Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep, they “believe” whatever science ‘suggests’ and treat it like it was gospel truth. No proof required......just their interpretation of the evidence, accepted as if it can’t be questioned. If that doesn’t make science a ‘religion’, I don’t know what does.

Of course this is not true. People that understand science are not jumping on a bandwagon. They are following the evidence.

However, we are seeing the opposite of that. People like you and your friend that do not understand science and treat it like magic, deny it and ignore it.

You consider everything to be a series of conspiracy theories. How much effort, intellect and critical thinking does that require?

An inconvenient truth....being fed incorrect assumptions can lead an entire body of proud, trained professionals to put lives at risk......today, whatever science proffers, has its devotees accepting without question, despite the fact that they can’t actually provide anything but suggestions as to how it all “must have” happened. Their precious theory cannot be tested in any real way, meaning that they must accept it all on faith. That is the definition of indoctrination....the pot calls the kettle, black.

This is complete garbage. You ignore reality in favor of this straw man. If it could not be tested, it would not be a scientific theory and it is a scientific theory.

The truth that you find inconvenient is that science does not fit any of the claims you make and manages to provide answers you do not like.

It is amusing that everything you are ranting against science with is all that applies to your position.

It is especially puzzling to me how “Christians” can jump on this atheist bandwagon. Having a foot in both camps appears to be some kind of each way bet.....is it an insurance policy of sorts? I guess we will see who gets the pay out.

There is not atheist bandwagon that Christians are jumping on. Why the quotes around Christian? Oh, that is right. Christians are not Christian unless they are JW. I forgot that nonsense.

Science is not an atheist position. Science is a methodology to examine the world. You know. God's creation. The one that you deny.

You only have to see how successful one little virus has been to understand that biological weapons are much more effective than anything in the military’s hardware. Looking at the empty streets and businesses of once bustling cities demonstrates how quickly things can change globally.....no one thought that this was even possible. But the warnings have been there for many years....those darn conspiracy theories.

What does this have to do with your claims about science.

Science is required for you to even know that viruses even exist. Without science you would be smearing yourself with dove blood and cursing the afflicted.

Yep, the school systems are designed to flush out the geniuses so that they can be groomed for future use, educated in universities to carry on the agenda. All indoctrinated with godless evolution so that there is no one to answer to when they are designing their next biological weapon or their next technological masterpiece. Our brains are being turned to mush but no one seems to notice, or to ask why? The general public do not really know why 5G is being pushed so hard. They will find out, if they have any grey cells left....no one can stop what is coming, those who trust in God will not need to try. He has it all under control....everything is happening just as he said it would.

Bring it on....I look forward to what comes after it’s all over.

More conspiracy theories that have no evidence laced into arguments about science that does have evidence.

Your entire position is an emotional assertion based on your adherence to a sect doctrine that has no basis in fact or the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So....Axe, Behe, Meyer, Minnich, Wells, etc.....they don’t “understand science”?

I was speaking mainly of deniers like yourself. Those that do not understand science, but deny it solely on the basis of a doctrine that demands a specific interpretation of a religious text even if that is not required to follow the text. The people that eat the cookbook rather than enjoy the message of the book.

I always get the impression that you would really find science interesting and your denial of it would not be there if you were not trying to assuage the demands of the particular sect you chose to join. I understand. In for a penny, in for a pound. But you should at least have the courage to acknowledge that is the real reason you deny science and not these straw man arguments that have been shown to be false so often it is ridiculous to see them come up over and over.

The people you mention here may have an understanding of science, but they have allowed indoctrination and desire to cloud their judgement. For some, faith is weak and they need evidence to shore up their flagging belief. Others of them are zealots that have been sucked into a movement. Accept it all no matter what. Or like you, they are intelligent and interested in science, but their particular sect makes ridiculous, baseless demands that they must follow or be kicked out.

Of course for everyone of these you name, there are literally thousands of scientists that do not let belief cloud their intellectual honesty. Of course, you find ways to demean them and write them off with a wave of the hand.

