Errors in Science!

[UTEOTW]

Well, first things first.

You sound like you may be a rather well informed individual with an interest in these topics. YOu might be interested to know that there is a Science forum not mentioned on the main list of forums where these topics get a few posts per day. You might want to check it out.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/66.html?

Second of all, you haven't been around for too long, so I'll extend a welcome. BTW, I see you are from Knoxville. My lovely wife was born in Oak Ridge. She is also a huge UT fan which makes things interesting in October considering that I am a UA graduate.

Finally, I am just going to pick and choose a few statements at this point. Hopefully the more important ones.

"Evolution didn’t happen, but even if it did, it is not relevant to the origin of life."

While I do not agree with the first part, I do agree with the second. There is an important disctinction to be made between when ond low life got its start and how it has changed since then. The origin of life is forever shrouded in the mists of time. All I know is that God wanted life here and He made sure it happened. Did He use natural means to give life a start or did He create the first cells through intervention. I don't know and it does not really matter. But there are some curious possibilities emerging for how He could have used natural means.

"I am wondering though, if you are a Christian, why would you want to believe in something like this that is so far out there on the speculation side, and more akin to the beliefs of atheists than Christians?"

Mainly I want to know what is true. There is a stunning amount of evidence that God gave us the diversity of life we see through common descent using natural means under laws He set up to allow this to happen. Now, when you get further back than we can study, the origin of the very first simple life, we can have the opinion that HE intervened to get life going or that He allowed His natural laws to guide the process. Either is possible, but there is a beautiful symmetry to a universe so perfectly conceived that it carries out it creator will through billions of years.

"If you are familiar with OOL studies you realize the problems with assembling proteins from amino acids, let alone creating cellular factories that function with information rich instruction sets for assemblage and use within the cell."

If you getting at what I think... I think we know the reason for hypothesizing a series of prior steps, a lipid world, and RA world, an RNA world, etc. where making proteins comes later as an advance over not making proteins.

"Membrane like structures are light years away from our simplest conception of a functioning cell."

I don't know. If you have a few replicative strands of RNA that are in a protective membrane of lipids which can pull in materials from the environment to make more copies of themselves and who can divide off their membranes to make more...Well that sounds like life to me even if it is not life as we know it.

"Selection cannot work unless information storage and replication capabilities are present. "

There have ben quite a few lab studies where even simple strands of RNA can go through a selection process.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Well Paul, the obvious “what” is that this science, that is fraught with errors, inconsistencies, unknowns and deeply philosophical implications, is taught dogmatically from a naturalistic viewpoint because of atheistic philosophical bias in science. I grew up reading science journals. Science has been a big personal interest of mine since I was about 11 or 12. I didn’t grow up in a Christian home, but after a few years on drugs and in an out of jail I got saved at age 23. I still believed big bang, stellar evolution, abiogenesis, and naturalistic evolution as being virtually fact for 7 more years. At age 30 I started finding out all the problems with these scientific views, and how woefully inadequate they are in addressing the issue of origins. After twenty years of reading hundreds of science journals I found out I had only been presented one view, and uncritically at that. I had to be taught to think critically about these things, like a real scientist, by Christians no less. You know, the ones that follow faith and not fact, the ones that are blinded with bias, the ones that only present one view, you know the ones I’m talking about?

It is the prevailing philosophical bias in science that is presented as unbiased that is the issue. That is what keeps the majority of scientists from being forthcoming about what they don’t know, and about the ultimate conclusions of what we do currently know, hence my ministry. All the science today is pointing toward the necessity of an omnipotent creator, so why not say so. What is all the stink about? Why don’t we tell kids in public schools we have found nanotech at the cell level that can’t be explained naturally? Why don’t we tell students that we have no I idea why we have the finely tuned forces of nature and properties of matter? Why don’t we tell students that we have no idea how we got an ordered and elegant universe out of an explosion? But alas, all this hushing-up of the conclusions of modern science is not working. The majority of our youth, in this country anyway, see through this veil because of the ministry of the church. And much to the dismay of naturalists, hiding the truth only makes it more powerful to the individual when it is found out. So that’s “what”, in answer to your question. There are many bright young minds out there that need to be freed of the shackles of atheistic, naturalistic thought, just as I was. Many if not most are indoctrinated in this and do not even know it.

