No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[jag1977]

The question that should captivate is where is the dino DNA?

 

[Esanta]

Yes, it is. Perhaps it's impossible to prove considering the proposed nature of spirituality. This is why spirituality is, so far, separate from science.



From what I've seen, the evidence has always been either presumptuous or straight up wrong.



If that's your definition, then the theory of gravity is a religion. Germ theory is a religion. Electrical engineering is a religion. Geology is a religion. Math is a religion.

Your definition of religion is wrong. But even if we accept your definition of religion, it's so vague it loses all purpose in that everything is literally a religion. Everything that doesn't include God is a religion, and everything that includes God is a religion. Essentially, you just replaced the word "thing" with "religion". Every thing is a religion.

People call evolution a religion because they want to make it sound as if it's faith based. It's not. It's evidence based. Even if evidence for evolution was all wrong (which it isn't), it still wouldn't be a religion. It would just be a debunked scientific theory.



The problem is, when "God's word" contradicts reality, you reject reality.

It does cause a dilemma. You believe God is never wrong and should never even be questioned. So it does make sense that, when reality doesn't match God's word as you know it, you reject reality. The problem is, IF God's word is wrong, you have made it literally impossible for yourself to know it unless you changed you views on God first.

I don't really mind any of your rejections though. The problem doesn't stem from your rejection of evolution. It stems from your misinformation about the theory of evolution and about science in general. You will argue that there isn't evidence for evolution when there is. You will argue that evolution states one thing when it really states another.



One Million Cookies for you. If I could, I would.

I've always known that from conscious thought and its effects is where every problem humanity face arises. Every person cognates uniquely, so, one Christian person will come to particular conclusions about the meaning within a piece of scripture where another may come to different conclusions. Which, by itself is not necessarily an issue. But the frequency of propagation that my spiritual conclusions are the only possible spiritual conclusions seems to directly correlate to frequency of controversy.

For instance, you said 'you believe God is never wrong' and I immediately thought it would have been more accurate if you'd said 'you believe your interpretation of the bible is never wrong'. And now I'm correcting your cognitive process. Ironic.

Food for thought.

 

[Timeline]

Dear Captain Science,

How many species are there in the current animal kingdom? Yes, just the current animal kingdom.

 

[Timeline]

Dear Captain Science,

How many species are there in the current animal kingdom? Yes, just the current animal kingdom.

You can include or exclude humans...I don't really care

 

[superdave5221]

Not in the realms of science. Please click the following link:

Scientific theory | Learn everything there is to know about Scientific theory at Reference.com



They do consider evidence. The problem is that there isn't any evidence. What evidence people do provide requires one to presuppose the existence of God. But presupposition must be left out of the equation in science.

Wrong! I hope you don't mind me using your terminology. Perhaps you should study epistemology and find out how truth is obtained. NOBODY, and that includes scientists, have NO presuppositions. EVERYBODY must have a starting point. That starting point is presuppositions based on first principles which are self evident. And, oh by the way, modern scientists have given up their PRESUPPOSITION that nature is a closed system. In doing so, they can no longer insist that miracles do not exist.



What's evidence for you is seen as not evidence by scientists. Not because scientists rule out that creationism didn't happen before observing the evidence, but because the evidence is flawed.

The evidence is seen as flawed because of THEIR PRESUPPOSITIONS!!!


The problem is, all evidence points to evolution. This analogy works better to describe creationism, in which the student says, "see, this book says 4 doesn't exist."

The evidence for them must point to evolution, for they have no other answer which fits their PRESUPPOSITIONS.

GOT IT!

 

[Esanta]

The evidence for them must point to evolution, for they have no other answer which fits their PRESUPPOSITIONS.

GOT IT!

If I presuppose that light travels straight in a vacuum, it allows me to set up an experiment to find the evidence. Now, I cannot physically tell light to be different than what it is, so, if my experiment leads me to the conclusion that light is straight, then light is straight.

I speculated that light was straight and proved it. Presupposition isn't the same as speculation.

