomenal rate.

And finally as for you don't have faith all I can say is "man, know yourself." Everyone has faith in something, even if it is nothing in the case of atheists. Without a faith in something you cannot have a worldview because a worldview is an expression of what we believe in and what you believe requires faith.

It is very clear from your suppositions that you are enunciating what you want things to be not what things are. That to put it mildly is a fool's paradise.

You need to think more about what you say instead of just trotting out cliches that prove nothing; are nothing; ignore logic and contain very little intelligent conversation.

 

[quatona]

Cancer is not part of the laws that God created.

So the claimed mechanism (which results in cancer) is not created by God?
So who determined this law?

Atheists who do not believe God exists seem to like to blame him for everything negative whereas in fact we only have ourselves to blame.

Please let´s reduce the preaching, the ad hominems, the mind-reading and the emotionalisms to a minimum, and please try to concentrate on discussing the claims as they had been made.
Thanks.

When God created heaven and earth and everything in it you will see that he deemed it to be good. Adam and Eve were created by God and put into a world that was good (perfect). That means no cancer. The sin of man has slowly brought about the degradation of society so cancer is the product of our sin.

Again: Who or what determined that degradation of society will result in cancer, if not God? Who or what is this entity beyond God that´s more installing such laws?

Anyway, my request was: Please explain the mechanism by which degradation of society results in cancer. I didn´t see the attempt at an answer.

 

[As I was saying]

And yet evolution has never been falsified. Richard Dawkins calls evolution a theorum, it is that sound. This is a new term he has coined. He also authored the insightful term meme, a cultural self replicator that rides in minds, brains. Religion is a meme. Some memes are benign, some are deleterious. You well know what I am alluding to.

Evolution never falsified???? Of course we won't talk about the HOAX known as the Piltdown man. As for Richard Dawkins being insightful how about this bit of insight. He said on a TV programme that there is nothing wrong with sexual lust. Tell that to a woman who has been raped.

 

[As I was saying]

So the claimed mechanism (which results in cancer) is not created by God? So who determined this law?

Please let´s reduce the preaching, the ad hominems, the mind-reading and the emotionalisms to a minimum, and please try to concentrate on discussing the claims as they had been made.
Thanks.


Again: Who or what determined that degradation of society will result in cancer, if not God? Who or what is this entity beyond God that´s more installing such laws?

Anyway, my request was: Please explain the mechanism by which degradation of society results in cancer. I didn´t see the attempt at an answer.

Sorry but cancer is not a mechanism. It happens and I should know because I have had it twice, when the good cells are insufficient to keep the bad cells at bay. The bad cells feed on the good cells so unless the bad cells can be destroyed it will kill the person who has the cancer. In my case on both occasions, the bad cells were destroyed so I am now free of it.

God did not give me the cancer. it was the product of original sin which attacked the creation to destroy it and bring it undone. Back in Adam's time men lived until they were nearly a thousand years old because sin had not yet reached into creation to the extent it was able to destroy the longevity of the cells in our body. Today we are given 70 years on average. That if nothing else is a clear indication of the destructive nature of sin.

As for the preaching, the ad hominems, the mind-reading and the emotionalism, that is your speciality when you are confronted with the truth which you have no answer to.

As I said before cancer is not a law it is an experience so your question is mute. God gave everyone a free will. Some choose not to go their own way and some do. God created a perfect world and those who live as sons of God live a life that is set free from the law of sin and death by the law of the spirit of life.

I do not expect you to understand this as you judge everything by your finite fallible mind. We do not.

 

[Phenotype]

Evolution never falsified???? Of course we won't talk about the HOAX known as the Piltdown man. As for Richard Dawkins being insightful how about this bit of insight. He said on a TV programme that there is nothing wrong with sexual lust. Tell that to a woman who has been raped.

I read your reactions to my posts. Don't do this to me. Do I have to take your rants apart line by line and point out the unrelenting muddy thinking, non sequiturs, obfuscation and mendacious misinformation?

Why should I do your homework for you? I'd suggest you stash all of your books in boxes in the shed for when and if you require them for reference for debunking creationism and critiquing Christianity, a useful project, after several years of proper study.

 

[Goonie]

Evolution never falsified???? Of course we won't talk about the HOAX known as the Piltdown man. As for Richard Dawkins being insightful how about this bit of insight. He said on a TV programme that there is nothing wrong with sexual lust. Tell that to a woman who has been raped.

That's not a falsification, that's someone, not a scientist perpetrating a hoax, and it being revealed as a hoax by scientists.

 

[quatona]

Sorry but cancer is not a mechanism. It happens and I should know because I have had it twice, when the good cells are insufficient to keep the bad cells at bay. The bad cells feed on the good cells so unless the bad cells can be destroyed it will kill the person who has the cancer. In my case on both occasions, the bad cells were destroyed so I am now free of it.

