Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[QuestioningMind]

I like how you cherry picked my words.
Since they don't assert that that the flood account did not happen, and they stick to doing good science, of not making assertions that others here do, then we agree that the Genesis account does not conflict with good science. ...as in the case of geology and the flood account.
I'm glad that's done too.

Sorry, but you already agreed that geology is 'good science'. A claim made in the bible for which there is ZERO evidence DOES conflict with good science. Until there IS some evidence, claiming that good science agrees that a global flood took place is nothing more than pure fabrication. So sad that you must stoop to lying.

Of course, I suspect that your REAL definition of 'good science' is any science that conforms to your preconceived notions and 'bad science' is any findings that conflict with your preconceived notions. Which we all know is exactly how BAD SCIENCE come about. You go where the evidence leads... you don't pick and choose the evidence so that it conforms with the conclusion you want to reach.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, but you already agreed that geology is 'good science'. A claim made in the bible for which there is ZERO evidence DOES conflict with good science. Until there IS some evidence, claiming that good science agrees that a global flood took place is nothing more than pure fabrication. So sad that you must stoop to lying.

Of course, I suspect that your REAL definition of 'good science' is any science that conforms to your preconceived notions and 'bad science' is any findings that conflict with your preconceived notions. Which we all know is exactly how BAD SCIENCE come about. You go where the evidence leads... you don't pick and choose the evidence so that it conforms with the conclusion you want to reach.

Why do you twist my words to have your way?
How does that kind of tactic, result in proper debate?
This is not about winning points, and at that, by using deceptive methods.
May I remind you...
Twist someone's words.
distort, misrepresent, change, alter, pervert, falsify, warp, skew, put the wrong slant on, misinterpret, misconstrue, misstate, misquote, quote out of context, take out of context, misreport. garble.

However, if this is about winning point for you despite someone not saying what you claim they said, then go ahead, have a shke with that twist.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why do you twist my words to have your way?
How does that kind of tactic, result in proper debate?
This is not about winning points, and at that, by using deceptive methods.
May I remind you...
Twist someone's words.
distort, misrepresent, change, alter, pervert, falsify, warp, skew, put the wrong slant on, misinterpret, misconstrue, misstate, misquote, quote out of context, take out of context, misreport. garble.

However, if this is about winning point for you despite someone not saying what you claim they said, then go ahead, have a shke with that twist.

I haven't twisted your words in the least. The fact that you have to continually contort logic and reason to make your points does plenty enough to twist your own words.

You DID concede that geology is a valid science. You've yet to provide a SINGLE shred of verifiable evidence that geologists have found to support a global flood claim. Yet you STILL hold onto the lie that Genesis doesn't conflict with good science. Anyone who cares to read our exchange can see for themselves that I'm right.

 

[nPeace]

The typical response of Big Diversion Creationism. You made a claim. Now you are following all the tactics to avoid supporting that claim. Everything I asked about should be easy for you to address, coherently, concisely and honestly, yet there is none of that. All sorts of diversionary tactics, attempts to switch the burden of proof, back-handed ad hominem, etc., etc., etc.

You have done everything I expected. If you respond to this at all, that response will not contain a shred of supporting argument that is your responsibility to provide following YOUR claims.

No one would consider me too intelligent if I got my cancer diagnosis from a carpenter, so why do you get your science education from a church with an agenda to deny science?

I really don't know where this came from except it be from what I suspected from the beginning.

We were at the point where we agreed that adaptation, speciation, and reproduction, are not evolution (theory).
So the claim that evolution occurred by a slow process, over millions of years, has not been observed, but it is assumed that it has
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]
The fossil record does not support it either.

Therefore it does not challenge the Genesis account since it does not fit into the category of good science.

 

[sooda]

No, I don't mean a hunch about oil being under a salt dome. I mean assuming what the past looked like, or what may or may not have taken place. Do they make assumptions, or are they exempt?

They are educated and understand tectonic lift and what the strata looks like. You are not educated. They know the Himalayas are still getting taller and the Arabian peninsula is still tipping towards the East.

 

[nPeace]

I haven't twisted your words in the least. The fact that you have to continually contort logic and reason to make your points does plenty enough to twist your own words.

You DID concede that geology is a valid science. You've yet to provide a SINGLE shred of verifiable evidence that geologists have found to support a global flood claim. Yet you STILL hold onto the lie that Genesis doesn't conflict with good science. Anyone who cares to read our exchange can see for themselves that I'm right.

You did twist my words.
No I said a lot in my post which included the words, "I don't see how that qualifies as good science." I could pick that out, and apply it just as well.
You chose to pick what you wanted, and twist it to your own desire - which is deceptive, to say the least.

 

[nPeace]

They are educated and understand tectonic lift and what the strata looks like. You are not educated. They know the Himalayas are still getting taller and the Arabian peninsula is still tipping towards the East.

As usual, avoid answering a simple question.
I'll remember this.

 

[nPeace]

Your evasiveness doesn't bode well. What parts of Genesis, if any, do you take literally?

The evidence indicates that life evolved slowly over millions of years, becoming progressively more diverse and complex. Genesis, read literally, says this occurred in 6 days.

I'm really sorry. Looking back here, I think I missed your post.
See here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I really don't know where this came from except it be from what I suspected from the beginning.

We were at the point where we agreed that adaptation, speciation, and reproduction, are not evolution (theory).
So the claim that evolution occurred by a slow process, over millions of years, has not been observed, but it is assumed that it has
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]
The fossil record does not support it either.

