Why not both?

[Merlin]

Hello, the Bible gives a description of a creation .
the Bible gives a description of God providing salvation through Jesus
Shall we acept all of the Bible or just part? Which part ?
If the Bible is not true then neither is Christianity so why call yourself a christian if it is all not true?

 

[Astrophile]

You have a complex system that built itself, or it was built. It's as simple as that. The idea that there is always a better alternative part waiting in the wings in case of failure is several 'bridges too far'. Creation can anticipate problems, but how can a mindless process?

So, 75 or 76 years ago, did you build yourself from a single cell into a complex system, or were you built, and if so, how and by whom? Also, the trees in my garden are complex systems. I admit that I planted some of them, but most of them grew by themselves, without my doing anything to help them.

 

[Blue Wren]

This is very annoying. I'm not homosexual, and I'm not Jewish, so that counts me out. Otherwise, if someone would send me an application form, I'd apply for the job.

 

[lifepsyop]

You do know that book is 150 years old? And we've gathered more evidence in support of the theory since then?

Not really, no. Evolutionists have proceeded mainly by assuming universal common descent is unquestionably true, and ad-hoc accommodation of whatever data happened to present itself.

Also, the book isn't just about finches.

I never said it was, though the finch example has been widely popularized, and is basically representative of the largest magnitude of any other examples of adaptation.

 

[Blue Wren]

Not really, no. Evolutionists have proceeded mainly by assuming universal common descent is unquestionably true, and ad-hoc accommodation of whatever data happened to present itself.

Most scientists rarely see anything, as "unquestionably true." There's been so much evidence, to support evolution. It's silly, to state otherwise

 

[lifepsyop]

Most scientists rarely see anything, as "unquestionably true." There's been so much evidence, to support evolution. It's silly, to state otherwise

Wrong. Practically all "Scientists" have been trained to believe that anything outside of an evolutionary framework is never to be considered and that "Life = Evolution", period. End of story. "Evolution" is the official creation story of the academic community. It has never been open to question. Only How, Never If. If you believe in "god", then it better be a vague non-biblical syncretism god that created through evolution or you will be cast out of the temple by the order of darwinian mystics.

 

[crjmurray]

Wrong. Practically all "Scientists" have been trained to believe that anything outside of an evolutionary framework is never to be considered and that "Life = Evolution", period. End of story. "Evolution" is the official creation story of the academic community. It has never been open to question. Only How, Never If. If you believe in "god", then it better be a vague non-biblical syncretism god that created through evolution or you will be cast out of the temple by the order of darwinian mystics.

Have you worked in a scientific field and actually witnessed this behavior?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Most scientists rarely see anything, as "unquestionably true." There's been so much evidence, to support evolution. It's silly, to state otherwise

You are just out of high school correct?

 

[Blue Wren]

Wrong. Practically all "Scientists" have been trained to believe that anything outside of an evolutionary framework is never to be considered and that "Life = Evolution", period. End of story. "Evolution" is the official creation story of the academic community. It has never been open to question. Only How, Never If. If you believe in "god", then it better be a vague non-biblical syncretism god that created through evolution or you will be cast out of the temple by the order of darwinian mystics.

What field of science, do you work in, to speak with such authority, about this?

 

[Blue Wren]

You are just out of high school correct?

Incorrect.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Incorrect.

So where are you in your education?

 

[bhsmte]

Incorrect.

Being from Sweden, I am quite sure, your science education to date, has been quite good.

 

[SLP]

Not really, no. Evolutionists have proceeded mainly by assuming universal common descent is unquestionably true, and ad-hoc accommodation of whatever data happened to present itself.

Classic projection.

 

[SLP]

Wrong. Practically all "Scientists" have been trained to believe that anything outside of an evolutionary framework is never to be considered and that "Life = Evolution", period.

You are very clearly not a scientist, and I have to wonder if you actually even know any.

Never to be considered? Trained? The only training I received on this issue was the current (at the time) laboratory techniques used - PCR, ligation, DNA extraction, sequencing reactions, etc.


In reality, scientists are a bit more practical and sensible that you have been brainwashed into thinking.

I'm betting you think that the 'professor' in that horrible movie "God is not Dead" was an accurate portrayal...

 

[SLP]

What field of science, do you work in, to speak with such authority, about this?

