Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[BilliardsBall]

If I run field tests to determine population densities of a certain insect, any damage they do and determine any treatment effects, do you think I have seen all the insects or looked at every plant. If plant populations in a field are 160,000 per acre, I have neither the resources nor the time to examine every one of those plants, let alone the insect fauna of interest that may be on them. There is no reasonable means to conduct work like that. I am producing results based on samples of what is there and using statistical methods and experimental design to ensure that the samples are representative and the study is robust. What you mean by unseen, I think, is that you do not believe it happened, because it goes against your beliefs.

It's not unethical, dishonest, closed-minded, or anything else to suggest that data is solid but data interpretation is wrong. This is true whether we're looking at bad Bible interpretation or bad scientific assumptions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is how you answer!!!!
You should’ve disagreed to avoid further more..and instead..You want to play a guessing game! your making it too obvious!..I suggest you stop lying to yourself and live life YOUR OWN WAY!! (Not proving yourself for others)

I'm not playing any game.
I'm asking you honest questions.

So, do you care to answer those questions?
If not, why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why don't you know of any?

Probably because flood proponents have failed to provide such evidence.

As for me, I actually have proof against the biblical flood myth. That's right: proof, not just evidence.
It's hilariously easy as well, to disprove the flood myth.

It makes 2 scientific predictions:
1. there should be a universal genetic bottleneck in all complex species, dating to the same period.
2. there should be a global flood layer in the geological column dating to the same period as the genetic bottleneck.


Neither of both exists.
This disproves the flood myth.
It's simple logic.

"if A, then B".
After investigation, the data unambigously shows "not B".
So therefor: "not A".

Easy peasy.

Fun fact: did you know that the field of geology was actually kickstarted by a couple of bible believing christians that set out to gather evidence to support the biblical flood idea? They failed miserably. And kickstarted geology as a science in the process.

So, literally even the very birth of an entire scientific field, is the result of debunking this flood myth.
This was a looooong time ago. Amazing that some people still haven't catched up.

What is your excuse, since there are thousands of websites on the subject?

And zero scientific papers.

Creationist propaganda on the interwebs is irrelevant.

 

[Workman]

I'm not playing any game.
I'm asking you honest questions.

So, do you care to answer those questions?
If not, why not?

You still don’t understand do you!..oh well!
It’s easy to tell a lie!
But it’s really hard to be honest.
And YOU ARE NOT HONEST!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You still don’t understand understand do you!..oh well!
It’s easy to tell a lie!
But it’s really hard to be honest.

Apparantly, it's also really hard to justify your accusations.

You said in that post:

And I like how you “Pretend” as well..
Don’t worry I won’t tell anyone..your secret! You figure out your own problems!..tick tock..time is ticking.

So, you accused me of several things there. And I asked for clarification. Why do you refuse to clarify?
- You said I was "pretending" something. I asked what am I pretending?
- You said I have a "secret". I asked what secret?
- You claimed I have problems. I asked what these problems are?
- You said time is ticking. I asked time is ticking for what?

Again, care to clarify what you meant with all those vague insinuations, accusations and bare statements?
What's the point of posting if you aren't going to bother to make it understandable?

And YOU ARE NOT HONEST!

Another accusation.

What am I not being honest about?


ps: if you aren't planning on answering the questions, then just don't post.

 

[Workman]

Apparantly, it's also really hard to justify your accusations.

You said in that post:

And I like how you “Pretend” as well..
Don’t worry I won’t tell anyone..your secret! You figure out your own problems!..tick tock..time is ticking.

So, you accused me of several things there. And I asked for clarification. Why do you refuse to clarify?
- You said I was "pretending" something. I asked what am I pretending?
- You said I have a "secret". I asked what secret?
- You claimed I have problems. I asked what these problems are?
- You said time is ticking. I asked time is ticking for what?

Again, care to clarify what you meant with all those vague insinuations, accusations and bare statements?
What's the point of posting if you aren't going to bother to make it understandable?



Another accusation.

What am I not being honest about?


ps: if you aren't planning on answering the questions, then just don't post.

You still won’t admit will you?
In case you haven’t noticed..go back and look properly..and will you see that I already gave you a HINT of your problem?. You are being defensive..it’s your sign of guilt!
explain to me what is your definition of HONEST? And what exactly are you being HONEST for? You accuse me so I will accuse you.

You don’t know honest unless you know GOD.

 

[Workman]

Now you’ve done a runner! GUILT!..
It is a bad thing to carry!..don’t play with fire if you don’t know what your dealing with!..

One thing one must understand of how I know..is because I know my SOUL..and my is also a part of yours,
This SOUL IS GOD...only thing that gives you away is your SPIRIT!..for I don’t know your spirit UNTIL you speak(show)!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you know of any? What is your excuse, since there are thousands of websites on the subject?

You do realize that none of those sites have any evidence for the flood. In fact not only do they have no evidence for the flood, many make their workers swear not to use the scientific method. That is why I so often try to get creationists to understand the basics of science yet they all run away even when we do not need to discuss the flood or evolution until after the basics are learned.

