1. 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!

Featured Who Knew....?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Deeje, Sep 25, 2017.

  1. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,139
    Ratings:
    +7,171
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    God is a living being but he has no material form. He is the originator of matter......the only one who could impart life to others, material or otherwise. He dwells in a realm that science has not been able to detect with their present knowledge.

    Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist. They just wish he would go away....but he is not going anywhere.

    Not as short as your apparently.

    The Bible states that "light" came before anything on earth. Where do you suppose this light came from? When clouds cover the sun, there is still light even though we cannot see the sun itself. We still know its daytime....right?

    As the earth was being prepared, the sun was there all along because "the heavens and the earth" were created in one event. (Genesis 1:1)

    Birds do pre-date land animals. Birds are older than you think. Just when you are confident that science had pinned something down.....along comes somebody with a different story and a new fossil. [​IMG]

    https://phys.org/news/2015-05-early-bird-avian-clock.html

    [​IMG] You're funny....."basic academic honesty" is suggestion masquerading as science. [​IMG]

    Are you trying to tell us that science isn't fudging the truth by using vague language to cover themselves because of a lack of real evidence? If science is going to call something a fact, (and many do) I expect that they will be able to prove it....not merely suggest something and then get all bent out of shape when their evidence is questioned. [​IMG]

    This is the introduction to a New Scientist article entitled....

    "Timeline: The evolution of life.

    There are all sorts of ways to reconstruct the history of life on Earth. Pinning down when specific events occurred is often tricky, though. For this, biologists depend mainly on dating the rocks in which fossils are found, and by looking at the “molecular clocks” in the DNA of living organisms.

    There are problems with each of these methods. The fossil record is like a movie with most of the frames cut out. Because it is so incomplete, it can be difficult to establish exactly when particular evolutionary changes happened.

    Modern genetics allows scientists to measure how different species are from each other at a molecular level, and thus to estimate how much time has passed since a single lineage split into different species. Confounding factors rack up for species that are very distantly related, making the earlier dates more uncertain.

    These difficulties mean that the dates in the timeline should be taken as approximate. As a general rule, they become more uncertain the further back along the geological timescale we look. Dates that are very uncertain are marked with a question mark."

    Timeline: The evolution of life

    This demonstrates just how much guesswork goes into slotting things into an timeline. Not really an exact science, is it?
    This is the kind of honesty I appreciate....it is rare however. [​IMG]

     
  2. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,823
    Ratings:
    +5,394
    So God had to come from life, right?
     
  3. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,823
    Ratings:
    +5,394
    So you're saying the Bible is wrong and God created the stars BEFORE he created light?

    Except the Bible explicitly states that the stars (and "the greater light to govern the day") were created on the fourth day:

    Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

    You do realise that this bird doesn't pre-date land animals, right? The earliest land animals are dated to over 300 million years ago.

    "The crown group age of the extant Tetrapoda (the amniote–amphibian divergence) dates to the late Devonian, 367.5 Ma (95% HPD = 354.9–380.6 Ma)."

    Divergence Time Estimation Using Fossils as Terminal Taxa and the Origins of Lissamphibia | Systematic Biology | Oxford Academic
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,884
    Er...let me see...I am "self-centred" and "full of myself" because I failed to agree with your negative assessment of atheists and your interpretation of scripture...and you point this out in the interests of finding "peace" and "common ground"? I have some bad news for you - there is no common ground to be found between us in regard to this discussion. But there is peace - you don't like me because I disagree with you and I am perfectly at peace with that. Peace be with you too my brother! :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,139
    Ratings:
    +7,171
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Oh dear....comprehension skills need tuning?

    God is not human.....do you get that? On this planet, all life must come from pre-existing life, unless you know of a life that didn't and you can prove it by more than suggestion....?

    We are speaking about entities that occupy a realm where time and matter do not exist. We have no idea about the nature of the Creator....all we know is what is written in scripture....writings that have existed through thousands of years of human history despite all attempts to destroy it.

