Science against evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 01:14 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:12 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  The Bible is not my only source but where conflict or contradiction exists I will take the word of God over the words of a man in any instance.

I have seen nothing in the hallowed halls of science that has ever convinced me that my perception is wrong.


But the words in the bibal are words of men. -_-
No. You can make your arguments about the Bible being transcribed by man but ultimately the source of it was God. In any case that is far superior to an idea wholly created and transcribed by man.

Check out my YouTube channel for more videos and information Smile

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ5PX9Y...1uwXxWwQ6w
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 01:19 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:14 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  But the words in the bibal are words of men. -_-
No. You can make your arguments about the Bible being transcribed by man but ultimately the source of it was God. In any case that is far superior to an idea wholly created and transcribed by man.
Funny, since God falls under that category. Drinking Beverage

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 12:42 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  the idea that everything in the universe revolves round the sun
Sweet mother of your non-existent and vicious god! Do you even know the difference between the universe and, say, a solar system? How about galaxies? Intergalactic space?

Jesus bloody Christ! I'm still not sure I read it aright!
[Image: 2320932_o.gif]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Vera's post
16-01-2013, 01:24 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 01:19 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:14 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  But the words in the bibal are words of men. -_-
No. You can make your arguments about the Bible being transcribed by man but ultimately the source of it was God. In any case that is far superior to an idea wholly created and transcribed by man.


Which god are you talking about exactly?

The bible as we know it today as built of a myriad of older creation myths in the region. At one stage there were at least three gods in the early iterations.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 01:12 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I was not a part of the thread bemoaning the lack of theists, so my general apathy towards it is unregistered.

In any event, my post is a reflection of your attempt at deflecting the points raised on your videos. If you only look at the bible as your "source" of anything, then there is no dialogue to be had. You simply want to preach to the atheists and we circle-jerk around any arguments all day long, so why waste my breath on such willful ignorance?
The Bible is not my only source but where conflict or contradiction exists I will take the word of God over the words of a man in any instance.

I have seen nothing in the hallowed halls of science that has ever convinced me that my perception is wrong.
Right, so if it goes against the bible or biblical teachings, you side with the bible. What line of reasoning and what kind of evidence can you show someone who has forgone the use of reason and sides against evidence?

If we want to have a conversation about evolution, based on what you have divulged so far, we would have to establish why the bible is or is not an authority on reality and what evidence is and isn't. Because you look at evidence and reason from science and say that anything you can't reconcile with the bible must be wrong. So, the circle-jerk will be centered around "the bible says this and the bible says that" and "well this *insert vague scripture* says the Earth was round. Now how else could they have known that if not god?"

It will be nothing more than argument from ignorance and appeal to authority. I have wasted too much time as is.

Anyone up for some Parcheesi?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
16-01-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 01:19 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:14 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  But the words in the bibal are words of men. -_-
No. You can make your arguments about the Bible being transcribed by man but ultimately the source of it was God. In any case that is far superior to an idea wholly created and transcribed by man.


There is no evidence that it is the words of any god.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 01:15 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  What?
No actual scientist believes anything like that. Where do you get this from?
It is the logical opposite to a scripturally correct earth-centred universe.
Have you looked at the pictures from spacecraft? Have you studied any astronomy whatever?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 01:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:19 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  No. You can make your arguments about the Bible being transcribed by man but ultimately the source of it was God. In any case that is far superior to an idea wholly created and transcribed by man.


There is no evidence that it is the words of any god.
You have it all wrong Chas, it says it is so it must be because it couldn't say it was and it not be unless it was a fake and we know it isn't a fake because it says it is real and there are some pieces in it that if I take the vague passages and squint really hard I can make look like prophecies and that basically proves that the Earth is 6,000 years old and people used to live to 700 years old and pigs are evil so don't even touch them and if you rape a woman and get caught you have to pay 50 shekels of silver to the father of the woman and marry her because virginity has a price tag for a woman but nobody gives a shit about the guy's virginity.

Apples are evil too.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
16-01-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 01:09 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:03 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  AtheismExposed, why do you believe evolution is contradictory to Christianity?
Simply put, because it runs contrary to what the Bible has to say about our origins. If we are merely an animal species like any other that leaves no room for God
Okay, few questions if you don't mind:

1) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you reconcile the inconsistencies in the creation story from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Likewise, how do you reconcile the scientifically false assertions.

2) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain traveling starlight?

3) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain the accuracy radiometric dating?

4) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain carnivores or any other animal/bacteria/virus that relies on death for sustenance?

Next set:

1) How much of your studies have you dedicated to Ancient Near East history, writings, and mythologies?

2) If you have studied this, how do you explain the Akkadian's story of Gilgamesh and Adapa?

3) How do you explain the commonalities shown in all ANE mythologies that pre-date Hebrew culture?

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
16-01-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 12:42 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  There IS an evolutionary worldview, it involves everything from Big Bangism through to the idea that everything in the universe revolves round the sun in some totally counterintuitive astrological configuration then some mixture of lifeless water and stone magically spawned life which eventually turned into everything we see today including people over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

The whole thing is so outlandish it's almost funny.


You are absolutely correct. What you just said is so outlandish it really is funny. But, what you fail to realize is that what you said is very wrong. If there were any actual scientist who ever said what you just did, I would laugh out loud at him.

But scientists don't say that. Only close-minded religious people who don't understand science but really want to laugh at it say this stuff, because it's all wrong and truly laughable. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that science works like this laughable, outlandish misrepresentation.