Maybe they’re just not hampered by a system that automatically excludes an Intelligent Being, ie., God.

Science does not automatically exclude God. Science is honest and admits there is no evidence that can be tested to support or deny God. I realize that it is convenient to your position to make this unsupported claim, but it is a claim and not a truth.

I know, by your religious view (Methodist), that you don’t completely...but you are basically supporting a system that can’t even allow for Something that can’t be falsified.

I am not sure that this even makes sense or what exactly you are trying to say. How can a system that is designed to examine and find answers about physical reality include belief that cannot be tested? In essence, you are saying that you would condemn a one-armed person for refusing to shake your hand. Following this, you would condemn a blind child for not seeing the hand in front of his or her face.

I do think that were you not fettered by your dogma, you would express an honest interest in science, but I am disappointed that you take such fierce effort to reject it based on a sect doctrine. If the world is the creation of God, then trying to understand it is a praise of God. I cannot understand why you reject that in favor of what men have told you to believe.

Researchers in other fields of science, including archeology & anthropology, recognize intelligence sources behind integrated parts; even though the builder may be unknown, they still recognize design as having an intelligent cause.... it’s empiricism.

They recognize human intelligence. The only intelligence we have evidence for. They do not look at something and claim intelligence as a belief without evidence. Isn't it interesting that your examples support the argument for science, yet you use them to deny science?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It’s all around you. From the design observed in the finely-tuned 4 fundamental forces, to the Earth’s nitrogen, water & oxygen / carbon cycles, to the design of the disparate living cells — all harmoniously working together....

If all this is evidence to show the existence of a designer, then why are there more plausible explanations for it that cannot be refuted.

The natural cycles are a consequence of the physical laws. Some of them are dependent on both the abiotic and biotic world and would be different under different conditions. They are evidence of the physical laws and this can be tested, but there is no means to show a designer using them.

The big picture tells it. Newton saw it...so did Boyle...so did Einstein. Etc.

Evidence that people believe in things. Not evidence that which is believed exists.

A list of famous atheist scientists would only be a list of atheists and not evidence that what they deny is correct either.

But most today, don’t. You don’t. Why? Because of Evolution. As Huxley stated, there was another explanation.

I do not claim to see evidence for something where the evidence does not exist. It is belief in God and not denial of His creation.

I believe and believed long before I learned and understood evolution. Learning it did not eliminate my belief. It changed my understanding. It opened up my eyes to the creation that I live in.

You have turned science into a bogeyman, because it contradicts the doctrine of the men that created your sect. Not because it is some atheist plot to deny God. It is not an atheist plot. It does not deny God.

Your straw man argument of Huxley does not hold water as I have already shown.

You would release your interest in science if you were not bound up by a doctrine that need not exist in order to know God.

And you just helped to prove my point.

No, I have not. Quite the opposite, your continued emotional arguments without evidence proves my point at every step along the way.

If you really looked at what @Deeje has done on here, it all amounts to puppies are cute, therefore God. That is an assertion and nothing more. No evidence. No logic. Pure emotional assertion and all done to appease a doctrine and not reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL....nowhere is this more apparent than when you mention abiogenesis to an evolutionist.....they run away and protest that it’s not their field....like it is somehow disconnected to the subject matter. No point in arguing against a Creator if you have no real idea about how “life” originated. They know by experience that in all instances “life comes from pre-existing life”....except when it comes to the very first form of it. Did it magically pop into existence one day for no apparent reason?
Any wonder they run away.....”no answer came the loud reply”.



And the sheeples just go along, trusting in every word...they have been conned into trusting the most untrustworthy of people on earth. Perception management at its finest.

The governance of nations on this planet has been one dismal failure after another. Science is used by unscrupulous governments to make all of us dependent on the system to supply our every need....there is nothing on this earth (food, water air.....even human bodies) that is not contaminated by artificial chemicals, produced by scientists for financial gain at the expense of public health. Sadly, most of us have lost the ability to sustain our own lives without them. And the introduction of fast food has led nations into a planned form of ill health that feeds the drug companies with customers for life. People are literally digging a grave with their teeth. How did this happen? They played on our laziness, our trust (albeit somewhat eroded) and our gullibility. Who really believes that doctors want to cure diseases when their livelihoods depend on us being sick?