I am currently the president of the East Tennessee Creation Science Association (www.etcsa.org), and I have a creation science ministry with articles on my church’s website (www.learnthebible.org). Currently you can read articles I have written about the recent discovery of T-Rex soft tissue, and how that challenges the prevailing belief that they went extinct 68 million years ago. You can also read about how a world famous atheist was recently converted to deism by the overwhelming evidence provided to us by our current state of science on the necessity for a creator. You know, the evidence not presented to public school children for some inexplicable reason. What amazes me is that there are Christians that choose to still remain in the dark on this issue. I teach creation science for credit in our church’s Bible college, and I speak at a local Knoxville Churches on a regular basis. Trust me, there is a great deal of “what” to this.

BTW, relativity and quantum mechanics are good science in my opinion, and string theory is a promising theoretical construct for reconciling the macro and micro in physics, but all this amazing structure and properties did not arise by chance.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

UTEOTW, I appreciate your gracious post. I certainly prefer dialogue to argument. You can be sure I will not hold you in low esteem if you believe in evolution, but will rather treat you as a brother in Christ. I appreciate your welcoming me, but actually I have been here since not long after you joined, I just spend more time in ministry elsewhere. I’m a preacher and a creation science evangelist, plus I work full time and have a wife and three kids, with one more on the way. Too, too busy me is. That’s interesting that your wife is from this area. If you guys come in for a game and you have some extra time, maybe we can do lunch or something. I’ll buy.

You do show a level of recognition as to the immense problems with OOL studies, so that is good. I believe the implications of nanotech at the cell level are far more reaching than just OOL, but extend into the evolutionary realm. We can discuss this more. The common descent issue you bring up is fraught with problems, as I am sure you are also aware. But your comment about wanting to know what is true is key. For me, I have come to completely reject evolution based on the fundamental flaws in the so-called “fossil record” and the towering complexity at the cell level. But of course this is my personal view, and involved many years of research and soul searching. This was a much more vexing problem for me than most Christians because I have always been a science enthusiast.

Regarding the lipid/RA world discussion, protein production and use is more than just a minor advance, it is a quantum leap, at least in any conceptual aspect of cell functionality we can currently conceive. Serious OOL scientists certainly recognize this, but you do not always see it spelled out for the layperson. And of course you comment about it sounding like life, whew, can that be an involved discussion. I just read a recent article in SciAm on viruses and debate over whether they constitute life or not. My personal opinion is that all matter we consider living is advanced nanotech with layered complexity from top to bottom. We are machines, more advanced than anything in the known universe, as are all other life forms. It’s funny, we could not have even have imagined nanotech until after we discovered it at the cellular level. Fact is truly stranger than fiction in a world created by an omniscient agent. But of course, we are not mere robots as other creatures, and this is because of our massively intricate brains for one (see my article Thinking About the Brain). But most importantly, it is the soul that God breathed into man that makes us more than mere machines. Certainly a God who could create the nanotech we see at the cell level is capable of creating a soul as something special and distinct about us. Just some thoughts. I will check out the secret forum. Thanks.

 

[UTEOTW]

That is a interesting website you have there.

On the plus side, you make distictions between the various branches of science that most other YEers try and confuse. Pointing out that abiogenesis and cosmic evolution and biological evolution are all independent areas of study is a healthy step in the right direction.

On the negative side, a quick glance at a few pages also revealed a few statements that do not seem to be supportable. Instead of being exhaustive, let's just look at a few from one page. The Cambrian Explosion.

The item that really caught my eye was "The Cambrian layer has virtually every species known to man. Yes, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer." In fact, the opposite is true. The Cambrian layers contain NONE of the groups you listed. There are not any terrestial animals in these layers. Not even any terrestrial plants for that matter. The only fish are the jawless fish that begin appearing during the Cambrian. No fished with jaws and backbones at all in the Cambrian.

"Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms."

I think you may have missed some discoveries such as the Ediacarian or Vendian fossils. There are strange and unusual life forms from this period. Some are thought to have perished in a pair of extinctions before the Cambrian while some aret hought to have been the ancestor of the Cambrian fauna.

"To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. "

I would have to look further, but my guess would be that you would find the opposite to be true. From the Cambrian we have a limited number of sites that produce a relatively few forms of fossils compared to later periods where the rocks have had less time to be eroded, covered, subducted or any of the other things that can happen to rocks to keep us from finding them.

"The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all. "

That does not seem to make sense.

I will stop there. YOu should be able to get a sense of my concerns.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Cool. I'm sure there are many things I have missed, and many errors. I appreciate your feedback and will investigate these items further. And thanks for the positive comment, for I am striving for truthfulness and fairness, but yet still present my viewpoint.

 

[Michael52]

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:
Cool. I'm sure there are many things I have missed, and many errors. I appreciate your feedback and will investigate these items further. And thanks for the positive comment, for I am striving for truthfulness and fairness, but yet still present my viewpoint.

Refreshing!

We are called to search for the truth and abandon the arrogance of thinking we already possess all truth. Thank the One who is all Truth for allowing us the ability and opportunity to examine and search His mysteries and the magnificance of His creation.

Godspeed

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:

Well Paul, the obvious “what” is that this science, that is fraught with errors, inconsistencies, unknowns and deeply philosophical implications, is taught dogmatically from a naturalistic viewpoint because of atheistic philosophical bias in science.

Science, being a field of study, cannot of itself have biases. Biases are held by people. It is not a mere bias, however, that leads scientists to claim that the earth is billions of years old and all life is of common descent. There is scientific evidence in favor of these facts.

I grew up reading science journals. Science has been a big personal interest of mine since I was about 11 or 12. I didn’t grow up in a Christian home, but after a few years on drugs and in an out of jail I got saved at age 23.

I grew up reading science stuff too! But I was blessed with a christian home and was saved at a very young age, somewhere around 9 or 10, and have been an active christian ever since.

I still believed big bang, stellar evolution, abiogenesis, and naturalistic evolution as being virtually fact for 7 more years. At age 30 I started finding out all the problems with these scientific views, and how woefully inadequate they are in addressing the issue of origins.

I suppose I must be older than you, because in my youth Fred Hoyle was still proclaiming the steady state theory and I remember reading both sides and lived through the times as the science articles shifted from saying the jury was out to the evidence now favors the big bang theory of the origin of the universe.

After twenty years of reading hundreds of science journals I found out I had only been presented one view, and uncritically at that. I had to be taught to think critically about these things, like a real scientist, by Christians no less. You know, the ones that follow faith and not fact, the ones that are blinded with bias, the ones that only present one view, you know the ones I’m talking about?

What? No controvery over whether or not Einstein's theories were correct? No controversy over big bang vs steady state theory? You don't recall plate tectonics being first dismissed by the majority and then coming to being accepted by the majority, based on the evidence?

Certainly in reading about these some scientists would take one side and other woud take another. I would just about always, however, read where one side would take into account the arguments of the other and respect the other point of view.
I would often read where the scientist would state that the investigations have explained a few things and have opened up more questions that need answering.

I began to expect it to be perfectly normal for scientists to have more questions up in the air than it was possible to answer at any given time, but that they would have some good, solid answers for some things.

Did you ever read about the disgreement between Shapely and Hubble over the proper interpretation of the nebula that were showing up in the astronomer's telescopes? Shapely held they were gas clouds. Hubble held that they represented vast starry "island universes". The issue was settled by the evidence and today we all speak of the galaxies as being immense conglomerations of stars, separated by empty spaces with few or no stars between them.