Because it's a long answer:
There is no such thing as "Big banigsm" for the same reason I already mentioned about "Darwinism" and "evolutionism" in my previous post. It's a made up, negative, insulting word that is only used to pretend to discredit science by attacking something that really doesn't exist. Furthermore, and even more importantly, the big bang (and all other scientific theories about the origin of the universe) has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution ONLY talks about how life changes over time. Since there was no life during the big bang, or for a very long time after it, there was no evolution during the big bang or those early years of the universe. Saying that the big bang is part of evolution is like saying growing an apple tree is part of baking a pie - it's fully possible to be an excellent baker and bake wonderful pies without ever bothering to grow an apple tree . Someone else grows the tree, harvests the apples, takes them to market, and sells them to the baker. The baker's job doesn't start until he has all the ingredients and is ready to bake his pie. Evolution doesn't start until there is already life and a place for it to live.

I have never heard anyone say that everything in the universe revolves around the sun. You're the first person I have ever heard saying that. Surely no scientist would ever say such a nonsensical thing. So yeah, that's very funny, but it's not true. It's not even true that anyone would say it. Aside from that, discussions about how the universe revolves or where it is or where our sun is, etc., are all part of cosmology but not part of evolution (see above, this is the apple tree again, it's not the pie).

As for "some mixture of lifeless water and stone magically spawning life", that's not right either. Water, yes. Atmospheric gasses, yes. Lightning, yes. Stone, no, stone had nothing to do with it. Magic, no, magic had nothing to do with it. Scientists are still working on figuring out these details. We can create amino acids (the building blocks of life) from water, gas, and electricity. No stone, no magic. It's been done thousands of times all over the world. But it's not the whole answer. Aside from that, discussions about how life began on earth is part of biology but not part of evolution (see above, this is the apple tree again, it's not the pie).

And finally, "turned into everything we see today including people over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS" is also wrong, but at least this time you're closer. Yes, simple life eventually evolved into everything living that we see today, animals, trees, fish, fungus, coral, grass, even people. But it took billions of years. But at least you got the basic idea right.

So you see, putting all your misunderstanding together into that one paragraph I quoted, it really is funny. It's so wrong that paints a funny picture of what some scientifically-ignorant creationists believe but this picture is nowhere close, not even remotely, to what science actually teaches us.

(16-01-2013 12:42 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  As for scientific "orthodoxy", that too is unfortunately the case. A great many creation science organisations including AiG and ICR have tried to publish in Atheist journals but they just get rejected flat out. Refusing to allow opposition to be heard is how evolutionism has survived this long.

That's because "creation science" is not science. See this spoiler to see why:
Here's how science works:
1. Observe something around us. For example, that apple fell off of a tree and landed on the ground.
2. Wonder why that happens. Ask yourself questions like "why did it fall down instead of up?".
3. Come up with what you think might be the best answer, a hypothesis, such as "something about the earth pulled it toward the earth so that it couldn't fall up into the sky".
4. Figure out ways to test that hypothesis. Lots of tests, experiments, measurements. Invite other scientists to test your hypothesis too, using their own tests.
5. After tons of experiments have been conducted, collect the data and figure out a real scientific answer that explains the data.
5a. If some of those tests prove your hypothesis was wrong, then go find a new hypothesis. Repeat.
5b. If none of those tests prove your hypothesis was wrong, then submit your findings to the entire world of scientists and let them try to find errors in it.
6. If you got this far without disproving your hypothesis and without the other scientists disproving it, then you now, finally, have a working scientific theory. Write a book and get famous.

Here's how "creation science" works:
1. Read a book (the Bible) and find a story you like.
2. Don't bother to wonder how it happened because you already know God did that cool stuff.
3. Don't come up with any answer because the answer is already given to you, God did that cool stuff.
4. Come up with 1 test to confirm that God did it. You can't really test God, so just make something up.
5. There is no data to collect because you only did one test and that one was pretend. You don't need a scientific explanation because you already know God did it.
5a. Nothing disproved your test because God did it. Make sure you ignore any and all science that proves you wrong, even invent words to make science look silly if it helps you ignore science.
5b. Show your religious friends so they can tell you how cool you are. Use your made up words to convince them to ignore science too.
6. Of course you got this far without disproving your biblical answer because God did it. No need to write a book because the only book that matters was written 2,000 years ago.

See the difference? That's why "creation science" isn't a science and when somebody claims to have proofs via "creation science" and they want to be published in real scientific journals, they don't get very far.

But aside from that, when a creation "scientist" wants to be published in a scientific journal, the journals don't just say no. They invite him to submit his paper for peer review by other scientists. This is not unfair because they insist that all scientists have to do the same thing. When a real scientist submits a paper for peer review, those other scientists read the paper, conduct tests and experimentation, and then respond with their best effort to say whether or not the original scientific paper is correct or wrong. Sometimes it is wrong in which case the paper is not published. Other times it's correct and then it will be published. But when a "creation scientist" submits his paper and gets reviewed by real scientists, he is usually wrong for many reasons (usually because he didn't conduct real science, real experiments, real peer review, etc.).

However, if a "creation scientist" were to submit a paper to any scientific journal and that paper passed through real peer review, standing up to scrutiny and experimentation by science, then it would get published.

Now, I wonder, if I submit a paper on evolution to your religion to be published in your religion's journals, how many people would actually run tests or conduct experiments to verify the validity of my paper? Answer: None, it would just be thrown away. Your religious journals would do the very thing you falsely accuse scientific journals of doing, but the scientific journals would not.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: