What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

I watched Ken Ham's part of the debate. There was an interesting thing he said in regards to the age of the Earth at 2:19:44

He said, "I really challenge Christians, if you are going to believe in millions of years for the fossil record you have problems with the Bible and that is then you have to have death, disease, and suffering before sin."

What do you Mormons/Christians think of this "challenge?"
 
PearlWatson said:
You should know the Biblical reason for suffering, disease and death if you read the bible as a kid. Of course who knows what was in your version. Maybe the interpreter jacked it all up. lol.
Click to expand...

What is biblical reason for genetic mutations, disease, suffering and death in fish, birds, dogs, bananas and mushrooms for example?
 
PearlWatson said:
You should know the Biblical reason for suffering, disease and death if you read the bible as a kid. Of course who knows what was in your version. Maybe the interpreter jacked it all up. lol.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PearlWatson said:
ID scientist use the same data (fossil record, biological systems) and come up with different conclusions with information theory, mathematics and religious mumbojumbo like that. I already had my fun delving into Dembski's theory on One Brow's evolution thread.

I don't know the truth to the question of whether all life shares a common ancestor, I just find it highly implausible that if this is the truth that random mutations is the mechanism that led to all the complex coordinated life systems that exist. The jumps from non vertebrae to vertebrae and asexual to sexual reproduction are the most problematic for a Darwinist to explain without sounding completely ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

So you don't have any evidence? Right?
 
"asexual to sexual reproduction are the most problematic for a Darwinist to explain without sounding completely ridiculous to me."

661px-Conjugation.svg.png


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.
 
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.
 
dalamon said:
"asexual to sexual reproduction are the most problematic for a Darwinist to explain without sounding completely ridiculous to me."

661px-Conjugation.svg.png


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dalamon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AKMVP said:
What is biblical reason for genetic mutations, disease, suffering and death in fish, birds, dogs, bananas and mushrooms for example?
Click to expand...

I guess the bible says the food and animals were created for mankind and they are subject to the same entropy.
 
heyhey said:
Invertebrate to vertebrate, what's the problem? There are living invertebrates that have a nerve chord without bone. Sharks are an example of what we might call a primitive vertebrate that have cartilage instead of bone. Where is the mystery?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top