    Take this passage from Daniel for a glimpse into that realm.....

    "On the 24th day of the first month, while I was on the bank of the great river, the Tiʹgris, 5 I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen, and around his waist was a belt of gold from Uʹphaz. 6 His body was like chrysʹo·lite, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like fiery torches, his arms and his feet looked like burnished copper, and the sound of his words was like the sound of a multitude." (Daniel 10:4-6)

    Like other Bible writers who were granted such visions, Daniel struggled to describe in human terms what he was seeing.
    We see these kinds of things in sci-fi movies, but these descriptions are thousands of years old.

    Once more for the dummies......:confused:

    Genesis 1:14-19....
    "Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

    Read this passage and see what Moses wrote. Also remember that the description of creation was given from the perspective of an earth dweller with no knowledge of the heavenly bodies in a scientific sense.

    God did not "create" the sun, moon and stars, but "made" them shine on the earth. Whatever was not allowing these luminaries to be visible from the earth was now removed and it appeared as if God put them there. But the rest of Genesis says they were there all along. You are reading the words with no discernment whatsoever.

    You know how much I love links.......:D

    The Abstract of that piece is hilarious......so full of jargon that the average person would just assume it was right because scientists who are supposed to know what they are talking about, wrote it......but check this out....read what it really says, rather than what you assume it says....

    "Were molecular data available for extinct taxa, questions regarding the origins of many groups could be settled in short order. As this is not the case, various strategies have been proposed to combine paleontological and neontological data sets. The use of fossil dates as node age calibrations for divergence time estimation from molecular phylogenies is commonplace. In addition, simulations suggest that the addition of morphological data from extinct taxa may improve phylogenetic estimation when combined with molecular data for extant species, and some studies have merged morphological and molecular data to estimate combined evidence phylogenies containing both extinct and extant taxa. However, few, if any, studies have attempted to estimate divergence times using phylogenies containing both fossil and living taxa sampled for both molecular and morphological data. Here, I infer both the phylogeny and the time of origin for Lissamphibia and a number of stem tetrapods using Bayesian methods based on a data set containing morphological data for extinct taxa, molecular data for extant taxa, and molecular and morphological data for a subset of extant taxa. The results suggest that Lissamphibia is monophyletic, nested within Lepospondyli, and originated in the late Carboniferous at the earliest. This research illustrates potential pitfalls for the use of fossils as post hoc age constraints on internal nodes and highlights the importance of explicit phylogenetic analysis of extinct taxa. These results suggest that the application of fossils as minima or maxima on molecular phylogenies should be supplemented or supplanted by combined evidence analyses whenever possible."

    The first paragraph of the article continues.....

    "As many as 50 billion species, up to 99.9% of all organisms that have ever existed, have gone extinct (Raup 1993) and cannot be included in phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data."

    Hang on.....if "99.9% of all organisms that have ever existed...cannot be included in phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data", what is science basing its data on? 0.1% of living things? [​IMG]

    "However, these taxa can potentially provide a rich source of information regarding the origins of extant groups based on their age and phylogenetic position. A major goal of systematics is to produce an accurate “time tree” of life, describing the relationships between organisms (both extant and extinct), and their dates of origin (e.g., Kumar and Hedges 1998, Benton and Ayala 2003, Donoghue and Benton 2007, Hedges and Kumar 2009)."

    So this "tree of life" is hoping to be accurate with a completely inaccurate data base? This is clearly guesswork masquerading as science!....

    It continues......

    "However, the occasionally incomplete nature of the synthesis of paleontological and neontological data in molecular divergence time estimation has been noted by many authors, as fossils are usually applied only as broad minima or maxima on internal nodes (e.g., Benton and Ayala 2003, Müller and Reisz 2005, Donoghue and Benton 2007, Parham and Irmis 2008). New approaches are needed for more accurate divergence time estimation to extract not only temporal but also phylogenetic information from paleontological data sets, as previous studies have typically done only one or the other (e.g., Kumar and Hedges 1998, Gatesy et al. 2003).

