What the hell are you talking about? There are changes to the bible because men over the years have written/interpreted different versions. I really don't see how the Bible's explanation of these things proves its authenticity.
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
What the hell are you talking about? There are changes to the bible because men over the years have written/interpreted different versions. I really don't see how the Bible's explanation of these things proves its authenticity.
So you don't have any evidence? Right?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
"asexual to sexual reproduction are the most problematic for a Darwinist to explain without sounding completely ridiculous to me."
If an extremely primitive asexual organism can undergo an inter-species exchange of genetic information, then it makes sense why nature would select for this diversifying process over the course of millions of years.
Your biological knowledge is clearly lacking, Pearl. You are not seeking knowledge-- you have jumped to a conclusion, and you use the arguments of others to cement your position.
Ironically, it's this sort of thought-process that is arguably most un-Christian-- think about how difficult it would have been for the message of the Gospel to spread out, if Jesus had to deal with stubborn, non-contemplative, non-critical thinking peers.
If an extremely primitive asexual organism can undergo an inter-species exchange of genetic information, then it makes sense why nature would select for this diversifying process over the course of millions of years.
Your biological knowledge is clearly lacking, Pearl. You are not seeking knowledge-- you have jumped to a conclusion, and you use the arguments of others to cement your position.
Ironically, it's this sort of thought-process that is arguably most un-Christian-- think about how difficult it would have been for the message of the Gospel to spread out, if Jesus had to deal with stubborn, non-contemplative, non-critical thinking peers.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
The difference between science and religion (idealistically speaking), is where they place their allegiance. Personally I am NOT PearlWatson, so I find it very easy to reconcile the two, and I think it is a foolish exercise to treat both ethea as a dichotomy. While religion tries to substantiate every discovery as further justification for some sort of deism, the only allegiance science has is to observable truth and knowledge.
So, inherently, the creationist vs. science debate will always be slanted heavily in the favour of science-- because science is inherently dynamic. Theories change, as observations flow in. Religion technically shouldn't be dynamic; however, quite frankly, I would bet my life that an individual like PearlWatson would be considered a heathen and extremely non-Christian around the time of Jesus of Nazareth. It's a testament to how much Christianity has changed over the centuries.
So, inherently, the creationist vs. science debate will always be slanted heavily in the favour of science-- because science is inherently dynamic. Theories change, as observations flow in. Religion technically shouldn't be dynamic; however, quite frankly, I would bet my life that an individual like PearlWatson would be considered a heathen and extremely non-Christian around the time of Jesus of Nazareth. It's a testament to how much Christianity has changed over the centuries.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
"asexual to sexual reproduction are the most problematic for a Darwinist to explain without sounding completely ridiculous to me."
If an extremely primitive asexual organism can undergo an inter-species exchange of genetic information, then it makes sense why nature would select for this diversifying process over the course of millions of years.
Your biological knowledge is clearly lacking, Pearl. You are not seeking knowledge-- you have jumped to a conclusion, and you use the arguments of others to cement your position.
Ironically, it's this sort of thought-process that is arguably most un-Christian-- think about how difficult it would have been for the message of the Gospel to spread out, if Jesus had to deal with stubborn, non-contemplative, non-critical thinking peers.
Like I said. The capacity to draw a diagram and come up with a story about how things might have happened is not science.
The difference between you and I is that you ain't critical of the elements in your story or the likelihood of them happening through accidental generation.
This is my interpretation of your story:
2 different types of amoebas accidentally rub against each other in a puddle of prehistoric goo and the one with the accidental weenus shares it with the one who doesn't have it. Then they both have a weenus. Hooray!
The problems with you story:
Asexual organisms don't have sexual differentiation (male and female parts). They reproduce by making copies of themselves. So how did one of the amoebas have a weenus in the first place, and how was there another species to exhange DNA with?
I guess if an amoeba had an accidental weenus and shared it with another amoeba that process would keep going even though making copies of themselves is a whole lot easier and efficient.
But then again if sexual reproduction was a designed process occurring between designed creatures of the same species it would definitely keep going, because it feels good and stuff.
So
IF all the elements were accidentally there to make this process happen it might continue.
But
IF all the elements were purposely there to make this process happen it would continue.
That's why the concept of "natural selection" is useless.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The thing is this debate ain't about science vs. creation. It is about Darwinism vs. Creationism, Darwinism vs. ID, and even ID vs. Creationism. All these belief systemsl share the same data "evidence," but simply have different assumption about and interpretation of the data.
Your attack on what kind of Christian I am/would be is just petty nonsense.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I guess the bible says the food and animals were created for mankind and they are subject to the same entropy.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
You don't see the grand-canyon-like chasm between an invertebrate with a nerve chord and a shark with an entire skeleton made of cartilage, or a fish with a skeleton of bone?
Sorry it takes too much faith for me to bridge that gap with accident generation of attributes.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
For me the questions come in the mechanism of change and the intermediate steps, which Pearl has alluded to. Without direct evidence of all of the intermediate steps it does require a leap of faith of some sort to get from one to the other, or at least a bunch of assumption.