Therefore it does not challenge the Genesis account since it does not fit into the category of good science.

No. I said that adaptation and speciation are evolution. Reproduction provides a means for the variation that results in adaptation and speciation, but is not evolution.

You have not done anything except to do what I predicted. You have not supported your position. You repeat the claim and throw new claims on top of that one. New claims that you do not support.

You have no edge and you have no argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As usual, avoid answering a simple question.
I'll remember this.

That is what you do. You avoid answering questions. One way you do that is to try and pass off your burden of proof. You are not presenting an argument in support of your claim. That is what you are responsible for doing.

This is the path of the creationist. It has been followed by many. It seems that the path is a rut that creationists cannot get out of.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are educated and understand tectonic lift and what the strata looks like. You are not educated. They know the Himalayas are still getting taller and the Arabian peninsula is still tipping towards the East.

He does not appear to have much of one except what his church tells him to regurgitate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I really don't know where this came from except it be from what I suspected from the beginning.

We were at the point where we agreed that adaptation, speciation, and reproduction, are not evolution (theory).
So the claim that evolution occurred by a slow process, over millions of years, has not been observed, but it is assumed that it has
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]
The fossil record does not support it either.

Therefore it does not challenge the Genesis account since it does not fit into the category of good science.

The quality of science is not based on whether it agrees with your personal opinions. All you do is keep repeating a mantra and nothing else.

By the way. All this comes from seeing creationists like you do the same things over and over and over and over, but never provide anything valid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You did twist my words.
No I said a lot in my post which included the words, "I don't see how that qualifies as good science." I could pick that out, and apply it just as well.
You chose to pick what you wanted, and twist it to your own desire - which is deceptive, to say the least.

A theory that forms the foundation of modern biology. The most well worked out and supported theory there is. A theory that has made confirmed predictions. I think the theory of evolution more than qualifies as good science. The only problem that you have with it, is that it contradicts what you want to believe is real. Fortunately, that is not a qualification for the validity of any science.

 

[nPeace]

No. I said that adaptation and speciation are evolution. Reproduction provides a means for the variation that results in adaptation and speciation, but is not evolution.

You have not done anything except to do what I predicted. You have not supported your position. You repeat the claim and throw new claims on top of that one. New claims that you do not support.

You have no edge and you have no argument.

Oh, then I must have read it wrong.
Yes. Reproduction is not evolution. But the others are not evolution either?
Oh, I realize now,you were, or it seems like, you were quoting me..Apparently it confused me.
An honest mistake.

So you are saying adaptation and speciation is evolution.
Okay, so that, as I said before, is not in conflict with the Genesis account.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, then I must have read it wrong.
Yes. Reproduction is not evolution. But the others are not evolution either?
Oh, I realize now,you were, or it seems like, you were quoting me..Apparently it confused me.
An honest mistake.

So you are saying adaptation and speciation is evolution.
Okay, so that, as I said before, is not in conflict with the Genesis account.

You should be able to demonstrate this. I cannot wait to see how you do that.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You did twist my words.
No I said a lot in my post which included the words, "I don't see how that qualifies as good science." I could pick that out, and apply it just as well.
You chose to pick what you wanted, and twist it to your own desire - which is deceptive, to say the least.

As I said before, you clearly have already decided that 'good science' equals anything that supports your preconceptions and 'bad science' is simply anything that doesn't support your preconceptions. So OBVIOUSLY when prominent geological scientists conclude that there is ZERO verifiable evidence for a global flood, YOU have no choice but to label it 'bad science'.

Just so you know... the very definition of 'bad science' is starting with a conclusion - as you have - and then accepting the evidence that agrees with your conclusion and rejecting the evidence that contradicts your conclusion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I said before, you clearly have already decided that 'good science' equals anything that supports your preconceptions and 'bad science' is simply anything that doesn't support your preconceptions. So OBVIOUSLY when prominent geological scientists conclude that there is ZERO verifiable evidence for a global flood, YOU have no choice but to label it 'bad science'.

Just so you know... the very definition of 'bad science' is starting with a conclusion - as you have - and then accepting the evidence that agrees with your conclusion and rejecting the evidence that contradicts your conclusion.

Don't you just love the irony.

 

[nPeace]

As I said before, you clearly have already decided that 'good science' equals anything that supports your preconceptions and 'bad science' is simply anything that doesn't support your preconceptions. So OBVIOUSLY when prominent geological scientists conclude that there is ZERO verifiable evidence for a global flood, YOU have no choice but to label it 'bad science'.

Just so you know... the very definition of 'bad science' is starting with a conclusion - as you have - and then accepting the evidence that agrees with your conclusion and rejecting the evidence that contradicts your conclusion.

No. You are identifying with the theory of evolution, which says that any evidence we find which does not support our conclusion -all life on earth descended from one common ancestor, we must form an opinion which would explain the evidence in such a way so that it can support the conclusion.
Evolution, bang on.

Fossils - the prime evidence, demolished the conclusion for the theory,
You can't accept that though. Politics can be dirty, and those who support it, has one thing to expect. Daniel 2:44
Including those who claim to be on God's side.

 

[nPeace]

You should be able to demonstrate this. I cannot wait to see how you do that.

I don't know what you are waiting for that I haven't already given you. So all I can say, is either pay attention, or don't hold your breath.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Don't you just love the irony.

Indeed!