Nuclear and biological weapons could not exist without science. Chemical pesticides and herbicides could not exist without science. GMO's could not exist without science. There are many skeletons in its closet....but it only brings out its best.



Indeed. Real science and the Bible do not disagree, though many assume that they do. A proper reading of Genesis reveals that the 7 "days" of creation were not literal days but eons of undisclosed time. That allows for all that science knows about the age of the earth and its many creatures which pre-date man. The Bible says that life began in the water....so does science....but with a different interpretation.



Actually the Bible indicates that there will be an accounting when Jesus returns to fix up what the devil and his cronies have done down here.....those who have been persuaded to dump God in favor of many 'fortunate flukes' will know for sure that there is a purposeful Creator whom they have maligned and disrespected.



Where does this arrogance come from? You'd think that they knew everything about everything to become this cocky. Its not like they have an unblemished track record in being great custodians of this planet. So clever are they that now they possess the means to wipe out every living thing in existence and cook the planet in the process. All hail science....



Well, some of them don't know the meaning of the term.....PC is just words. They bluster forth every time they open their mouths, and promptly stick their foot in it.

You would very likely have died of disease or malnutrition as a child without science. You would not be using a computer and the internet to attack science, without science. You would likely not have reached advanced age with all the plenty you have enjoyed without science.

Condemning the means to acquire knowledge for how that knowledge is used is shooting the messenger and not solving problems.

 

[We Never Know]

You would very likely have died of disease or malnutrition as a child without science. You would not be using a computer and the internet to attack science, without science. You would likely not have reached advanced age with all the plenty you have enjoyed without science.

Condemning the means to acquire knowledge for how that knowledge is used is shooting the messenger and not solving problems.

What you say is true. No one should argue against that.
But... Do you think science is responsible for saving more lives or taking more lives?
Keep in mind science also brought us cigarettes, alcohol, guns, bombs, planes, trains, automobiles, poisons, pollution, drugs, poison gases, chemical mixtures(such as weed killers), many cancer causing agents, etc, etc.

Some people only see things with positive bias or negative bias.
They either only focus on the good and ignore the bad or vise-versa.

Take Trump for example. He has done good and bad. Republicans only focus on the good and ignore the bad while democrats only focus on the bad and ignore the good.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not have to put my credentials against him. His statements are incorrect so whether he is a professor or a priest does not matter. My credential is a lifetime working in the scientific field what is yours.

It is notable to see a science denier attack a supporter citing credentials, when that denier does not consider scientific credentials to mean anything in the first place.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did listen to him and have read his ideas and he makes significant errors in logic and understanding that someone familiar with current evolutionary theory should not make. Maybe he has credential in some aspect of science but it is not in evolution or worse knows about the ways genetics is understood today and intentionally leaves them out knowing the falsify his statements.

If it were not for the ID movement, no one would know who Meyer is.

 

[rational experiences]

You would very likely have died of disease or malnutrition as a child without science. You would not be using a computer and the internet to attack science, without science. You would likely not have reached advanced age with all the plenty you have enjoyed without science.

Condemning the means to acquire knowledge for how that knowledge is used is shooting the messenger and not solving problems.

If you did a human historical science assessment of life on Planet Earth, our human life began as a natural being....equal as stated intelligently. We had everything we needed.

And if you want to argue what is right and wrong, then do so...but do so correctly and not one sided.

One side is the history of a brotherhood of control civilization takeover of all states natural for the group self to impose strict group conditions, irrational, and owner of a history of chosen evils...science being at the top of that list.

Now you can say to any human with life choices, can you use science in a positive and meaningful agreement, involving lessons learnt. And of course you could have...many meaningful inventions supported a healthy bio diverse growing of food support...with little else involved but common sense. Inventions that could have used Earth natural power such as thermal. Instead science chooses to take natural, force it to change the natural state it expresses and then harm all life.