You are still misunderstanding my question.
I didn´t say "cancer is a mechanism". I asked for two things to be explained:
1. You said that degradation of society results in cancer. That´s a claimed cause-effect mechanism. I would like that to be explained. How exactly does it work?
2. I am asking "Who - if not God - established the mechanism by which degradation of society results in cancer (as opposed to, say, everyone growing additional legs or being able to fly for a result)?

As for the preaching, the ad hominems, the mind-reading and the emotionalism, that is your speciality when you are confronted with the truth which you have no answer to.

Show me where I did any of that, and we can talk about it.

I do not expect you to understand this as you judge everything by your finite fallible mind. We do not.

So you guys´ minds are infinite and infallible?

 

[Phenotype]

Cancer is not part of the laws that God created. Atheists who do not believe God exists seem to like to blame him for everything negative whereas in fact we only have ourselves to blame.

How can I be found blaming God for me finding no vacant parking space at the supermarket when I don't believe in God since there is no evidence requiring me to do so?

When God created heaven and earth and everything in it you will see that he deemed it to be good. Adam and Eve were created by God and put into a world that was good (perfect). That means no cancer. The sin of man has slowly brought about the degradation of society so cancer is the product of our sin.

This is so tidy for you. So simplistic. So escapist. So anti-intellectual. So formulaic. So puerile.

I do recommend Richard Dawkins The Magic of Reality, how we can tell what is true. This will unavoidably sound facetious of me, but Dawkins wrote that little gem for the intelligent pre teen.

Then I would recommend Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.
Then The Ancestors' Tale. Then The Selfish Gene, his seminal book of 1975, still selling heaps.

Richard Dawkins wrote eight classic books and also published papers explaining how evolution operates before he realised that having this legacy behind him and being so eminently qualified, he needed to confront creationism as it is just scandalous that this should be taught in schools.

He then went on to write The God Delusion, taking on Christianity generally. He has continued to write explaining evolution as well as speaking engagements and tedious debates with the likes of William Lane Craig. The second part of his fascinating biography is out now. I have read 10 of his books so far. Rather educational. An important subject, the account of life. He has The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason.

That is why we look forward to the new Jerusalem where their will be no sin or suffering.

Do you gloat over the thought of the destruction of the world and where you will be avenged?

 

[Phenotype]

Sorry but cancer is not a mechanism. It happens and I should know because I have had it twice, when the good cells are insufficient to keep the bad cells at bay. The bad cells feed on the good cells so unless the bad cells can be destroyed it will kill the person who has the cancer. In my case on both occasions, the bad cells were destroyed so I am now free of it.

God did not give me the cancer. it was the product of original sin which attacked the creation to destroy it and bring it undone. Back in Adam's time men lived until they were nearly a thousand years old because sin had not yet reached into creation to the extent it was able to destroy the longevity of the cells in our body. Today we are given 70 years on average. That if nothing else is a clear indication of the destructive nature of sin.

As for the preaching, the ad hominems, the mind-reading and the emotionalism, that is your speciality when you are confronted with the truth which you have no answer to.

As I said before cancer is not a law it is an experience so your question is mute. God gave everyone a free will. Some choose not to go their own way and some do. God created a perfect world and those who live as sons of God live a life that is set free from the law of sin and death by the law of the spirit of life.

I do not expect you to understand this as you judge everything by your finite fallible mind. We do not.

I am sorry to hear you have had two bouts of cancer. The spectre of cancer is terrible, let alone contracting cancer. I don't care if you do believe in the afterlife and your faith earns you blessed assurance of heaven with the saints and angels and Jesus, facing one's mortality is no fun.

Having been so intimate with cancer, have you never wanted to read up on the real reason cancer arises? You expound the simplistic Christian teaching on the subject, why not get the understanding of mutation and DNA/RNA copying and the genetics of cancer from biology, driven by natural selection, biological science?

How is it that you were cured if not for the human quest to understand cancer, the rigorous research, education and training, dedication and intelligence that has been undertaken thus far? Do you trivialize that so God can get the glory? The quest to help humanity is a humanistic one. It has a history to it, the Greeks for example. We have evolved to work at understanding such processes and to combat suffering, though ignorance induces barbarity.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I say, atheism has a big future.

You got that right!

 

[AV1611VET]

You are not as confident as you would want me and everyone else to think.

I beg your pardon?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sigmund Freud was an atheist. No, religious doctrine, it's theology and science are not compatible. At all.

Some of The Bible is history also, not just theology. There is some science like biology and botany. Genesis has 31 verses and there are hundreds of thousands of books that goes into detail about what we read in those 31 verses.