Biblical creationist arguments against evolutionary biology

[dunsapy]

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

 

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...

 

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

Science is in the position that it doesn't know. They have ideas, but in the end they don't know. So they may rule out things, with their reasoning , they could be right, they may find that they are wrong. Science says all the time they were surprised by what they found or discovered. Or they hit a road block that they can't proceed further. So they try another approach.

I take this very seriously. I am not playing games, this is not just a debate. I really do think science, is blinded on this question.

Don't get me wrong, I think science is a good thing . I personally like to learn new things. Sciences explorations into space, in genes, and everything else, is amazing.

[dunsapy]

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

How so?

[Turtle]

...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.”

 

We are not going through this nonsense again at Hypography. :D Your source is a creationist website, we're sick of this tripe, and you are not welcome here as you earlier surmised. What you are continuing to do is trolling and specifically against our rules. Don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out. :hihi:

 

CSC - The Mystery of Life’s Origin

The Mystery of Life’s Origin

Reassessing Current Theories

 

A seminal work for the theory of intelligent design, this book ...

[dunsapy]

We are not going through this nonsense again at Hypography. Your source is a creationist website, we're sick of this tripe, and you are not welcome here as you earlier surmised. What you are continuing to do is trolling and specifically against our rules. Don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out.

I don't know why you guys keep bringing up this stuff. I never even heard of this book. You keep assuming that I will bring up the same stuff, you have heard before. No wonder science can't get anywhere with this topic.

[dunsapy]

Your source is a creationist website,

What are you taking about? I don't use a creationist website . I have told you guys here that, I have no trust in Christendoms ideas.

[Turtle]

What are you taking about? I don't use a creationist website . I have told you guys here that, I have no trust in Christendoms ideas.

You quoted the book title in your post that I quoted. :D Creationsim is a pig and intelligent design is lipstick on that pig. This is a no swine zone.

[modest]

Science... may rule out things, with their reasoning , they could be right

Yes—through evidence and reasoning scenarios of abiogenesis can be ruled out.

I really do think science, is blinded on this question.

Guessing does not require vision. Blind people can do it. Looking for answers requires vision.

Blind: Guessing God made us from mud.

Not blind: Studying and testing evidence of abiogenesis

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

How so?

Falsifiable means "capable of being tested". The fables in the bible are testable because they make testable predictions. The book of Luke lists a few dozen generations between Adam and Jesus. This leads to a testable prediction: all human ancestors lived less than 200 generations ago. This kind of prediction fails confirmation when (for example) the most recent matrilineal common ancestor lived approximately 10,000 generations ago.

 

If DNA studies had found all humans were related by less than 200 generations then such a prediction would have been confirmed. However, the bible is unmistakably wrong. The biblical story of creation is like Peter Pan or Lord of the Rings... fictional.

 

~modest

[dunsapy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dunsapy View Post

What are you taking about? I don't use a creationist website . I have told you guys here that, I have no trust in Christendoms ideas.

You quoted the book title in your post that I quoted. Creationsim is a pig and intelligent design is lipstick on that pig. This is a no swine zone

I didn't get that from a website, I got that from some of my own reading, nothing to do with any website. A few years back.

Isn't a pig a close relative of a turtle?

[REASON]

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.

 

Take a look at all that is in your midst. Look around you. Name one thing that has not been touched by science. Consider your way of life - where you live, work, commute. The answers of science are everywhere. From the production of goods and services, to the life sciences, to the exploration of the solar system, to splitting the atom, to defining the forces of nature. Science is everywhere. Science is a methodology for exploring and understanding the physical universe and the psychological mind. There are an endless amount of answers to be found through scientific inquiry.

 

The Bible and other religious texts primarily present ideas and generate feelings. I think that is why it is so important to you. It doesn't matter whether those ideas can be proven or supported by any evidence at all because they represent ideas and feelings that you want to be true. You want them to be true so bad that you are willing to agressively deny the mountainous success of applied science to what we have become as a species in protection of your faith.

 

To me, your desperate attempt to discredit science only reveals the fear you have that science will expose your prescious god and your life eternal to be nothing but a figment of your imagination. What's great is that as a free thinking individual, you are welcome to go on believing as you wish. But running around claiming that because science doesn't have all the answers serves as some sort evidence for the existance of god is a false prospect.

 

God will remain as simply an idea. An idea which will forever be locked in your heart and mind. Meanwhile, science will continue providing us with a deepening understanding of our natural existence.

 

Maybe someday you will find the glory of god in the natural world as defined by the reality of science instead of the mythology of a religious doctrine. Maybe not.

[Moontanman]

I didn't get that from a website, I got that from some of my own reading, nothing to do with any website. A few years back.

Isn't a pig a close relative of a turtle?

 

For the record, NO, a pig is not a close relative of a turtle.

[InfiniteNow]

The concept of "closeness" is relative, so it would be more appropriate to ask dungspy for clarification. Does he mean "close relative to humans and chimps," or "close relative to humans and ameoba?"

[Pyrotex]

I didn't get that from a website, I got that from some of my own reading, nothing to do with any website. A few years back....

Trouble is, dunsoggy,

you quack like a duck,

you waddle like a duck,

you look like a duck,

you fly like a duck.

 

So trying to convince us that you AREN'T a Creationist Troll Duck

is gonna be nigh onto impossible.

 

Say, isn't that a duck egg comin' outa your butt? :)

[dunsapy]

Sorry guys, I couldn't give a comment back, to you

I got banned for answering Turtle's comment.

I thought what I said was kind of cleaver, and I didn't call him anything.

So there you go.

Anyway this is a waste of time.

So please delete me from this forum.

Thanks

[Pyrotex]

NOTE For Dealing With Future Creationism Trolls:

 

It may be impossible to change the mind of a true-blue troll who believes that God created the world 6,148 years ago on a Tuesday morning. They thrash about here and then they leave.

 

But I pose this question to all of us:

What do we want them to take away after they leave ?

(whether they leave voluntarily or are banned)

 

I propose that we strive to get just one tiny point across, a point that may stick with them for a long time. That point is this: What scientists DO, what WE do, when we "do science" is NOT the same as reading a book and believing it is true. The very thought processes we take for granted are DIFFERENT from the thought processes of the believer. I propose that we try to convey the realization that there are OTHER ways to THINK, OTHER ways to OBSERVE, OTHER ways to use our minds and construct explanations for Reality -- than they currently have, or have been exposed to.

 

An analogy: a blind person comes to us seeking to sell cloth. His cloth is a dingy mud color. We already have cloth that is of every color and pattern. We may not be able to make him "see", but we should at least leave him with the idea that "seeing" is possible, that there ARE others who CAN see, and that this "seeing" is NOT the same as what he does with his fingertips.

 

Comments?