So you had a choice the whole time, and greed got in your way, just as you were warned.

Even today is the claim of human overpopulation...whilst humans throwing out enough scrap food to feed a nation should b ashamed of their selves...but aren't.

We are allowed today to support technology, because we have to pay for it....being the total life historic review....we always pay for it one way or another.

 

[We Never Know]

What do you mean, what am I talking about.

If you keep adding a chemical to an environment until half of a species is dead what you get are those individuals more resistant to the effects of that poison. This is not evolution; it is murder.




I said you belief in evolution is a circular argument.



There can be no theory without experiment.

This is the nature of our science. You can't change this by consensus, observation, logic, or decree. It is a simple fact and no experiment has ever shown a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest". You will ignore every single idea here and concentrate instead on semantics and word play. I suppose you can't understand me. I suppose once you order your beliefs in some way it becomes almost impossible to see new evidence or understand new logic.



See my sigline.

Nature does not intentionally create sick, weak, and lame. These are events rather than conditions. Like everything in life they occur suddenly. Yiou just ignore facts and every observation that fails to fit your beliefs.


Humans no longer are "evolving". At least not in any natural way. We are becoming slower, dim witted, and less able to think.


Individuals are a basket of abilities and potentialities. Where some would succeed others will fail. In almost any situation some will flourish. When you say some are more "fit" you are talking about a given environment and not a single individual. You see "rabbits" rather than a single individual.

All species are a basket of abilities and potentialities. Where some would succeed others will fail. In almost any situation some will flourish and some won't.

We call that natural selection.

 

[rational experiences]

All species are a basket of abilities and potentialities. Where some would succeed others will fail. In almost any situation some will flourish and some won't.

We call that natural selection.

Humans just live on Planet Earth as a life equal no matter what thoughts enter the mind of any thinker. And the day that you get taught that lesson is the day you never wanted.

 

[gnostic]

To me, that’s fascinating stuff! Thanks!

Now, what about after the Flood? What’s the Septuagint say?

I did the research some years ago, where I had research multiple sources on Genesis genealogy (Masoretic Text, the 2 Septuagint manuscripts - Alexandrinus and Vaticanus codices - Samaritan Torah, Vulgate, and the Syrian Peshiita, which I have recorded and calculated the generations of Genesis patriarchs in a MS Excel file.

But since I got a new PC (my old PC broke down), not everything I copied from my old hard drive to the portable hard drive, made to my new PC. So I am going to have find the Excel file from the original hard disk.

I will get back to you when I find them. I am too tired tonight to find them, so good night.

 

[gnostic]

There is no proof that you would accept, because you have thrown God into it.

Based on the speed of the continental drift they are moving so slow that it have taken million of years for them to move to where they are now based on the data we can see.
But its useless in regards to you, because God could have done it in just one day 5000 years ago and just make it look like it took millions, right?

So what is the point of trying to proof anything to you? that is why you don't allow God in a lab, because he can fiddle with all the data and make anything possible.

That is why I used the example with the aliens, It might be true, you can't proof that it isn't, right? That is equal to the stuff you are writing.

The Australian Tectonic is moving about 6 cm per year. So it take about 16.7 years to do 1 metre, and about 16,666.7 years to do just 1 kilometre.

Yes, it is bloody slow. The grass in my lawn grow faster and taller in one year! And I really hate mowing the lawn.

 

[dad]

There is no proof that you would accept, because you have thrown God into it.

There is no proof that you could produce, because you have thrown God out of it.

Based on the speed of the continental drift they are moving so slow that it have taken million of years for them to move to where they are now based on the data we can see.

Thanks for admitting that.

Fortunately we cannot base the movement of plates in the distant past to the present day speed of movement. Not unless there was a same state past, and of course you have failed to prove there was one. But you believe real hard, we get it.

But its useless in regards to you, because God could have done it in just one day 5000 years ago and just make it look like it took millions, right?

