Biblical creationist arguments against evolutionary biology

[dunsapy]

You hypothesize that both science and religion have unquestioning dogmatic belief then given an example from religion where that is the case, then conclude that both science and "christendom" don't follow their mandate.

 

I'm not sure if you just forgot to give an example where science shows an unquestioning dogmatic belief or if you didn't intend to give one, but if you want to make the conclusion that "both Science and Christendom don't follow their mandate" then some reason or example from science would be needed.

I intend to back up what I say. I know those were sweeping statements, but I think they are true.

I will give the most important one for Christendom. That is the belief that Jesus is God. Yet the bible says that no man has seen God at anytime.

John1:18*No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

Jesus here , is shown as (only begotten) which means he was created.( by God) Jesus himself says , he is not God. ( and that he had a God) So Christendom is wrong in their understanding, of the bible. This holds true for the creation account as well, they have taught things through out the ages that are not true. For instance the bible simply states that God created the heavens and the earth. No time line there, it could have been billions of earth years ago.

 

Science on the other hand , says.... we use facts and then come to a conclusion based on those facts. They use theories and then try to prove them.This what science is about. Getting proof. But science turns around and says we can't prove how life got started and then came to be what we see today. Evolution and abiogenesis are theories with no proof. Also science uses the word theory , in articles and TV programs as though they think evolution is a fact. Many scientists do not agree with other scientists on this matter, because evolution theory does not answer all the questions. So at this point in time, science cannot say that the earth and all life was not created.

 

There is no difference between Christendom and Science, they both need belief, both claim to have the proof and both are wrong.

( this is not to say the bible is wrong)

[dunsapy]

dunsapy,

how the heck would you know?

Like goku, you are fundementally ill-equipped to draw any distinctions.

How do you know that?

It is not very scientific, to have a closed mind. Or make judgments, without testing.

I'm not saying science does not have facts, they do. But it is the interpretations of the facts, where they are wrong. That is no different than Christendom.

[freeztar]

I intend to back up what I say. I know those were sweeping statements, but I think they are true.

 

Modest made a valid request for you to show where science is based on dogmatic belief, and you give this?

 

Evolution and abiogenesis are theories with no proof. Also science uses the word theory , in articles and TV programs as though they think evolution is a fact. Many scientists do not agree with other scientists on this matter, because evolution theory does not answer all the questions. So at this point in time, science cannot say that the earth and all life was not created.

 

I believe your understanding of science is causing a vast amount of confusion. Your use of the words "proof" and "theory" show this. The scientific use of the word "theory" is much different than the commonplace use of the word. A scientific theory is best seen as an explanation for questions concerning "why?". A scientific theory can explain observations and predict future observations. This is quite different (even antonymous) from the colloquial definition of theory, which assumes incredibility.

 

It's a logical fallacy to claim that because science can not answer every question, it is insufficient to answer any questions. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about "creation". It doesn't tell us how life began, it tells us how life has changed, adapted, speciated, etc. through time.

 

There is no difference between Christendom and Science, they both need belief, both claim to have the proof and both are wrong.

( this is not to say the bible is wrong)

 

That's rich!

 

Dunsapy, You are making claims that put you in jeopardy of receiving an infraction. Please review the site rules which can be found here: Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules

 

Please note that preaching is not accepted here. We also ask every member to support their claims, especially when asked to do so. Making broad statements such as "There is no difference between Christendom and Science, they both need belief, both claim to have the proof and both are wrong" need to be supported with legitimate third party sources.

 

If you have questions about this, please send me, or any other moderator, a PM (private message). Thanks! ;)

[dunsapy]

I believe your understanding of science is causing a vast amount of confusion. Your use of the words "proof" and "theory" show this. The scientific use of the word "theory" is much different than the commonplace use of the word. A scientific theory is best seen as an explanation for questions concerning "why?". A scientific theory can explain observations and predict future observations. This is quite different (even antonymous) from the colloquial definition of theory, which assumes incredibility.

I do know that evolution means different things to different people. Old people think of evolution as what they were taught in school. That included, the start of everything up until what we see now. Science now has a different meaning to that. The term therory is just that idea. But it is not a proved idea. I have been told that science is does not prove things, but everyone seems to have his own limits to what that means. There are many scientists that are questioning different aspects of all the origin type of sciences. There is no definite answer from science. In reality new theories are coming forward, because old theories, are not sufficient. It wasn't all that long ago that science did not know anything about DNA, or that it even existed. So overnight things and thinking changed in science. How do you know that next year a whole new thinking, will, appear. You would think that , since Darwin's time, it could be proved in some way.