Can you explain why you run away? Can you explain why other creationists run away?

 

[ecco]

Once they start re-interpreting the text, they are no longer supporting a literal, inerrant and infallible Bible. At least that is a start.

Actually, I consider that ducking and dodging. I have much more respect for people who take the Bible literally, than people who pick and choose and still end up as Creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not unethical, dishonest, closed-minded, or anything else to suggest that data is solid but data interpretation is wrong. This is true whether we're looking at bad Bible interpretation or bad scientific assumptions.

It is unethical if one does not understand how to interpret the data and refuses to even begin to try to understand.

As the saying goes, there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. The only way to remain honest is by keeping oneself ignorant of science to a grade school level of scientific literacy or below. Or one can understand the sciences, but be very dishonest. Steve Austin is a prime example of this. In his "research" he makes errors that an undergrad would not make and yet he has a PhD in geology. He has to be lying since he does know better.

 

[ecco]

An open minded knows when to close it! A close minded doesn’t know to open it..And what will they do if they don’t open it? It stays closed..

So, if an open minded closes it once, he can never open it again!

If what you say is true there can't be too many openminded people around. That would include you.

 

[ecco]

It's actually that there are mountains of evidence showing that this flood as claimed in the story DID NOT occur.

Maybe, after the Flood, God made everything look like there was no Flood.

 

[Workman]

So, if an open minded closes it once, he can never open it again!

If what you say is true there can't be too many openminded people around. That would include you.

Yes ECCO..you are completely right!

Now have a guess!.what I just done there!.

And yes you are also right “(it) will NEVER be open AGAIN”
Now have a guess whom I’m referring the (it) to? You

Now watch this! you WILL reply...
And I will show you how I close (it)

 

[shunyadragon]

Why don't you know of any? What is your excuse, since there are thousands of websites on the subject?

There are websites, but ot thousands. I have reviewed them, ad none provide any objective verifiable evidence for a global flood. The reference to local catastrophic floods thorough out history at different times is not evidence for a global flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's not unethical, dishonest, closed-minded, or anything else to suggest that data is solid but data interpretation is wrong. This is true whether we're looking at bad Bible interpretation or bad scientific assumptions.

You need not just suggest that the interpretation is wrong, but you need to document an alternative hypothesis that is falsifiable that the interpretation is wrong.

I have provided many references concerning the claim of the world flood that have falsified and determined that o such flood ever happened as the Bible describes, an o response for a fallcifiable hypothesis that could present a viable alternative conclusion.

Still waiting. . . .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you give me what you consider your best example of "Successful tests result in a phylogeny based on the evidence", please.

What is this then? I see. Yes. I can do that. What I am unclear about is the double standard you are setting here. I mean, you claimed all scientists do is quote their opinion and give the answer that fits what they want. So, I am still waiting for your best examples of that and the supportive argument that goes along with your claim. You wouldn't be trying to avoid your burden of proof would you?

I can't fight what has been established by consensus, in the same way that thousands of scientist opposed to the method of establishment of the theory can't.
However, it does not mean that these tests and "observations" were in keeping with good science.
We still disagree, and I still see no conflict between the Genesis account and good science, since the speculations regarding large scale evolution is nothing more than faith in the theory.

You cannot fight what is supported by evidence, when you have no evidence to support your claims. That is really the conclusion you are avoiding here. The only way that a person can miss the contradictions between reality and Genesis is if that person neither understands Genesis nor science.

Negative. I have not only read Genesis, but I have studied it. I suggest you have only dione the former.

Then it is strange that you do not know of this well-known fact of the out of order sequence of creation claimed by the Bible. Are you sure you studied these things?

I don't believe you can tell me you know what did and did not happen within the last twenty million years... with certainty.
Then you must also be able to tell me with certainty the entire history of the earth - including what exactly happened to the dinosaurs.
Can you?

I know the studies and they provide ample evidence and support for the conclusions that I have no reason to ignore or reject. They are sound work and the conclusion lead from the evidence. It is very good science.

The myth of evolution is simply the story created to explain the diversity of life on earth, by using simple everyday processes seen today (reproduction, adaptation, speciation), along with assumption made about similarity in features and traits in the living and dead, and then extrapolating that.

This is pure fantasy. It is the evidence that lead to the theory. You can deny it and provide a false narrative, but only those like yourself are going to buy into it. Anyone with a little knowledge and the ability to think and learn critically and objectively can easily determine the truth for themselves and that what you spin is not anywhere near that truth.

The theory has been long refuted, by the Cambrian, and other evidence, which destroyed the slow process evolution, resulting in die hard supporters of the theory to create a number of hypothetical to adjust the theory to fit the evidence - instead of going where the evidence led.

You will have to provide your best evidence to support these claims. You better get going, you have a lot of work to do, because you keep loading claim after claim into the hopper and still have not supported any of them.

The Cambrian explosion does not refute the theory of evolution. Why would it? You got some splainin' to do Lucy. You do realize that the Cambrian Explosion took place over many millions of years and did not just happen over night? Right? No. Probably you haven't a clue.