If I recall, Walt Brown thought the major move was in a day or so. I remember debating and listening to people who claimed that was impossible. The world would be steamed, etc. That was using present nature physics. That was actually part of the inspiration that helped me realize there had to be more than the present state at work. With a different nature in the past, it could happen. However, I have not found reasons to assume that the rapid separation took only one day. I would be fine if it took a whole week, or even months and possibly even years!

So what is the point of trying to proof anything to you? that is why you don't allow God in a lab, because he can fiddle with all the data and make anything possible.

All you need to do is prove it by using something that is not entirely circular and belief based. You do not prove nature was the same by looking at how things now work and using that as a basis to model the past. Yet that is all science does and has ever done.

 

[dad]

Now, what about after the Flood? What’s the Septuagint say?

Apparently, if we were to believe the Septuagint, it was not eight people on the ark that lived.

"“The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated,16 as they contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 [sic 14] years after the Flood” (Sarfati 2003, 14)"
Methuselah Primeval Chronology Septuagint

Why might the Septuagint be wrong on the chronology numbers, we might ask?

"While examining the date of Methuselah’s death in the LXX, we have necessarily introduced several issues closely connected to ascertaining the original figures given to Moses in Genesis 5 and 11. Since everyone agrees that the chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 was either inflated or deflated intentionally, someone in antiquity must necessarily be accused of altering many of the begetting ages by 100 years each (and by 50 in Nahor’s case). There are only two viable choices: either (1) the third-century BC Alexandrian Jews inflated the numbers during their translation of the Pentateuch into Greek, or (2) the second-century AD rabbinic Jews deflated the numbers in the few remaining Hebrew manuscripts that survived the Roman devastations of ca. 70 and 135 AD. There is no textual or external historical evidence from antiquity to support the LXX inflation hypothesis.16 However, evidence abounds that the rabbis in Israel (living in an age filled with chrono-messianic speculation) deflated the proto-MT’s primeval chronology in the second century AD to discredit Jesus’ messianic claims. In the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple and the horrors of the Bar Kochba revolt 65 years later, it became possible for the rabbis to amend their Hebrew manuscripts and hide the trail of evidence."
same link

One thing I can say is that no one lived past the flood except Noah and family.

 

[Nimos]

All you need to do is prove it by using something that is not entirely circular and belief based. You do not prove nature was the same by looking at how things now work and using that as a basis to model the past. Yet that is all science does and has ever done.

Based on what you are saying and science despite all the things it has participated in creating, you accepted airplanes, so you must have at least some confident in the scientists and their theories that have help making this possible.

But we throw out all the science that has to do with nature, because clearly that is bullocks. So how would you suggest that anyone could be able to prove these things? Do you have a method that you think might work? What type of stuff would a person look at, trying to figure this out, as they can't use pretty much the whole Earth for anything in this regard, so a time machine or what?

 

[dad]

Based on what you are saying and science despite all the things it has participated in creating, you accepted airplanes, so you must have at least some confident in the scientists and their theories that have help making this possible.

Of course. We know how things work in this present state. We can work with that.

But we throw out all the science that has to do with nature, because clearly that is bullocks. So how would you suggest that anyone could be able to prove these things?

Nature is fine, no need to throw it out. The problem is when science also uses this nature in the far past, and makes models based on it.

When trying to model the past, it would be wise not to throw out ancient records, or to assume nature was the same. So let's practice this in a few examples.

We know the plates moved and continents once were together. So far so good. We know some plants and animals existed on more than one continent. Good. We know that there are magnetic changes in a pattern across the sea floor. Fine. So from this we could assume that in the former nature a few things happened. There was rapid separation of the plates, and that during this time there was huge magnetic changes.
No need to invoke a same state past here at all.

We could look at the fossil record. Knowing that all life was created at the same time, and that nature was different, we could assume that most life could not leave remains, and so would not be in the early fossil record. (we would start to see man and other creatures join that record only after our present nature started). No need to invoke a same state past here at all.

Etc etc.

 

[Nimos]

There was rapid separation of the plates, and that during this time there was huge magnetic changes.