    You can continue reading the rest of this made-up rubbish.....but it is science shooting itself in the foot, rather than those who advocate for Intelligent Design making a better argument. They don't need us to point out the flaws in the theory....scientists already do it themselves, except that it is masked by the jargon. I guess they hope you won't notice how much guesswork is used to support their agenda.

    You will believe in the writings of your science 'gods' because you want to.....not because their evidence is in any way, "overwhelming". When you read what their evidence is based on, it is conversely completely "underwhelming" IMO. The readers can make up their own minds. [​IMG]
     
  6. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,993
    Ratings:
    +1,711
    then it's all a dishonest hoax in your eyes?

    what about hominids?
     
  7. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,139
    Ratings:
    +7,171
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    The hoax is perpetrated on science itself and those who are led by a different spirit to assume that there is no design to creation, and therefore no Designer.

    Who wants us to disbelieve in a Creator? Science has no real fish to fry in this issue, but the one who is behind this agenda (there is no God) has them all chasing after their tails. They get so noxious when you dare to question the science....but unless you do, they get away with murder......the killing of God.....not in reality of course, but in the hearts and minds of those who would rather not answer to him for anything. (Matthew 7:13-14)

    This question is bigger than science......it is bigger than mankind. If there is no Creator, then there is no future for the human race. How long will it be before we make life extinct on this planet, if left to our own devices?

    The Creator did not go to all this trouble for nothing....he has a purpose to our existence, and a reason for our current situation.....we have a hope for the future based on his promises. Evolution gives us no reasons for anything.....no purpose to our existence and no hope for the future at all. We are left to put our faith in men. [​IMG]

    What about them? Have you done any research yourself?

    [​IMG]

    evolution the human story pics - Google Search

    [​IMG]

    If you do, you will find that they blur the line between apes and humans. Look at these reconstructed faces.
    Which of them is clearly human and which are clearly apes? Do you understand that science cannot really tell the difference from the fossils they have found? Fossils are few and far between and do not really tell them anything much.

    According to science, this is how early man looked.....
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    early humans - Google Search

    Evolutionary science assumes that this is a true picture of what evolving humans looked like. But the truth is they only assume this to be true based on their theory. There is not a shred of real evidence that early humans were not exactly the same as we are now. Primitive people still exist in this modern world.....what does that prove? Apes have been here longer than us....but it doesn't make them our ancestors.

    Having similarities does not mean relationship. Just because apes have a similar frame to humans, does not mean that they are related to us in a line of descent. There is no way to prove that evolution like this ever took place. That is the hoax.
     
    #107 Deeje, Oct 11, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  8. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,823
    Ratings:
    +5,394
    When you say "Life can only come from life" you are including God as a form of life. So, according to you, there is a form of life that doesn't come from life: God.

    Do you understand how your rule doesn't work now?

    How Christ-like you are in your countenance.

    I love how you've literally emphasized all the least important parts of this passage and deliberately de-emphasized the one that utterly contradicts you:

    16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.


    I admire your skill in completely ignoring the subject being addressed and spinning any and all writing into an obtuse little ball.

    Here's the point, and the fact:

    Land animals pre-date birds. This directly contradicts the Bible. Ergo, the Bible is wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,993
    Ratings:
    +1,711
    all the research I've done is from an evolutionary perspective. it leaves me short on logic.

    I actually would like to balance it off with counter science.

    but a lot of the counterscience is young earth creationists, that sounds fantastical and hard to swallow.
     
