You don't think that something called Conservapedia is biased in a certain direction?
Conservapedia is a notoriously bad site when dealing with scientific matters (no comment about other matters).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Facts Found From Creation Science
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
Conservapedia is a notoriously bad site when dealing with scientific matters (no comment about other matters).
It reminds me of the TV show, Moral Orel.
For those unfamiliar, it's a claymation style cartoon.
Imagine Davey & Goliath on drugs.
Doughy: Hey Orel, what did you put for number 3 on the science test?
Orel: Jesus.
Doughy: Oh, of course!
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
You just have to believe it is: After the fabric of space/time matter/energy forms great fusion reactors, producing elements specific to life- all predetermined according to a vast array of incredibly finely tuned constants, algorithms & information...
... everything suddenly reverts back to a classical Victorian model of reality with the first replicator: A handful of simple laws and random chance takes over from there .. ultimately producing a sentient being capable of pondering these questions- what's the problem?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The problem with the fine tuning argument is that one usually assumes that life is a goal and not a result. The odds against our universe may be very very high, though that is not necessarily the case, but the odds of a universe where life is possible may approach one with enough universes. If one uses the fine tuning argument that opens you up to the multi-universe model. You can't win using that poorly formed claim.You just have to believe it is: After the fabric of space/time matter/energy forms great fusion reactors, producing elements specific to life- all predetermined according to a vast array of incredibly finely tuned constants, algorithms & information...
... everything suddenly reverts back to a classical Victorian model of reality with the first replicator: A handful of simple laws and random chance takes over from there .. ultimately producing a sentient being capable of pondering these questions- what's the problem?
james bond
Well-Known Member
No problems for creation science since God created it and it's found in the Bible. The problems occur as evolutionists try to explain how it came to be and evolved.
Origin of Photosynthesis
Not really. I've seen them already. The small cranial structure tell me they were apes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do realize that by definition there is no science done at AiG. The few incompetent scientists that they have working there must swear not to use the scientific method. That means that whatever you want to call the drivel that they put out, you cannot honestly call it "science".
Thus no fossil evidence will count as a transitional form between apes and humans? Convenient.
Evolution has no problem with photosynthesis.
james bond
Well-Known Member
You just have to believe it is: After the fabric of space/time matter/energy forms great fusion reactors, producing elements specific to life- all predetermined according to a vast array of incredibly finely tuned constants, algorithms & information...
... everything suddenly reverts back to a classical Victorian model of reality with the first replicator: A handful of simple laws and random chance takes over from there .. ultimately producing a sentient being capable of pondering these questions- what's the problem?
>>GT: You just have to believe it is<<
Isn't that faith which leads to religion.
The problem is it doesn't happen this way today nor did it in the past. Atheist scientists think they can create an atom, but they can't. All they can do change things at the atomic level and form new molecules. Thus, genetic modification, but no creation.
I've keep an open mind, but enough is enough. I gave up around 2011 and started reading the Bible more in 2012. Grown adults who think universes and life just pops up. The four main areas of mistaken science are in geology where it started with Principles of Geology (uniformitarianism), paleontology, zoology and biology. Biology isn't so bad because it was able to move forward with "cells are the smallest structural and functional unit of life; all living things are composed of one or more cells, and that all cells come from preexisting cells (biogenesis)." Life begats life which is what Jesus taught us.
However, Francis Crick founded biology as an irreversible process of transferring sequence information from DNA to RNA to protein.
"The discovery of DNA’s double-helix structure truly revolutionized biology, opening the door to amazing breakthroughs in our understanding of disease and genetic disorders, and it inspired the just-completed Human Genome Project, hailed as the “periodic table of biology” (see Human Genome Project Complete ... Again)."
Again, the molecular level. Not the atomic level. Modification, but no creation.
"No More Need For God?
