Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

Originally posted by LightFantastic
Hi Bunkem et al

Why are you wasting your time arguing? No matter what evidence you produce to support evolution will not change the view of someone who doesn't want to accept overwhelming evidence.

I assume you are referring to me when I make my reply as follows:

I accept the evidence there bud.....I just don't accept the "explanations" of that evidence that evolutionists give.

Anyone, that reads my posts should have been able to see that.

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution Science starts with the hypothesis that natural processes are responsible for the Universe, our planet, and all life.

Creation Science starts with the hypothesis that an intelligent Creator (having a purpose) is responsible for the Universe, our planet, and all life.

Both collect, observe, and interpret the evidence. Both conduct experiments. Both explain how the evidence supports their Theory.

Both groups have well educated scientists on board and both use scientific methods.

You left out the one of the most significant distinctions between the 2 approaches. The theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, is considered falsifiable by observational evidence. for example, if we suddenly started discovering huge deposits of human fossils in the same layers of sedimentary rock as dinosaur fossils, such a finding would falsify current scientific theories. But that's how the scientific method works, theories are adjusted based on observational evidence. Can you give an example of how observational evidence might be found that could similarly disprove the theories in creation science?

The theories in "creation science" that I have heard, are not considered by creation scientists to be falsifiable by ANY conceivable observational evidence, and that is one of the primary reasons that creation science is not considered a scientific approach.

I'm not trying to discourage you from having any beliefs you want to have. The only thing I am trying to discourage, is referring to religious beliefs as science when they don't qualify as science because they are not considered falsifiable.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
For eg, the statement "In the beginning GOD created..." is not a hypothesis, its a premise, because it cannot be tested & thus, if supported by verifiable data, lose the "hypo" & become a valid "thesis".
(Easy analogy below)

Evolution begins with the premis that natural processes created the universe, our earth, and all life.....which cannot be tested.

Add the premis "punctuated equalilibrium".....which cannot be tested.

Add the premis "mutations" supposedly beneficial to the species leading to transformations to higher life forms/more advanced species.....which cannot be tested.

Where does that leave us.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Can you give an example of how observational evidence might be found that could similarly disprove the theories in creation science?

Unfortunately I cannot satisfy your need for such evidence because none exists.

Which makes the creation model that much more reasonable, logical, sound, and believable.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The only thing I am trying to discourage, is referring to religious beliefs as science when they don't qualify as science because they are not considered falsifiable.

Oh, I get it.....it's not science unless it's falsifiable!

That is halarious.

Evolutionists spend a lot of time trying to falsify Genisis, God, Christianity, creation scientists, etc.

So where does that leave us?

reply to post by John Matrix


But can you honestly not see that if you accept "God dunnit" as an explanation for anything, you can accept it for everything? Whatever subject you choose? Walk up to Newton "Forget your mechanics, God made it that way." Forget about experimenting wich kind of rocks to smash together to make fire. God makes fire. (think about it: how should fire come from a rock?) We can't etc. etc...

[edit on 16-9-2009 by debunky]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by John Matrix

 

I'm sorry but quoting the site "christiananswers" in this debate is preposterous. They post a picture of a fetus with a clearly visible tail, and then put the word tail in double quotes. That's some scientific argument...

It's almost like they posted an artist's concept of the atomic nucleus and then started making fun of all these "neutrons" and "protons" because surely Creator didn't indulge in such silly things. You know what this reminds me of? The movie "Waterworld" and the stone-age beliefs of some of it's inhabitants (and the Deacon portrayed by Dennis Hopper).

Read all the articles I linked to. The theory you presented began as a fraud and was exposed as a fraud by evolutionits. It's no longer held as credible. It was not considered a topic of serious discussion or debate among scientists in the 1920's....if you would read the articles.

Because you see the label "christian" on the web site you let your personal biases and prejudices over ride logic and reason and you ignore it....because ignoring it allows you to keep the mental buffers in place that protect your false beliefs.

Yeah, that is a cool find Weedwhacker! I meant to add this earlier: Harvard Scientists’ Discovery Opens Door to Synthetic Life. I was sure there was a thread about it, but search didn't turn it up. Its amazing!
As for why I'm arguing, Light: I'm not actually wedded to evolution, however I am arguing against creationism being mistaken for science because it offends me to think that the whole process of systematic knowledge enhancement, the millions of hours of hard work that have & are still going into making our lives better, could be so casually dismissed through ignorance of the basic tenets of science & simply repeating the lie until people believe it. Frankly, its a calumny. Whether John Matrix can or cannot see the inherent logical fallacy is hardly the point. Others may read this thread &, when they get to the logic problem I proposed & see it unanswered, then they will know for sure.
Why do I care? Because there is still far too much credence given to religion poking its nose into areas where it doesn't belong. It affects law. Even here in the UK, vocal fundies lobby parliament, bishops get airtime rambling on about the latest state of affairs. Who cares what they think? As you said, they have no constituency here anymore. The blighters sit in the House of Lords for f#'s sake!
Once people realise that, if religion has a place @all in modern society, its behind closed doors dealing purely with spiritual matters, then we'll all be better off.