  10. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    10,640
    Ratings:
    +5,084
    It's called honesty and integrity. This is why you need to pay attention when people try to explain how science works. Part of writing a scientific study/article includes pointing out the potential flaws with the study or with the evidence, or areas where complete information is lacking so that other scientists working on the subject may be aware and may build upon the existing information and/or present an updated understanding of the available data. Science is always open to change, given new information. (And keep in mind, this is only one single article.) I’ll ask again … Can you say the same about your beliefs and your point of view? Because I don’t see it. Which is fine, believe whatever you want. But you don’t get to denigrate and impugn people who spend their lives studying, compiling and sharing empirical data in the most honest way possible because you don’t like the data they’ve produced and you imagine they’re up to something sinister, though you have yet to actually demonstrate anything like that. You speak in absolutes about the god you believe in, at times you claim to know what this god wants, while at other times claiming that we cannot know what this god wants. All the while you have yet to demonstrate that any god even exists in the first place. Yet when people provide information about things that we know actually exist, you ignore the parts that contradict your never-changing religious views that are based on an ancient book written by people who knew far less than we do about the world we live in. And then you have the audacity to claim that you’re on equal footing with the scientific method.

    This is the language of science. It’s not absolute. It can (and should) change when new information is discovered. We should all be doing this anyway. That’s if we actually care about finding out as many true things about our world as we possibly can.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,991
    Ratings:
    +787
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    You don't see. If you said you were blind, you would see and I would see.

    You sought no peace, and sought an argument, so you didn't have perfect peace. Perfect peace people read a post and move on.

    I DO like you. But your Bible doctrine is VERY poor. If you saw that, you would see.

    If you said there MUST be some common ground to us in ANY discussion rather than there is NO common ground to us in a Bible discussion, you would see.
     
  12. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,884
    Ah! So in addition to being "self-centred" and "full of myself" I am also "blind" and have VERY (in capitals) poor Bible doctrine...we do seem to have something in common after all! :p
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    30,020
    Ratings:
    +11,010
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    Interesting comment, Siti.
     
  14. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,139
    Ratings:
    +7,171
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Until you really understand what they are claiming with no real evidence to back up a thing that they are 'suggesting' or 'implying', you will swallow what they say, because of who is saying it. These are supposed to be intelligent people with an advanced education....but an education in what I have to ask.....? Who taught them these things? Preaching to the converted is not exactly the way to a rounded out education. If you question the validity of their theory, their egos take a battering and they start with the personal put downs in retaliation. That is a poor substitute for actual evidence IMO.

    Feel free to check these out if you wish.....

    The Origin of Life—5 Questions Worth Asking

    Was Life Created?

    This is one of the reasons why I began to disbelieve in creation when I was a member of one of Christendom's churches.....creationism has some good arguments, but I felt they came unstuck by clinging to the notion that the creative days had to be 24 hours long and that the universe was only 6,000 years old! I heard one person claim that dinosaurs were on the ark! That is clearly nonsense.

    But when investigating evolution, I saw bigger holes than what I saw in creationism.....I knew there had to be some meeting in the middle somewhere......and there was. It all now makes logical sense to me and I didn't have to ditch either true science or the Bible. :)
     
  15. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,139
    Ratings:
    +7,171
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    I'm sorry, but "honesty and integrity" means telling the truth....not promoting suggestions as provable facts. If your theory is not provable, then stop teaching it to school children who are then indoctrinated for life to accept it as fact. That is then transferred over to university and permeates every science course there is. But the truth is, it never was a fact and it never will be. Facts don't change...they are indisputable.

    When is that language of supposition ever pointed out to students? It is glossed over as if everything said was absolute truth. Have you noticed that advertising agencies use exactly the same kind of language when selling products that are probably useless? "This product "may help" prevent wrinkles".....they don't come right out and say it probably won't.....but the suggestion is planted and because the consumer wants to believe that it is true, they will filter out the language that says otherwise. Its subtle, but its there. Evolutionary science counts on it.

    Then what it taught before wasn't fact. Facts can't change.

    Oh, but I do get to denigrate something that I believe is the most gigantic fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. The scientists themselves are as hoodwinked as their students, passing on the same misinformation that was passed onto them. The Bible calls that "misleading and being misled"......."the blind leading the blind".

    It is a classic example of the emperor's New Clothes......the Emperor thinks he is regaled in something splendid, but in truth, he is naked.