I really think that this is sciences attitude.

“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. . . . The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.” (L. T. More) “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it . . . can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D. Watson) “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”—Sir Arthur Keith.

 

Please note that preaching is not accepted here. We also ask every member to support their claims, especially when asked to do so. Making broad statements such as "There is no difference between Christendom and Science, they both need belief, both claim to have the proof and both are wrong" need to be supported with legitimate third party sources.

I don't intend to preach to anyone unless they ask, and then I could go some where else.

But I am assuming here, that means preaching science as well? Is that correct?

Some times people claim, the bible is unreliable, I would like to be able to answer with the bible on those types of questions. Just the same as answering with science on scientific topics?

I think this is reasonable?

 

 

-

[dunsapy]

Dunsapy, You are making claims that put you in jeopardy of receiving an infraction. Please review the site rules which can be found here: Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules

This is not just my idea, I have used sources , that I mentioned in my last post.

If it is your intention to only push science here, I will leave.

But I chose this thread, because it seemed that you wanted arguments, from the creation side also.

[pamela]

this is a science forum;)

Did you actually read this thread before posting? or maybe you just saw the title and thought we were looking for arguments?

We discuss theology in this forum, but we do not accept preaching or proselytizing of one's religion. Have you taken the time yet to read the rules? and specifically, the Theology forum rules? I suggest you do so, in order to understand the responses you are receiving to your posts

[freeztar]

I do know that evolution means different things to different people. Old people think of evolution as what they were taught in school. That included, the start of everything up until what we see now. Science now has a different meaning to that. The term therory is just that idea. But it is not a proved idea. I have been told that science is does not prove things, but everyone seems to have his own limits to what that means.

 

That raises a good point. Science, indeed, does not prove evolution. Nonetheless, the amount of evidence in its support is such that it is considered proved by almost all scientists. Let me give you an (borrowed) analogy:

 

You come to a traffic intersection and find a wreck with two cars involved. Judging from the skidmarks, the flow of traffic, eyewitness accounts, and the final resting points of the debris and wrecked cars, you conclude that the accident occured because car A turned left in front of car B, which crashed into car A after unsuccessfully braking. You are unsatisfied, so you access the video tape recording that intersection. It shows that car A indeed made a left turn in front of car B, causing the accident. After looking at all the evidence, almost everyone is convinced that the evidence shows that car A made a turn which caused the collision. But, someone objects. They claim that the cars could have been previously wrecked and placed in the intersection with towing trucks. A small team of people could have strewn the wreckage and acted as eyewitness testimonies. The video was doctored to show a crash. Hence, there is no way to prove the crash either way.

 

Which theory would you believe, given the evidence? One theory has strong evidence supporting it, the other has no evidence yet seeks to discredit the theory that does have evidence. Which is more believable to you?

 

That is the current state of Evolutionary Theory. Yes, some believe the car crash is *proven* more than others, but very few people deny the evidence, especially because the evidence continues to come in. It's a theory because it explains something (the crash), not because it is the "last word". (proof)

 

How do you know that next year a whole new thinking, will, appear.

Nobody can know this. I wouldn't doubt though that every scientist dreams of it. ;)

 

But I am assuming here, that means preaching science as well? Is that correct?

I'm not sure what exactly "preaching science" would entail, but as this is a science site, I would imagine there would be no problems with this. Likewise, I would expect that a bible forum would have no problem with its members preaching the bible.

 

Some times people claim, the bible is unreliable, I would like to be able to answer with the bible on those types of questions. Just the same as answering with science on scientific topics?

I think this is reasonable?

It's very reasonable, and is the type of discussions we'd like to see in the theology forum. If you look through the theology forum, you'll see that we have several discussions like this. You might enjoy some of them. Just remember that this is a science site and we expect theological discussions to remain scientific.

[dunsapy]

I'm not sure what exactly "preaching science" would entail, but as this is a science site, I would imagine there would be no problems with this. Likewise, I would expect that a bible forum would have no problem with its members preaching the bible.

I did not come hear to preach anyway. All I came to do is to show that, real science shows that there is a creator. My only intention, is try to open scientific minds to a scientific answer.

The reason I mentioned the bible and Christianity, is that what they have said in the past is not correct. So to scientific people what they think the bible says, my not be true at all. This is the same for science, depending on when to got your knowledge, and if you have kept up or not, depends what you think about science. Meanings of words change, new theories come and go. etc. anyway enough on that.