It's like we are counting to 1,000,000 with no prior knowledge of numbers at all, starting from a point of being able to see clearly the #1 and the #1,000,000. We have uncovered say 1000 random numbers in between, yet we really cannot see clearly how they tie in. Those numbers fit in like Pi, and 1,218.2345, and 3/5, and the square root of 386,000. We can see that they are numbers, and that they share some things in common, but there is no clear connection directly from one to the other.
A fish bladder is kind of like a lung, so we assume, or go on faith, that the bladder simply became a lung at some point. Can someone show the mechanism of how that happened, and the intermediate steps to get from bladder to lung? That is the biggest part of Berninski's questions that got me thinking, when he talked about modeling, and that there just haven't been any successful models of biological evolution. Either we do not understand the mechanism well enough to build a predictive model, or we do not understand the starting and end points well enough (maybe it wasn't a fish bladder that became a lung, maybe it was something else entirely), or maybe the simply don't fit together. But, just like religion, without the "proof", without the burning bush or visitation from heavenly beings, or in this case without the clearly defined intermediate steps that led from invertebrates to vertebrates then it is still an act of faith, informed by what evidence we can see, but still an act of faith nonetheless, to believe that an organism with a nervous system just became a shark, then became something else. Without the full picture in its entirety, you are still trusting in something you have not seen, and believing that is the way it works. Well, just like with religion, without that complete picture, no matter how many believers you find, some just won't buy into it.
And just like lots of arguments about religion, just because you get a large number of people who believe it does not make it true.
It's like we are counting to 1,000,000 with no prior knowledge of numbers at all, starting from a point of being able to see clearly the #1 and the #1,000,000. We have uncovered say 1000 random numbers in between, yet we really cannot see clearly how they tie in. Those numbers fit in like Pi, and 1,218.2345, and 3/5, and the square root of 386,000. We can see that they are numbers, and that they share some things in common, but there is no clear connection directly from one to the other.
A fish bladder is kind of like a lung, so we assume, or go on faith, that the bladder simply became a lung at some point. Can someone show the mechanism of how that happened, and the intermediate steps to get from bladder to lung? That is the biggest part of Berninski's questions that got me thinking, when he talked about modeling, and that there just haven't been any successful models of biological evolution. Either we do not understand the mechanism well enough to build a predictive model, or we do not understand the starting and end points well enough (maybe it wasn't a fish bladder that became a lung, maybe it was something else entirely), or maybe the simply don't fit together. But, just like religion, without the "proof", without the burning bush or visitation from heavenly beings, or in this case without the clearly defined intermediate steps that led from invertebrates to vertebrates then it is still an act of faith, informed by what evidence we can see, but still an act of faith nonetheless, to believe that an organism with a nervous system just became a shark, then became something else. Without the full picture in its entirety, you are still trusting in something you have not seen, and believing that is the way it works. Well, just like with religion, without that complete picture, no matter how many believers you find, some just won't buy into it.
And just like lots of arguments about religion, just because you get a large number of people who believe it does not make it true.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I am going to quote this video. Watch it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypYesuV3PoI
Could those in the Darwinian camp explain to me how simple cells and DNA came to exist on earth?
MVP
Well-Known Member
Oh so you guess? I thought you KNOW for sure?
LMAO this is getting funny. So I get that humans may be doomed by "almighty intelligent designer" to diseases, genetic mutations and suffering as per biblical reasons in order for their soul to achieve eternal life after death but what does defective rose, fish, frog or mushroom gains after their life ends prematurely because of mutation, genetic defect or disease? And what about those plants and animals who were "created" not for mankind use? Are they exemption?
MVP
Well-Known Member
This theory and experiment makes more sense then any kind of "intelligent creation"
The Miller Urey Experiment
In the 1950's, biochemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, conducted an experiment which demonstrated that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere.
They designed an apparatus which held a mix of gases similar to those found in Earth's early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth's early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool. They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates.
Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions.
It's not as simple as that..
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1108
MVP
Well-Known Member
Obviously it is not. I just gave one single scientific theory as an example which makes more sense than creationism delusions. There are hundreds of very interesting theories which are being looked into. It may as well be primitive extraterrestrial life forms which came to early Earth via comets.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Could it have been intelligent extraterrestrials possibly "seeding" the planet with life? The gaps still require a leap of faith of some kind to get the theories to work, since there is no way to prove them. You still have to believe that is how it happened without definitive "proof".
And how do you suppose those extraterrestrial life came to be then?
Exactly.
There has to be an original originator, ultimately.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
And how do you suppose that original originator came to be then?
Exactly.
There has to be a natural spontaneous beginning, ultimately.
See how stupid that sounds. This sort of reasoning leads nowhere.
You mean like the multiverse theory proposed by scientists? The underlying assumption though is that there has to be an infinite number of universes for life to have existed in this particular universe due to the exact conditions required for life.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I mean you can't just claim things must be the way that you imagine them to be.
As for the multiverse theory I honestly don't have an opinion as to whether or not it reflects reality. I do not understand to an appropriate level the physics involved to hold an informed opinion. That being said I enjoy speculating about the origins of the universe and the nature of reality very much.
On a strictly intuitive level I can wrap my head around multiple universes but not the creation of a new universe every time a choice is made. The latter seems ridiculous to me and the former seems reasonable. I don't know though and accept that I may be wrong.