What other evidence. The same mysterious evidence that goes unspoken, but manages to support everything you believe?

This is not a creationist agenda. You lost scientists and atheist both, who saw problems with a "theory in crisis".
Many evolutionists and atheist - not Creationists, saw the reality of the situation.

There are scientists that have turned to their faith and reject the theory on that basis. People like you, except with degrees and knowledge. But they are your equal, since they base their rejection on belief and not on the facts. Even the 1000 scientists that signed that so called "Dissent from Darwin" list did not say they rejected the theory. They claim to be skeptical of natural selection, but skeptical is what scientists are and that does not mean rejection. You sound like you are flinging everything in desperation in hopes that something sticks to the wall. Good luck. Nothing has stuck yet.

Many biologist work without evolution. Evolution theory is new, not biology.
That's just another way of taking facts, and trying to prop up a theory.
It's rejected by many, and will continue to be, regardless of who props it up, and calls it well established.

Evolution has been around for several hundred years. Even the theory that Darwin formulated is over 150 years old. But that does not refute the fact that the theory of evolution is foundational to modern biology.

What does it mean that many biologist work without the theory of evolution? That says nothing. It means nothing. Not everything in biology requires direct reference to the theory, but neither does every study in physics require direct reference to Newton and Einstein.

Gay marriage is well established too.

Congratulations to the both of you.

No, that is not the case.
There is good reason for not putting faith in a theory - such as you have done - which is not based on supportive evidence, but more so speculation... simply to support a idea formed a little over 150 years ago.
As I stated before, both Evolutionist and Atheist have left that faith.

I have not put faith in the theory, but you are welcome to try and pass something off. In fact it is your obligation to support it. Though you cannot. A theory is accepted based on the evidence, predictive power of the theory and the ability to explain. That is the basis on which I accept the theory of evolution and it is a very, very solid basis. Science is not like your faith-based view of the world. It is not a belief system that you get to pick and choose and pretend.

The theory is based on a vast volume of evidence that has been growing for over 150 years and continues to grow. Do you realize that more than 20,000 papers are published annually, that directly or indirectly apply or provide support for the theory. How you can keep saying this lie is beyond me, considering the evidence. Perhaps it is ignorance, but by now, it would be hard to convince me you are not just being deceitful.

What faith have evolutionists and atheists left. Atheists have no faith to leave. People that study or accept the theory of evolution come from many different faiths or none at all. Another meaningless claim that you will not support. It is a thing with you, to claim and run. Have you ever thought about using your mind and learning about the actual science and not what some church website tells you to regurgitate?

Scientists accept or reject theories on the basis of the logic, reason, evidence, explanatory and predictive power and not based on faith. You truly know nothing about science and I am not sure why you keep pretending you do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You probably would include Jesus and his apostles in that.

Insults and putting words in my mouth are not facts in support of anything.

The reason Jesus' disciples understood and did things Jesus did, is because they were taught by him - they learned by his teachings and example.
Today, I have seen people become electricians, and artisans without going to any school.
How did they learn? Simply by being with, and learning from their fellow brothers in the faith... and by putting it into practice.
These are persons between teen years, and past middle age - many of whom had little education. They are so skilled, their work receives high praise.

Did they learn that false witness was a sin and a violation of the Commandments? I would say they did. I certainly did.

I wonder if people really study these things or if they just inhale indoctrination and fool themselves into believing it is study.

Hey, what do you know... Look how Paul viewed it.
Philippians 3:8
What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ

Paul, you ignorant man you.
No, like many today, young and old, they use their common sense, and appreciate the value of God's word, the Bible... unlike some.

Creationists are notorious for making claims about science, while revealing that they know nothing about science. It is an easily observable phenomenon and it can be seen in this thread. Christ never told people not to learn. Christ did not say that you have to give up the knowledge of observation, reason and logic in order to follow him. That is what you are trying to do, by twisting the words of the Bible to mean something they do not. You have turned the Bible into an ode to ignorance that it is not. What a shame. Sad really.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why don't you know of any? What is your excuse, since there are thousands of websites on the subject?

I know of many websites and I have read on the subject extensively. None of the creationist websites provide evidence that holds up. Most are just copying and regurgitating old and well-refuted claims. That means they all support each other, but when trapped in the same house of cards, I would expect that. Why do you not know this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not unethical, dishonest, closed-minded, or anything else to suggest that data is solid but data interpretation is wrong. This is true whether we're looking at bad Bible interpretation or bad scientific assumptions.

It is if you suggest it when it is not true. It is if that is used as an excuse, because the evidence and valid, logical conclusions about that evidence do not go where a creationist wants them to go.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually, I consider that ducking and dodging. I have much more respect for people who take the Bible literally, than people who pick and choose and still end up as Creationists.

It is a way to retain their beliefs and find acceptance of science that they cannot deny. It is the same problem, when they start using their belief to address issues of physical reality, though. There is no rational, intelligent way to justify a belief as the explanation for physical phenomena.