 

Oh there is one other thing. If I say there is a God , and you ask me where he came from , ...I don't know. The other thing I don't understand is, no beginning . I have to accept that.

But I can also ask you , before all the universe ( planet and stars etc), where did space start and where does it end, and where did the first materials come from, if from energy , where did it come?

[modest]

I'm not sure if you just forgot to give an example where science shows an unquestioning dogmatic belief or if you didn't intend to give one

 

Science on the other hand , says.... we use facts and then come to a conclusion based on those facts. They use theories and then try to prove them.This what science is about. Getting proof. But science turns around and says we can't prove how life got started and then came to be what we see today. Evolution and abiogenesis are theories with no proof. Also science uses the word theory , in articles and TV programs as though they think evolution is a fact. Many scientists do not agree with other scientists on this matter, because evolution theory does not answer all the questions. So at this point in time, science cannot say that the earth and all life was not created.

 

There is no difference between Christendom and Science, they both need belief, both claim to have the proof and both are wrong.

( this is not to say the bible is wrong)

 

Apparently... you're trying to give abiogenesis and evolution as examples where science shows unquestioning dogmatic beliefs. Those are really just awful examples. I really think you could have done better by opening an encyclopedia and just pointing at a random article. I mean... "cosmic inflation", "string theory" would those not have been better examples? Maybe you're not sure what you're arguing. Perhaps you're just copying and pasting an argument about something else from somewhere else ;)

 

In any case, evolution is both theory and fact. Evolution has been observed occurring. Wolfs evolved into dogs you know. Evolution is not "unquestioned". The question "do things evolve?" has been asked and answered: "yes".

 

Abiogenesis is neither fact nor proven. No experiment nor observation has yet determined the method of Abiogenesis. In this case science says "we are not yet sure but we're asking questions, looking at evidence, and trying to figure it out". That's about as far from "unquestioning dogmatic beliefs" as you can get. In the midst of this lack of conclusive evidence, religion claims "we know just how it happened. God made us out of mud in our present form and breathed a spirit into our nose." So, yeah... bloody good example you got there.

 

~modest

[dunsapy]

Abiogenesis is neither fact nor proven. No experiment nor observation has yet determined the method of Abiogenesis. In this case science says "we are not yet sure but we're asking questions, looking at evidence, and trying to figure it out". That's about as far from "unquestioning dogmatic beliefs" as you can get. In the midst of this lack of conclusive evidence, religion claims "we know just how it happened. God made us out of mud in our present form and breathed a spirit into our nose." So, yeah... bloody good example you got there.

This is true, science does not know these things and and the belief is that in the future they will find out. But at this point they don't know. So how can science come to any conclusion? How can they say it is not creation? Or rule out anything. When it comes to Abiogenesis, this still holds true. Darwin himself , indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations. In his conclusion to The Origin of Species, he wrote of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,” thus making it evident that the subject of origins was open to further examination. But so far there has been nothing concrete on this from science.

So far there is no conflict with creation yet. Science just doesn't know. I'm talking just about the start to life here. Not after, life, was already here.

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube - 3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

 

 

YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

[Moontanman]

This is true, science does not know these things and and the belief is that in the future they will find out. But at this point they don't know. So how can science come to any conclusion? How can they say it is not creation? Or rule out anything. When it comes to Abiogenesis, this still holds true. Darwin himself , indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations. In his conclusion to The Origin of Species, he wrote of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,” thus making it evident that the subject of origins was open to further examination. But so far there has been nothing concrete on this from science.

So far there is no conflict with creation yet. Science just doesn't know. I'm talking just about the start to life here. Not after, life, was already here.

 

You are totally outside the idea of proof, creationist ideas that god breathed life into the first life form is so unsupported I would be ashamed of even mentioning it. The idea of how the first life come into being has a huge amount of evidence to support it. Do we know all of it yet? No, and science is up front about that. You will not find science claiming they know what happened because they know the evidence isn't there yet. But creationist claim they know exactly how it happened is totally unsupported.

 

They give absolutely no evidence, just a few words written by iron age primitives that have so many discrepancies and contradictions attached to them it would be foolish to offer them as evidence of anything but a written language having existed at one time. Evidence for creationism? Lets see some evidence that the Bible, your sole source of evidence, is true at all. Giving a mythological book as evidence of reality is very bad form and does nothing but obfuscate the issue.