Originally posted by John Matrix
You discredit creation science out of a need to protect your foundational belief system.

Hi John

I'm falling into the trap now...

Whilst I could counter most or all of your arguments I'm not going to. You could probably counter again ad nauseum.

I don't have a problem with ID science at all, so long as the science is real science not just an attack on what goes against any particular religous text. I have yet to see a convincing argument but I will, as always, remain open.
All I have seen so far from the ID camp is pseudoscience.

I do have a problem with an attack on the very good science that is evolution for no apparent reason apart from a discrepancy with the Adam and Eve story. As far as I am aware the theory of evolution doesn't even mention the origin of life.

PS Do you have an science (from your point of view) explaining how genes present in archaea and plants can be found in the human genome? Or why all known life prefers "left handed" molecules?


[edit on 16/9/2009 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by John Matrix

 

But can you honestly not see that if you accept "God dunnit" as an explanation for anything, you can accept it for everything? Whatever subject you choose? Walk up to Newton "Forget your mechanics, God made it that way." Forget about experimenting wich kind of rocks to smash together to make fire. God makes fire. (think about it: how should fire come from a rock?) We can't etc. etc...

[edit on 16-9-2009 by debunky]

There is no standing still just because a scientist believes in creation. Our modern world credits scientific research, and a lot of discoveries and inventions that are considered cornerstones came from scientists that believe in creation. The impetus to know and understand God's creation cannot be overstated....it is a powerful motivating force. Man instinctively wants to know his creator....unless he is an evolutionists.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum

Once people realise that, if religion has a place @all in modern society, its behind closed doors dealing purely with spiritual matters, then we'll all be better off.

As a Christian, I can tell you that compartmentalizing our faith is the LAST thing we should do. When one accepts Christ, one dies to their old life and every day, every minute of every day, belongs to Him. So getting us to stay behind closed doors and keep our mouths shut is impossible. You will not achieve that, ever.

reply to post by novacs4me

When one accepts Christ...

Yeah, well.....

That used to be said for (insert imaginary "deity" here) too.

Zeus.

Thor.

Isis.

Ra.

Jehovah.

Buddha.

Mohammed.

...and that's just the short list. In no particular order. Humans have a vast capacity for imagination.

Originally posted by LightFantastic
As far as I am aware the theory of evolution doesn't even mention the origin of life.

At one time evolution was all about the origins of life....and explaining all life in the absence of a creator God. And that is the problem I have with evolution. When they are challenged by new evidence, they change their premisis, theories, and add secondary assumptions.

Both theories are in actuality creation theories.

Evolution Science says nature, left to itself and it's own internal workings, creates life from non life, and over hundreds of millions of years we end up with all this life on planet earth.

Creation Science says a supernatural creator God, having intelligent design and purpose, imparted His intelligent design and purpose in His creation, and He did it in a much shorter time frame.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Evolution begins with the premis that natural processes created the universe, our earth, and all life.....which cannot be tested.

Add the premis "punctuated equalilibrium".....which cannot be tested.

Add the premis "mutations" supposedly beneficial to the species leading to transformations to higher life forms/more advanced species.....which cannot be tested.

Where does that leave us.

Sorry, but you're completely wrong and this is the fault of almost every creationist that doesn't understand evolution. It does not make any claims about the beginning of the universe AT ALL. It has to do with the study of change in organisms on our planet.

What you are talking about is abiogenesis, which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps you should just stop arguing because it is quite apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by LightFantastic
As far as I am aware the theory of evolution doesn't even mention the origin of life.

At one time evolution was all about the origins of life....and explaining all life in the absence of a creator God.

Can you provide a reference to this?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Why do you continue to attack Christianity and give opinions on things you know nothing about?

How does this advance your understanding of the Scientific Creationist view as oposed to the Evolutionist view?

BTW: It's still a bird and it's still a snake!

Originally posted by John Matrix

At one time evolution was all about the origins of life....and explaining all life in the absence of a creator God. And that is the problem I have with evolution. When they are challenged by new evidence, they change their premisis, theories, and add secondary assumptions.

Both theories are in actuality creation theories.

Evolution Science says nature, left to itself and it's own internal workings, creates life from non life, and over hundreds of millions of years we end up with all this life on planet earth.

This is all disinformation.

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by LightFantastic
As far as I am aware the theory of evolution doesn't even mention the origin of life.

At one time evolution was all about the origins of life....and explaining all life in the absence of a creator God.

Can you provide a reference to this?

Sure! From a book called: Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species.

Google it and see what comes up.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
Perhaps you should just stop arguing because it is quite apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm still going through a process of learning, thank you.

Are you still learning, or do you know-it-all already?

Do you know what you are talking about?

Perhaps it is you that has no idea what I am taking about.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
Perhaps you should just stop arguing because it is quite apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm still going through a process of learning, thank you.

Are you still learning, or do you know-it-all already?

Do you know what you are talking about?

Perhaps it is you that has no idea what I am taking about.

I know exactly what you are talking about. You're claiming that evolution dealt with the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life, when in fact evolution only deals with the change in organisms on our planet. But, feel free to continue to spread disinformation like you know what you're talking about.