The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

[metis]

We don't blindly accept anything. Christ reveals the truth to us in the now. The witnesses that wrote the NT were with Christ and testify to the truth. If you deny the truth then there is no hope for you.

Generally speaking, every religion relies on "witnesses", so what criterion would you chose to select which is/are the true religion(s)?

Secondly, didn't Jesus say "Judge ye not..."? So, let me recommend you leave the judging to God.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, that much seems evident.

As to "laws of genetics," if they said that DNA copying resulted in absolutely identical copies, you might have a point. But turns out -- nope, that's not how it work. If Gregor Mendel understood that, even without knowing about DNA. Variation is not only possible, it is the norm!

Of course but it the variation is limited to the species of the parents. It can't jump the fence and become something other than what its parents were. In all of his experiments, a pea never became a bean. DNA should put the final nail in the coffin of evolution, but of course it wont.

 

[omega2xx]

Think for a little – please, just try to think. When does an altered characteristic become something else altogether? How many tiny alterations does it take before the original is simply unrecognizable as progenitor?

Now its your time to think. How can time change a proven law? In fact the altered characteristic many not even show up in the next generation.

]Think of the whale (you brought them up, after all). What would a creature created for water need with legs or hips? And yet, there is a fossil of basilosauras – truly a marine mammal – that had, protruding from its hind flank, legs perfectly formed, but no bigger than a 3 year old girl’s, and perfectly useless. Why?

The fossil did not have legs formed. It had the outline of what it needed, fins. The fact that the bone structure of fins and feet are similar, the evolutionist have tried to use this to make the link, but it wont fly. Genetics will not allow it. The only way an offspring can have fins, is if the parents have a gene for fins. Pakicetus did not have that gene and their is no genetic way it could have gotten fins.

Even modern whales have very vestigial, seemingly useless, hip bones. (And yes, I've read the rubbish that Answers In Genesis tries to use to defeat this argument. And trust me, it is pure rubbish. Same as all the apologetics I've ever read. Sophistry without basis, "reason" without common sense.

It is not rubbish at all. What I trust you to do is try to protect that is which is scientifically not protectable. The pure rubbish is saying a relative small land animal surviving very well in its environment, would enter an environment much more hostile and expect to survive. That is insane and refutes a basic preaching of evolution---natural selection. Just as bad is saying a species with not gene for fins and a blowhole could ever have fins and a blowhole. By doing this you are rejecting the very science you say you believe in. You can't have it both ways.

And the Mexican blind cave fish, evolved from living in lightless caves over millennia, still retain vestigial eyes. They don’t work (they don’t need to) because working eyes are energy-expensive, and with little food available, every little energy saving is important in ensuring survival of the species.

The produce the evidence, ot the usual rhetoric.

The world is littered with vestigial this and that – your appendix is an example. Yours is puny (mere centimeters), because what you eat doesn’t require it. The Koala’s is immense by comparison (2 meters, and the koala is much, much smaller than you), eating eucalyptus, as it does. The appendix harbours bacteria whose specific function is breaking down cellulose.

It is also littered with real proven, scientific FACTS--if you don't have the gene, you don't get the thing.

I haven’t time to provide you with the tens of thousands of examples. I just wish you would look for yourself. Still, if you’d rather not, that is your privilege. You are allowed to be just as unknowledgeable as like about any topic under the sun. Just be aware – people who actually do have some knowledge will know for certain that you are pontificating from an empty pulpit.[/QUOTE]

I look at what science has proved and it say loud and clear, genetics refute evolution and the fossil record, if it prove anything, it proves what we can observe and repeat---after its kind. I have only ask for one example of something science has proved the ToE says. Do you have time for that? I hope you have noticed I have quit going to links that some use. They NEVER offer anything but the usual evolution rhetoric. If you want to quote them that's fine.

 

[omega2xx]

Not only that, but we also know that there can be variations on how genes may manifest themselves (phenotype) because of various factors that work on it. I personally know a pair of identical twins (they were genetically tested), whereas I couldn't tell the difference when they were young, but now they look quite different and have very different personalities.

That is amusing. Which one is no longer homo sapian?

 

[omega2xx]

The real problem is that man has a limited mind compared to God and yet many people claim they understand exactly what God did and how He did it.