 

[Percepi]

For instance, you said 'you believe God is never wrong' and I immediately thought it would have been more accurate if you'd said 'you believe your interpretation of the bible is never wrong'. And now I'm correcting your cognitive process. Ironic.

Food for thought.

Good point. I agree. I should have said 'your interpretation of the Bible'. By saying 'you believe God is never wrong', it does come off as if I'm challenging an established position of God, one that's debated.

 

[Tintin]

Fred Flintstone and his pet dinosaur Dino proves that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

As Han Solo said to Chewbacca: "Laugh it up, fuzz ball".

 

[Tintin]

You're not rejecting evolution because it's based on flawed reasoning. You're rejecting evolution because it contradicts God, therefore you assume it must be flawed reasoning.

I'm absolutely rejecting evolution because it's based on flawed reasoning, but yes, also because it contradicts God. At least you're consist in your unbelief.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Fred Flintstone and his pet dinosaur Dino proves that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

Nah Fred Flintstone is just a fictional cartoon made to entertain, placate, and manipulate the older generations.

I was moreso thinking along the lines of Kubilai Khan and his chariots drawn by dragons as recorded by Marco Polo in the book Travels of Marco Polo is proof of dinosaurs. Or perhaps Pliny the Elder's analyses of various dragon species around the world in his book Natural History. Among other ancient writers, again both Christians and non-Christians, so this is not a case of religious bias.

 

[jag1977]

I've always known that from conscious thought and its effects is where every problem humanity face arises. Every person cognates uniquely, so, one Christian person will come to particular conclusions about the meaning within a piece of scripture where another may come to different conclusions. Which, by itself is not necessarily an issue. But the frequency of propagation that my spiritual conclusions are the only possible spiritual conclusions seems to directly correlate to frequency of controversy.

For instance, you said 'you believe God is never wrong' and I immediately thought it would have been more accurate if you'd said 'you believe your interpretation of the bible is never wrong'. And now I'm correcting your cognitive process. Ironic.

Food for thought.

Food...

[SUP] [/SUP]That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore
Interesting....

 

[jdbear]

I keep hearing this idea that all evidence of our existence points to evolution. Does anyone here who believes in evolution have an explanation why no species showing transition have survived to recorded history, or why no species showing transition is found in fossils?

 

[superdave5221]

If I presuppose that light travels straight in a vacuum, it allows me to set up an experiment to find the evidence. Now, I cannot physically tell light to be different than what it is, so, if my experiment leads me to the conclusion that light is straight, then light is straight.

I speculated that light was straight and proved it. Presupposition isn't the same as speculation.

Correct. That is why presuppositions must be based on first principles which are self evident. Romans 1:20 states that it is self evident that God created the universe. If that is true, and I believe it is, then any presuppositions which deny this self evident fact could lead to conclusions which are inconsistent with reality.

 

[Esanta]

Good point. I agree. I should have said 'your interpretation of the Bible'. By saying 'you believe God is never wrong', it does come off as if I'm challenging an established position of God, one that's debated.

Yep. It's not a given that every Christian believes the creation account is literal, thus it's possible that it's not literal - if we are to base the validity of scriptural interpretation on the interpretations that exist within the entire Christian faith, that is. Of course, then we end up with this one respondent who will say 'creation is literal, I know it to be true', as opposed to to the other Christian who might say 'creation is not literal, I know it to be true', then we have the atheist scientist who says to himself 'I'm fed up of this, both think they're right based off belief, none have evidence, so I'm gonna make everything in my life evidence based'.

Neither of those three people like the idea of uncertainty, though.

 

[Esanta]

Correct. That is why presuppositions must be based on first principles which are self evident. Romans 1:20 states that it is self evident that God created the universe. If that is true, and I believe it is, then any presuppositions which deny this self evident fact could lead to conclusions which are inconsistent with reality.

It does lead to questions. Why? How? What for? When?

Speculating that light is straight is a hugely different thing from assuming that God made the universe in six 24 hour periods.