 

 

The foulest stench is in the air

The funk of forty thousand years

And grizzy ghouls from every tomb

Are closing in to seal your doom :D

[dunsapy]

You will not find science claiming they know what happened because they know the evidence isn't there yet. But creationist claim they know exactly how it happened is totally unsupported.

Actually that is not true. To say something is created is not the same as saying I know, how it was created. I really have no idea of God created everything. There are other reasons to why I think God did the creating. The thing is, that science has taken on the job of explaining how things were made, or how it just happened. But, so far they do not have any answers.

 

The idea of how the first life come into being has a huge amount of evidence to support it. Do we know all of it yet? No, and science is up front about that. You will not find science claiming they know what happened because they know the evidence isn't there yet.

You say science is up front with it,meaning they, say they don't know. Then you say they have huge amount of evidence to support that. ( what they don't know.)

Surprisingly , think I agree with that.

[dunsapy]

There were some video's posted. I did have a look at them. First I don't , and I mentioned this in one of my first posts, I don't want to be lumped in with people of Christendom. It's not that they maybe right in some things. It's just if you want to know what I think on a topic, ask me. Christendom has not had a good record for accuracy , or even knowing what the bible says. This is one reason why I think there is misunderstanding between Creation and Science.

[Moontanman]

Actually that is not true. To say something is created is not the same as saying I know, how it was created. I really have no idea of God created everything. There are other reasons to why I think God did the creating. The thing is, that science has taken on the job of explaining how things were made, or how it just happened. But, so far they do not have any answers.

 

 

No, science has lots of answers, some of them are incomplete but the basic ideas are sound, they just have been proved yet. To say science has no answers pretty much shows where you are coming from. You rely on a book of mythology for your answers, you have no need of proof or truth, just ready made simple answers. if you have any ideas why you think god did the creating that are not based in a fictional book of mythology I'd like to see them.

 

 

You say science is up front with it,meaning they, say they don't know. Then you say they have huge amount of evidence to support that. ( what they don't know.)

Surprisingly , think I agree with that.

 

Oh you are so snarky, I am wounded to the core. Science has a lot of evidence to support what they don't know! Oh wow, how do you come up with them. I think I'll take my toys and go home you have beaten me at the war of words but you remain as ignorant as ever of the truth.

 

The foulest stench is in the air

The funk of forty thousand years

And grizzy ghouls from every tomb

Are closing in to seal your doom :D

[modest]

This is true, science does not know these things and and the belief is that in the future they will find out. But at this point they don't know. So how can science come to any conclusion? How can they say it is not creation? Or rule out anything. When it comes to Abiogenesis, this still holds true.

 

If there is no verified theory of abiogenesis then how can theories of creationism be ruled out? Is this honestly what you're asking? :hihi:

 

You see no logical distinction between confirming a theory and ruling one out? If I were drinking a carbonated beverage and I wasn't sure if it was coke or pepsi or some other brand does that mean there would be no way of ruling out the possibility that it's made of pure mercury? This is the logic you're going with?

 

Honestly Dunsapy, you're on a science site. If you're not going to take this seriously...

 

:D The biblical story of creation can be ruled out because it is falsifiable.

 

~modest

[dunsapy]

On the first video.

I'm sure you guys have heard of the Miller experiment.

Scientist Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom (to represent an ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning) through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of reddish goo, which Miller analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids—the essence of proteins.

Some 40 years after his experiment, Professor Miller told Scientific American: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” Other scientists share this change of mood. For example, back in 1969, Professor of Biology Dean H. Kenyon coauthored Biochemical Predestination. But more recently he concluded that it is “fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”

 

The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories notes: “There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.” The latter efforts are characterized by “uniform failure.”

 

Realistically, the mystery encompasses more than how the first protein and nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) molecules came into existence. It includes how they work together. “It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Yet the encyclopedia notes that how that partnership could come about remains “a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life.”

 

“From ‘the RNA World’ or Another World?” page*48.) For example, Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, observed: “At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”

 

Even at the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, no solutions were forthcoming. Instead, the journal Science reported that the nearly 300 scientists who convened had “grappled with the riddle of how [DNA and RNA] molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells.”

 

Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, answered:

 

“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.” He added: “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”

If you look at the world , you have to observe that life comes from life. Yet science is trying to say that life could have come from non life.( no intelligence)

Now if you noticed in the video the commentator stated that , scientist were trying to do this in an experiment. If science could do that( create life in a test tube) all that would show is that it took intelligence ( the scientists ) to make life. Doesn't that sound exactly , what God did. He said that he made man from the dust of the ground. So what science is doing is proving that God did it.