    [​IMG]
    Google search Emperor's New Clothes

    All the while I have been saying the same thing.....you have no more real evidence for evolution than we have for our Creator. You guys claim to have all this 'overwhelming evidence' and yet I haven't seen anything even remotely approaches actual evidence of any sort. You have a lot of suggestions and great diagrams, but nothing more real than supposition.

    My audacity comes from not claiming that I have anything but my God-given senses and eyes to see what is right under my nose. These cannot be overturned by a fictional story, no matter how well the plot is concocted. My view is never changing because there can only be one truth, not an ever changing list of maybe's.

    That being the case...macro-evolution should be taught as a theory and NOT as an established, indisputable fact.
    That has been my argument all along......tell the truth to students. Let them entertain an alternative view as if it isn't a threat to world order. :confused:
     
  16. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    10,640
    Ratings:
    +5,084
    So you don’t think that doing a bunch of tedious research and then openly publishing it to be criticized and picked apart by one’s peers and anyone else who cares to read it is not an honest way to present evidence?

    For the umpteenth time, scientific theories aren’t ever “proven.” They are demonstrated to be the most accurate explanation available that best fits the available evidence. As you should know by now, a scientific theory is the highest level that can be reached by any scientific explanation. They don’t graduate into laws or anything else. A scientific theory is a “well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.”
    Scientific theory - Wikipedia

    It is a fact that evolution occurs. The theory of evolution provides an explanation as to how it occurs and the processes involved.


    It’s taught to children in science classrooms because it is the currently accepted theory that explains the diversity of life on earth, and has been for many decades. Do you suggest they should teach non-scientific things in science classrooms?

    Funny that you should say that because I actually went to university. It’s where I learned how to critically analyze and pick apart scientific papers. It’s where I learned how to write scientific papers and it’s how I know that scientific papers include sections where the author discusses potential flaws or errors with their work and further work that still needs to be done on the subject matter. If you don’t think that’s honest then I submit that you don’t know what honesty is.

    Have you been to university? Which science courses did you take?

    See my comment directly above this one.

    You can’t have it both ways Deeje. You can’t say that scientists posit ideas like they’re absolute truth and at the same time assert that they speak in the language of supposition. That argument doesn’t make a lick of sense.

    Evolutionary science counts on the evidence. And there are mountains of it.

    What was “taught before?”

    Your belief is based on false information that has been pointed out to you over the last few hundred pages of this thread. What you’ve said here is unsubstantiated garbage. You and me and anyone else can go and check out scientific studies ourselves and we can pour through their references and look those up as well, and make sure they demonstrate what is claimed about the theory. And if they don’t, we’re free to publish our own papers and submit our own evidence, provided we follow scientific methodology. Can you think of anything more open and honest than that?

    The Bible was written by people who knew far less about the world than we currently do and the writers of the Bible had no idea what the scientific method is.

    Nonsense.

    And all the while, you’ve been wrong. Unless you have some empirical evidence you’d like to present that demonstrates the existence of your god. Pictures of flowers and turtles doesn’t cut it. You expect more from the scientific community than that, so it’s only fair that you hold yourself to the same standards you expect from others.

    This song and dance is getting really old. You’ve been given a ton of evidence. The fact that you’ve chosen to ignore it, doesn’t erase it.

    This is silly Deeje. You can’t expect that human beings have known, or could know, every single thing about the natural world since the dawn of our existence. That’s unreasonable.

    You’ve just made clear that you’re not really interested in discovering as many truths as possible about our world, or you’d be open to new knowledge and evidence. You’re obviously quite comfortable with your preconceived notions.

    The fictional stories are contained in the Bible.

    The theory of evolution is taught as a scientific theory in science classrooms.

    People can entertain religious ideas in religion classrooms or at church.
     
    #116 SkepticThinker, Oct 12, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,139
    Ratings:
    +7,171
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Peer review is a joke. That is like creationists reviewing the work of other creationists. All peer review is done by evolutionists. The nit picking is in the detail. Who cares about the detail if the premise is false to begin with?

    I have seen nothing that remotely resembles facts. Supposition is guesswork. Nothing that can change tomorrow is "reliable". The real world tells us so much more than a fanciful theory ever could.

    It is a fact that adaptation occurs. That is the only real evidence science has. However, adaptation has never been observed outside of a single species. There is no proof that the "process" can go any further than creating minor changes to facilitate feeding or camouflage. Both having to do with survival. This is what Darwin observed....adaptation...which only produces variety within a species.

    No, I am suggesting that if something cannot be proven that it not be taught in school at all. That includes religion. That is the kind of instruction that needs to be given at home under parental supervision.

    If science can only suggest how something "might have" or "could have" taken place, then emphasis should be placed on the suggestive nature of the argument. It never is.

    I went onto art school actually. My interest in science was not academic. I was not subject to that kind of indoctrination, thankfully. My excursions into science were from reading literature on the subject. It didn't take me long to uncover the ruse. The articles sound OK (especially when couched in scientific terminology) until you realize what it is actually saying.....which isn't much.

    It does when you see how language is manipulated to say one thing whilst meaning something else entirely.
    If you call science out on its "suggestions", it claims that it was just being honest. If it was honest, it would be up front to start with.

    The "mountains" are a suggestion, like everything else in evolutionary science. The molehills that they produce are easily taken down. People are told repeatedly that there is "overwhelming evidence" for macro-evolution....but that is not true. The evidence is for adaptation......science 'suggests' that it went much further than their experiments can go......but that is based entirely on supposition.

    Something initially believed, but later turned out not to be true.

    I am hoping that they will check out those studies....but now with a more critical eye to look for the language of supposition masquerading as evidence. They will see how much real evidence is presented and how much their biased interpretation influences their findings. The fox is in guarding the henhouse.

    The Bible is not written as a science textbook. It would have defeated its purpose if it was. But simple explanations are the ones people most commonly understand. When things are explained in simple language there is little chance for misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Add scientific jargon and evolution can sound so convincing, but put evolution into simple language and it becomes hilarious! When you can't hide behind the jargon, the suggestions become more incredible than Intelligent Design.

    There is that word again...."empirical". The "pictures" are empirical, since they talk to the senses. The real thing is even more so. You can see them, feel them, smell them, taste them and hear them.....What do the fossils do? What are they saying that isn't science just putting words in their mouths?

    I have never ignored real evidence ST. I have ignored the musings of science, skewed to support an unprovable belief. That is your belief system, not mine.

    I am very interested in discovering the truth.....I am just not interested in science's concocted fairy tale. I love science as it seeks to discover the miraculous things in nature......but I will never attribute those miracles to the blind forces of chance or "nature". I always refer back to the one who created those forces and nature itself.

    As are you.

    You and I both know that this is not true. It is taught as established fact. That is teaching a lie to young and impressionable children, which to me is unconscionable. It sets them up for life to believe that lie. It is designed to destroy faith.

    People should be able to learn things that are true in the education system. Science facts are a far cry from the science fiction of evolution.

    What they learn at home is up to their parents.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  18. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,993
    Ratings:
    +1,711
    [/QUOTE]
    where does your God play a role in nature? and how does your God exist? if you dont mind me asking.
    there must be evidence for your God somewhere?
     
  19. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,555
    Ratings:
    +7,861
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    There are two sides of this discussion, which are most often points of contention. The scientific view of the nature of our physical existence and evolution, and Creationist views, which often consider science to be in conflict with their religious belief.

    I hold the view of the harmony of science and Creation by God. The physical evidence is very real, objective and factual that science uses with scientific methods for the knowledge of science. It would a real contradiction problem if one would consider Creation by God in conflict with the evidence.

    Therefore the best coherent belief is the underlying Natural Laws are God's Laws, and God Creates by natural methods that are not in conflict with science.

    The contentious and combative view of many Creationists against science just invites justified ridicule from scientists, atheists and agnostics.
     
  20. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,993
    Ratings:
    +1,711
    that clarifies that. Thankyou!
     
Loading...