An excellent question that will almost certainly go unanswered.

 

[Blue Wren]

Being from Sweden, I am quite sure, your science education to date, has been quite good.

Thank-you.

So where are you in your education?

Where you are, in your education, is not as important, as the quality of what you have learned, no?

In Sweden the way our education is structured, it is very different from in the US. The last few years of what would be "high school" in Sweden, they are more like an undergraduate education in the US. It's far more specialised, and advanced, especially if you intend to study science & medicine. I've already secured my place, at one of the best medical schools in the world (ranked above MIT, University of Chicago, NYU). This year, I'm on a scholar research programme, for science. It's not the same, as a gap year programme where you work at a youth hostel for the year, no. It is extremely competitive, as it provides such excellent research opportunities, and it pays for everything. I have done science research, at two leading research institutes, in the US. They also paid for me to attend science conferences, and lectures, throughout the US, where some of the top scientists have given presentations. I attended the Darwin Lecture, where Eugene Koonin spoke, at NYU, as an example, and a conference in that city. In a fortnight I leave here, to do research in Japan for the summer. I will be attending other conferences & lectures, whilst in Asia. I don't have as much experience, as a scientist, in her 50s, no. I have learned, from some of the best scientists. I'm not just straight out of an American high school.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thank-you.



Where you are, in your education, is not as important, as the quality of what you have learned, no?

In Sweden the way our education is structured, it is very different from in the US. The last few years of what would be "high school" in Sweden, they are more like an undergraduate education in the US. It's far more specialised, and advanced, especially if you intend to study science & medicine. I've already secured my place, at one of the best medical schools in the world (ranked above MIT, University of Chicago, NYU). This year, I'm on a scholar research programme, for science. It's not the same, as a gap year programme where you work at a youth hostel for the year, no. It is extremely competitive, as it provides such excellent research opportunities, and it pays for everything. I have done science research, at two leading research institutes, in the US. They also paid for me to attend science conferences, and lectures, throughout the US, where some of the top scientists have given presentations. I attended the Darwin Lecture, where Eugene Koonin spoke, at NYU, as an example, and a conference in that city. In a fortnight I leave here, to do research in Japan for the summer. I will be attending other conferences & lectures, whilst in Asia. I don't have as much experience, as a scientist, in her 50s, no. I have learned, from some of the best scientists. I'm not just straight out of an American high school.

I am highly impressed! Believe it I love Science and I am very excited for you and your upcoming experiences and opportunities.

My question was not to put you down at all either. You are young and I didn't notice your country. While I think that a high school education gives a good over all view of evolution, I find that when someone claims that there is all this mountain of evidence for evolution that they are parroting what they have been told rather than having any idea themselves of what that evidence is.

So that is the reasoning behind my question.

 

[lifepsyop]

Classic projection.

Classic non-response. A favorite at CF.

Never to be considered? Trained? The only training I received on this issue was the current (at the time) laboratory techniques used - PCR, ligation, DNA extraction, sequencing reactions, etc.

Ah immediately going for the jargon to try and impress people. I've noticed that about you.

And yes, you were most assuredly trained that Evolution is not to be questioned. I'm sure you were well aware of that before you began instruction in any technical methodology.

It is a philosophical rule of the academic community that all of life will be interpreted only through an evolutionary lens. This orthodoxy is not up for debate.

This is not limited to biology, of course. All aspects of the universe *must* have gradually "evolved" into their present state from some undefined primordial form. It is all part of the official evolutionary creation story that the present academic institution has built itself upon.

In reality, scientists are a bit more practical and sensible that you have been brainwashed into thinking.

I'm sure they can be quite practical and sensible. All people of faith can be.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sure they can be quite practical and sensible. All people of faith can be.

All?

My observations are different than yours.

 

[sfs]

You are very clearly not a scientist, and I have to wonder if you actually even know any.

Never to be considered? Trained? The only training I received on this issue was the current (at the time) laboratory techniques used - PCR, ligation, DNA extraction, sequencing reactions, etc.


In reality, scientists are a bit more practical and sensible that you have been brainwashed into thinking.

I'm betting you think that the 'professor' in that horrible movie "God is not Dead" was an accurate portrayal...

Heck, the only training I got was in high-speed electronics, mathematical methods, particle physics and the like. Physicists really don't care what biologists think about, well, much of anything.