The celebrations have a dark side, however. Many atheistic evolutionists claim that the discovery of DNA’s structure is proof of evolution and a nail in God’s coffin. As they see it, the discovery of a “universal” molecular structure for storing and passing on information to offspring—shared by almost all forms of life1—allows scientists to find a purely physical explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth, without any need for a Creator.
Indeed, both Crick and Watson have been outspoken in their belief that the discovery of DNA’s structure has helped overturn belief in the God of the Bible. Francis Crick has repeatedly said that he sees DNA as a confirmation of evolution, which discredits “the god hypothesis.”2 His co-discoverer, James Watson, says that our understanding of DNA has helped to debunk religious “myths from the past.”
Watson boldly told the London Telegraph in a recent interview, “Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours.”3
Many of the world’s leading scientists will hear this message today at a huge gathering of luminaries (including Watson himself) who traveled to Cambridge to praise the ongoing impact of Watson and Crick’s discovery.
The culmination of the day, after a series of speeches on molecular medicine, cancer, aging, etc., is a lecture titled “Genes and human nature” by Matt Ridley, author of the bestseller Genome. Ridley will speak about the broader implications of human genome research, and it is not hard to guess what he will say.
Scientific American describes Ridley as “an avid proponent of the Darwinian view of the world, [who] perceives the genome not as a cookbook or a manual but as a quintessentially historical document—a three-billion-year memoir of our species from its beginnings in the primal ooze to the present day.”4
Around the world, believers in “goo-to-you” evolution, like Matt Ridley, are repeating the mantra that the human genome holds the key to unlocking the mystery of human nature and the evolution of life on Earth."
Yet, there is only one good answer to all this and thus, the battle rages on.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Ha ha (laughing but smh).
How good are you with calculating heat flow?
From what we have learned today, it would have to be something that doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. Do you agree?
james bond
Well-Known Member
I expected you to say the local stuff which I covered with the candle and lighter/match and water boiling on the stove for cooking purposes. Overall, the entropy still increases. This is true of the earth and sun. Thus, no violation of SLOT in a closed or open environment.
james bond
Well-Known Member
It's not me with the blockage, but you. As I've said, I believed in evolution until I thought they were wrong. Thus, I looked at what the creation scientists were saying and are saying today. They are right while the atheist scientists and you only think you are right. To further my point, how right was Darwin? His theories have mostly been discarded. Yet, atheist scientists still think his evolution was correct. Creation scientists only recognize natural selection (found by Edward Blyth, creation scientist) and genetic modification. While we do not trust genetic modification and mutation, we recognize it is still science. Yet, all this is still at the molecular level which is important.
james bond
Well-Known Member
It sure is fascinating. I guessed the building materials and not information molecules. Yet, it turned out to be information molecules and they lasted for one generation. I suppose this is part of stem cell research?
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Nice pun but different kind of stem.
Oh, I agree. It doesn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. But the heat flow is so large into the environment, that any small increase in complexity is *far* outweighed by the extra entropy of the surroundings.
Yes, but once again, the entropy of the *water* decreases upon freezing or condensation, right? Yet those can be spontaneous processes because of the heat given off to the environment, right?
james bond
Well-Known Member
As usual, you are wrong again. How many times can someone be so wrong?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How am I wrong? You made an affirmative claim the burden of proof is upon you. I have never seen you substantiate any of your claims. I can support my claims. What do you not understand?
james bond
Well-Known Member
Yes, for the water in the pot, but the heat flows from the water being taken out into the room even though it doesn't change the temperature of the room. What about evaporation of the water (increase in entropy) before it turns to ice? We would have to cover the pot to preven that. Thus, it seems to me that one would have to manage the process for it to be an ordered decrease in entropy. In other words, it's not a natural or random process.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wow! The lake I lived on when I was growing up every year underwent a supernatural process every year. I knew there was something funny about that ice.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
JB. how was I wrong in my earlier post? Any claim that I made I am willing to support. I have yet to see you support any of your claims with a valid source.