How do you know there were a rapid separation of the plates, what is that based on?

Knowing that all life was created at the same time

But all life is not created at the same time, a baby born today was created one day before a baby born tomorrow. A fossil found in the ground while other lifeforms walks it, clearly indicate that the fossil must have existed before the one that walks on it did, a fossil in real life is not made overnight.

So in this alternative nature, do you assume that a creature came walking, then died, turned into a fossil, layers and layers of soil somehow got on top of it, and a day or couple of weeks later we have a fossil?

we could assume that most life could not leave remains

No we can not assume that, what do you base this assumption on?

 

[osgart]

If all this is evidence to show the existence of a designer, then why are there more plausible explanations for it that cannot be refuted.

The natural cycles are a consequence of the physical laws. Some of them are dependent on both the abiotic and biotic world and would be different under different conditions. They are evidence of the physical laws and this can be tested, but there is no means to show a designer using them.
Evidence that people believe in things. Not evidence that which is believed exists.

A list of famous atheist scientists would only be a list of atheists and not evidence that what they deny is correct either.
I do not claim to see evidence for something where the evidence does not exist. It is belief in God and not denial of His creation.

I believe and believed long before I learned and understood evolution. Learning it did not eliminate my belief. It changed my understanding. It opened up my eyes to the creation that I live in.

You have turned science into a bogeyman, because it contradicts the doctrine of the men that created your sect. Not because it is some atheist plot to deny God. It is not an atheist plot. It does not deny God.

Your straw man argument of Huxley does not hold water as I have already shown.

You would release your interest in science if you were not bound up by a doctrine that need not exist in order to know God.
No, I have not. Quite the opposite, your continued emotional arguments without evidence proves my point at every step along the way.

If you really looked at what @Deeje has done on here, it all amounts to puppies are cute, therefore God. That is an assertion and nothing more. No evidence. No logic. Pure emotional assertion and all done to appease a doctrine and not reality.

On what basis do you believe in God then? If I may ask!

 

[dad]

How do you know there were a rapid separation of the plates, what is that based on?

Firstly, it is based on the fact science has no clue how fast it was. Then we look at the known history of the world, and time since creation. There is only so much time to play with. Then we look at scientific evidences such as how we know the continents (with creatures and plants on them) were once together. That means the separation was after creation for starters. Then we look at the flood of Noah. After the ark landed, all those animals and people had to get around the world to the continents somehow. It is logical to assume that the plate move was after the flood sometime. I find it implausible that animals got to Australia and etc by swimming, hitching a ride on debris, or some ice bridge etc. So, the separation had to be rapid.

But all life is not created at the same time, a baby born today was created one day before a baby born tomorrow.

There were no babies or fossils or anything before God created the first kinds.

A fossil found in the ground while other lifeforms walks it, clearly indicate that the fossil must have existed before the one that walks on it did, a fossil in real life is not made overnight.

False. I could indicate that there were creatures in nature that specialized in disposal of most remains. It could indicate also that some other facets of the different nature of the past resulted in rapid decomposition of most creatures. Your belief is not needed.

So in this alternative nature, do you assume that a creature came walking, then died, turned into a fossil, layers and layers of soil somehow got on top of it, and a day or couple of weeks later we have a fossil?

How fast fossilization used to occur in that different nature we do not know. It could have been faster. But if there were no remains but dust of most creatures on earth, including man, then it doesn't matter! You can't make a fossil from dust!
To directly quote the Almighty on this issue..

Ge 3:19 - for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

No we can not assume that, what do you base this assumption on?

In addition to the direct quote from God, I use scientific evidence. We know what creatures did leave remains! All creatures, therefore did not leave fossil remains, and in fact only a tiny percentage did!

 

[cladking]

All species are a basket of abilities and potentialities. Where some would succeed others will fail. In almost any situation some will flourish and some won't.

We call that natural selection.

There's no such thing as "species". "Species" is a word with no real world referent.

All life is individual and all individuals are different. When you talk about species you are looking up the wrong end of the gifthorse.