 

[Tintin]

Might the reason for your distrust of evolutionary theory be because you believed in the literal 6 day creation in the first place? It stands to reason that if you actively deny something the first time you're presented with it, regardless of evidence, it will never be viable for you. This is actually a well known defence mechanism.

Perhaps you think that if evolution is true then the bible is false and that scares you? The reality is, Tintin, that evolutionary theory and faith don't have to contradict one another. Many scientists who believe in evolution are Christian. Many would often cite the biblical verse 'a day is like an age to God' and that would explain the fact that scientific analysis of life on Earth shows it to be older than 6,000 years. This would also reconcile with evidence that the period of time from dust and space-rocks until life on Earth was billions of years.

The two don't have to be at odds, at least that's what lots of other Christians think about it.

I wasn't taught the literal 6 day creation in the first place. When I read the Bible, that's what it recorded. You have to bring outside beliefs into the Bible to read anything like millions or billions of years.

No, I'm not scared. The Bible is true and evolution is false, that's it. Yes, evolutionary beliefs and the Christian faith absolutely contradict each other. I've read countless resources about such things (from both sides of the coin), I've thought through my beliefs and the evidence presented critically. I think revelation and reason go hand-in-hand. But not humanity's understanding of reason but reason informed by God's Truth, the Bible. You have more faith in scientists than God who was there! In every instance where Christians have compromised in their beliefs (whether it's evolution or the framework hypothesis or day-age or whatever) they always show that they don't have a high regard for God's Word as the final authority. And they especially don't know how to teach the book of Genesis, which is foundational to the Christian faith. Can a Christian be a theistic evolutionist? Sure. Can the Christian faith and evolutionary beliefs truly be reconciled? Heck, no!

 

[Esanta]

I keep hearing this idea that all evidence of our existence points to evolution. Does anyone here who believes in evolution have an explanation why no species showing transition have survived to recorded history, or why no species showing transition is found in fossils?

They are. Certain fish have half-way formed inner ear bones that started as extra gills. Human embryos have the same gill slits until they go behind the jaw and form the inner ear. And there are thousands of transitional fossils.

 

[Percepi]

Wrong! I hope you don't mind me using your terminology. Perhaps you should study epistemology and find out how truth is obtained. NOBODY, and that includes scientists, have NO presuppositions. EVERYBODY must have a starting point. That starting point is presuppositions based on first principles which are self evident. And, oh by the way, modern scientists have given up their PRESUPPOSITION that nature is a closed system. In doing so, they can no longer insist that miracles do not exist.

1. If you always beg the question, you will always eventually reach a point in which we do presuppose. Always, whether it comes to science, religion, or philosophy. How do we know that all the experiments we have ever performed were not the result of a computer program and we're all just coding inside a computer with only the perception of consciousness? But, if you want to specify the very "point" in which scientists do presuppose, please point it out. I'll gladly explain how throwing out that presupposition would also require us to throw out ALL science, not just the theory of evolution.

2. Epistemology is a broad philosophy with varying different branches. If you conclude, through epistemology, that knowledge can only be obtained from a creator, then you're merely accepting one particular branch. To act like epistemology only comes to a single conclusion is to reveal your own misunderstandings of the subject.

The evidence for them must point to evolution, for they have no other answer which fits their PRESUPPOSITIONS.

GOT IT!

This statement would work if something I said actually simplified to this argument. But nothing I said does simplify to this argument. You're merely misrepresenting my position.

The evidence is seen as flawed because of THEIR PRESUPPOSITIONS!!!

Actually, a basic understanding of both science and logical fallacies is the reason the evidence is seen as flawed. Creationist "proofs" aren't theories. They generally can't even be considered hypothesis!

 

[jag1977]

They are. Certain fish have half-way formed inner ear bones that started as extra gills. Human embryos have the same gill slits until they go behind the jaw and form the inner ear. And there are thousands of transitional fossils.

[SUP]19 [/SUP]And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

 

[jdbear]

Fred Flintstone and his pet dinosaur Dino proves that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

A credible reason is given why humans and dinosaurs did coexist, and this is the stupid response you get. Pathetic.