WE understand exactly how He did it, because He tells us exactly how He did it. The story is at about a 10th grade reading l comprehension level. All we have to do is believe it. It helps to know that matter can't create itself out of nothing and life can't be created from lifeless elements.

Can a bug understand what a man does?

The mind of man is as far above the mind of bugs sas God's mind is above ours. God gave us a mind that of bugs so we can understand wht He tells us.

People who claim to know all about God only know what their limited minds let them know. And, of course, people who claim only science can explain things do not know about God because their minds do not let them see this.

No one in their right mind would even claim to know all about God, But even our limited mind can know much about God. Remember, man was made in the image and likeness of God. He gave us a good mind and He expects us to use it. If God did not give Adam and Eve a good mind, there would not be any reason to tell them not to eat from the for bidden tree.

 

[omega2xx]

Now, at the risk of being censured, I have to say your comment above of idiotic to a degree beyond anything I've seen from you so far.

Who died and made you the final authority on what is idiotic? You thinking something is idiotic does not mean it is. IMO, whale evolution is as idiotic as it can get. Do you agree?

Is it actually true that every animal shot with a bullet dies? Many do, some do not. Is it actually true that every human dies when ingesting strychnine? Most do, a very few do not. Stephen Hawking has ALS, and should by all rights have been dead 20 or 30 years ago (as almost every suffered in history has died). He lives on. The world is not made up of the kind of "absolutes" that you try to foist on us.

I am not trying to hoist anything on you. This is a discussion, an exchange of ideas. I am trying to get you to provide just one thing the ToE says that science has proved. It is that simple and you are beating around the bush.

Thus, the "miracle drugs" that killed so many of the terrible sicknesses that once killed humans in their millions actually DID nearly all die. Nobody thought twice about careful followup when given the appropriate dose of penicillin for a case of gonorrhea -- it worked, every time. But while it worked, killing almost every gonococcus bacterium, some very few, from time to time, managed to survive -- and then, (with the confidence of a newly "cured" person) was spread to somebody else. ANd what was spread to somebody else possessed some small modification that enabled a few more to survive the next shot of penicillin in that person, and then a few more in the person after that.

Irrelevant.

This is anything but "man tinkering with the process."

What you presented was man tinkering witht he process and even that did not result in a change of species.

You really do have to learn to start using that thing between your ears.

You really do need to learn to discuss a subject without becoming insulting. I will use my mind to tell you something---there are scientist far more qualified than you are who also reject evolution. Now use that thing between your ears to mediated on that TRUTH.

 

[omega2xx]

No, I doubt you can. I now have the measure of you intelligence, and it really isn't worth the bother. I've seen the posts (for example to @Carlita) in which you claim not to read things you have been pointed to. That is, of course, nothing more than your "Manifesto of Intentionally Retained Ignorance."

Enjoy it, if it makes you feel good. But I see you for what you are, and won't bother responding any more.

Your insults point to someone who does not have the intellect to discuss a subject in a civil manner. It makes me happy that you run away because you have no example of anything the ToE has proved. Now other know what I knew from the beginning.

I will correct you one more time. If you read what I said to Carlita and others did you miss my reason or just ignore it? I no longer read them, because they NEVER provide any evidence or what they say. Since they don't, what is the use?

Have a nice day.

 

[omega2xx]

'kind' is sharing various traits, but not actually specific. Actually, they can vary quite a bit in a kind, imo

I was being flippant and I apologize . A "kind" is a group that can mate and produce offspring. There will always be variation because of the gene pool of the parents, but it will never result in a change of species.

 

[omega2xx]

Is that it?
A strawman?

Why am I not surprised?
Oh yeah, your posting history...


Though you seem to have it backwards.
Is it not theism that claims all life from god?

That is amusing. I post the basic definition of evolution, and you, a hard-core evolutionist don't recognize it.
I don't have it backwards. my claim all along is that God did it. If He didn't, tell me how it all happened, scientifically of course.

 

[omega2xx]

Please tell me you're joking...


Ummm...what?

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/the-origin-of-dogs/484976/
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32691843
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29775234?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016895259390122X
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/1/71.short
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/276/5319/1687

There are no dog remains that have ever been found older than roughly 15,000 years. Before that, every sample was phenotypically a wolf. Every single dog breed that you can imagine is descendant from those ancestors. There were no German Shepards. There were no Poodles. There were no Cocker Spaniels. Each of those breeds, and every other one you know of, were biologically crafted by selective breeding. As I said before, that's called Artificial Selection. It works because of Evolution.

If you really wanted JUST ONE example of where evolution was "proven" to be true, it's the fact that humans have produced vegetables from grass and tiny show poodles from wild, pack-hunting, killing machines. There was no magic involved - just biology and genetics.


Yes... as I admitted above... But that's not true for all of them.

Now, here's a challenge, tell me why Wolves don't give birth to Cocker Spaniels.



Do you not know anything about this subject at all?

https://www.britannica.com/science/variation-biology
"Variation, in biology, any difference between cells, individual organisms, or groups of organisms of any species caused either by genetic differences (genotypic variation) or by the effect of environmental factors on the expression of the genetic potentials (phenotypic variation)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which reproductively isolated biological populations evolve to become distinct species."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
"In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organismthat is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
"Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans use animal breeding and plant breeding to selectively develop particular phenotypic traits (characteristics) by choosing which typically animal or plantmales and females will sexually reproduce and have offspring together."



Should I?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2410314?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.pnas.org/content/85/16/6002.short
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v33/n3s/full/ng1113.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02101694
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/abs/nature04789.html
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/per...ing-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps/

Rhetoric is not evidence. Pictures are not evidence.

Let me help you out. Plant some corn and see what you get. The plant some tesonite and see what you get. While you are waiting have 2 chimps to mate and see what you get. Then go to the maternity ward in a local hospital and see how many of the parents had a chimp.

If what you can see visually and repeat as many times as you care to, certainly will not be able to. If you are no willing to accept what you see, you are not really looking for the truth.

 

[omega2xx]

You obviously did not check up on any of them because if you had you would have seen that they do not deal with "opinions" but with actual research. How convenient and disingenuous of you to do that, but it doesn't surprise me as I see a rather clear-cut anti-science pattern to your approach. On top of that, it cheapens your "religious" position.

I have looked at them for 20 years and have not found one piece of scientific evidence in any of them. Evidently you consider any thing they say as evidence. However my challenge is still open and I know you would like to prove me wrong. Read one and them post the evidencne they presented.

Actually it is the ToE that is anti-science and me insisting that God did it all, strengthens my religious position, because that is the only logical explanation. Unless you can offer a different explanation. Be sure to make it a scientific one. Thanks

 

[omega2xx]

Whether you started it or not, the fact of the matter is that you lied in what you had posted in response to my post. You indeed are coming from a "religious" position, which you denied. No surprise though as your "pattern" continues.

I have never denied I am coming from a religious position. The only way I could refute the comment was from the Bible. Should I have ignored it? If I would have ignored it, you would accuse of that , so you thinking I lied is like water off a ducks back.

 

[omega2xx]

And blindly accepting what was written 2000 years ago by people we don't know, and then placing that ahead of objectively-derived evidence is smart, iyo?

When you have some evidence of any kind, get back to me.

Also, it's obvious that you really don't have a clue what the word "hypothesis" means in a scientific paradigm, and the concept of "infinity" is just that. It's not a statement of "wild guesses"-- it's a statement of possibility that has at least some supporting evidence, namely that infinity does work out mathematically and is sometimes used in mathematical calculations.

The definition of hypothesis is irrelevant, it is basically a guess. The subject is about scientific evidence that supports evolution. Do you have any?

"Wild guesses" more refers to your "religious approach" simply because there's so little that can be verified, including such a basic question as to whether there are any deities at all? Beliefs are one thing, and they're fine & dandy as far as they go, but beliefs are not necessarily facts.

I don't have to guess, There is a written record of what i believe and logic says it is the best answer. If you have a better one, please present it.

 

[omega2xx]

Can you explain the difference between Christ revealing something to you, and you just having a gut feeling about something and "knowing" that a supernatural being is communicating with you? How are those two things different?

"Paul" certainly wasn't - and he supposedly wrote the bulk of the New Testament. The others have never been historically verified, even by Biblical Archaeologists.

Paul didn't write about archaeology.

Interesting quote, coming from someone who rejects factual observations in lieu of ghosts revealing things to him through supernatural communications.

Why don't you post some of these factual observations so we can see if their are valid.

 

[omega2xx]

Generally speaking, every religion relies on "witnesses", so what criterion would you chose to select which is/are the true religion(s)?

Secondly, didn't Jesus say "Judge ye not..."? So, let me recommend you leave the judging to God.

"If" means he was not judging. It is simply telling a truth.

 

[metis]

That is amusing. Which one is no longer homo sapian?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Rhetoric is not evidence. Pictures are not evidence.


Let me help you out. Plant some corn and see what you get. The plant some tesonite and see what you get. While you are waiting have 2 chimps to mate and see what you get. Then go to the maternity ward in a local hospital and see how many of the parents had a chimp.


If what you can see visually and repeat as many times as you care to, certainly will not be able to. If you are no willing to accept what you see, you are not really looking for the truth.

The limited perspective of somebody who's got three score years and ten -- and if something doesn't happen within that time-frame, it’s clearly impossible. That you cannot observe 200,000 generations of anything through environmental and competitive change simply shows you to have a most limited imagination.


Please have a look at what a man who is both a man of faith and a man of science has to say on this topic.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-evolution.html

 

[metis]

I have looked at them for 20 years and have not found one piece of scientific evidence in any of them. Evidently you consider any thing they say as evidence. However my challenge is still open and I know you would like to prove me wrong. Read one and them post the evidencne they presented.

Actually it is the ToE that is anti-science and me insisting that God did it all, strengthens my religious position, because that is the only logical explanation. Unless you can offer a different explanation. Be sure to make it a scientific one. Thanks

There's so much evidence there, and I've showed you where you can start doing some serious research since it's obvious you really haven't checked it out thoroughly. Therefore, there's simply no where for me to go on this with you. One simply cannot see the sun unless they open their eyes first. All you have to do is to google "evolution", and at your disposal will be myriads of links to quite reputable scientific sites.

So, instead of accepting the known evidence, you believe in a "God of the Bible" of which there virtually is not one iota of objectively-derived evidence for. So, you reject that which has overwhelming scientific evidence for but blindly swallow that which there's no scientific or objective evidence for.

BTW, to be clear, I am not saying nor implying that there cannot be a god or gods. I'm not the one jumping to conclusions. All religions have a value in and of themselves, which is a topic for another day.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Rhetoric is not evidence. Pictures are not evidence.

What do you consider evidence?
Just tell me what you want, and I'll produce it.

So far, you've asked for explanations, and you've asked examples, and you've asked for "proof" and you've asked for just personal discussions... You've been given those things by myself and many others in this thread and you're rejecting anything and everything that you don't like as either being too long to read, or as somehow not meeting your standards of evidence.

So just tell me specifically what you want to see and I'll find it for you.

Let me help you out. Plant some corn and see what you get. The plant some tesonite and see what you get. While you are waiting have 2 chimps to mate and see what you get. Then go to the maternity ward in a local hospital and see how many of the parents had a chimp.

This is about what I expected.
You're really exposing your ignorance, man...

If this is going to be how you respond to my above request for a specific type of evidence, then you've shown why you can't be reasoned with. This is not at all how biology works and shows a complete lack of understanding on your part. No one in the scientific community would ever postulate such a thing. It's completely ridiculous.

If what you can see visually and repeat as many times as you care to, certainly will not be able to. If you are no willing to accept what you see, you are not really looking for the truth.

If you limit your scope of understanding of reality to what can observed in a single lifetime, then you have to admit that there's no real "proof" that the Revolutionary war ever happened...

 

[metis]

"If" means he was not judging. It is simply telling a truth.

When one judges someone else, they are judging someone else, and what I was saying is that it defies what Jesus said about not judging others.

You may believe it's a "truth" when I was being judged by someone else, but then I have to say the same to you, namely that you may believe about Jesus but maybe not in Jesus about this, because "Judge ye not..." is pretty clear.

So, I guess you'll have to decide whether you really want follow what Jesus taught or not.