I'm sorry that all you ever got out of science was a party line. It has been much more exciting that a mere rote presentation of party line facts that you'd better accept or else.

By the way, the issues concerning the age of the universe and the common descent of all life are among those that have been settled, along with plate tectonics and galaxies as "island universes". I'm truly sorry you missed out on a proper presentation of the evidence that leads us to accept evolution as fact.

It is the prevailing philosophical bias in science that is presented as unbiased that is the issue. That is what keeps the majority of scientists from being forthcoming about what they don’t know, and about the ultimate conclusions of what we do currently know, hence my ministry.

THe kind of ultimate conclusions we share about the origin of the universe as being created by God who is worthy of worship and calls for us to follow Him
go beyond science, into the realm of theology and philosophy. I certainly agree the journey is worth taking, but I don't call it science.

All the science today is pointing toward the necessity of an omnipotent creator, so why not say so. What is all the stink about? Why don’t we tell kids in public schools we have found nanotech at the cell level that can’t be explained naturally?

The stink is about calling such a conclusion "science". It is religion or philosophy or both. And having open questions still on a subject - such as the details of the complexity of a living cell - is NOT proof that they can't be explained "naturally".

Why don’t we tell students that we have no I idea why we have the finely tuned forces of nature and properties of matter?

Funny, I was just reading a science article that stated we have no idea how to explain the reason for the exact values of the forces of nature and the properties of matter and hoping that further research will give us an idea. See the June 2005 issue of Scientific American, page 56, "Inconstant constants".

Why don’t we tell students that we have no idea how we got an ordered and elegant universe out of an explosion? But alas, all this hushing-up of the conclusions of modern science is not working. The majority of our youth, in this country anyway, see through this veil because of the ministry of the church.

I'm not a polster, but my concern is that the majority of the youth are being alienated from the church as being, in their eyes, irrelevant and disconnected from the modern world.

I am currently the president of the East Tennessee Creation Science Association (www.etcsa.org), and I have a creation science ministry with articles on my church’s website (www.learnthebible.org). Currently you can read articles I have written about the recent discovery of T-Rex soft tissue, and how that challenges the prevailing belief that they went extinct 68 million years ago.

I'm not a scientist, but I'll tell you that it will be easier for scientists to adjust to the idea that something could remain soft and pliable over 65 million years than to overturn the current ideas about the age of the dinosaurs. The idea that things decay depends on their being bacteria present to cause decay. What if something killed absolutely all the bacteria present in structure, leaving it with nothing to cause decay?

You can also read about how a world famous atheist was recently converted to deism by the overwhelming evidence provided to us by our current state of science on the necessity for a creator. You know, the evidence not presented to public school children for some inexplicable reason.

Hmmm . . . some inexplicable reason. You mean the doctrine of seperation of church and state? That famous baptist distinctive, that Baptists seem to have started to forget?

BTW, relativity and quantum mechanics are good science in my opinion, and string theory is a promising theoretical construct for reconciling the macro and micro in physics, but all this amazing structure and properties did not arise by chance.

Is that how you teach what the theory of evolution is, that it says the amazing structures and properties arose by chance?

That is about as accurate as saying that the casinos in Los Vegas are able to stay solvent simply by chance.

Can you state the theoretical way that evolution theory says organization is improved and made more elaborate, just for the purpose of showing it is inadequate, and also to show you know what you are criticising?

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Ok, I guess I touched a nerve. Wow, that was an amazing diatribe. I really guess I deserve it though, I kinda did try to ruffle your feathers a bit.

Science, being a field of study, cannot of itself have biases. Biases are held by people.

And this is point you must ultimately cede, and probably why you are so defensive. People do science Paul.

It is not a mere bias, however, that leads scientists to claim that the earth is billions of years old and all life is of common descent. There is scientific evidence in favor of these facts.

Oh there is evidence all right. But the way it is interpreted…well…..as we say in East TN…..that’s somthin else.

I grew up reading science stuff too! But I was blessed with a christian home and was saved at a very young age, somewhere around 9 or 10, and have been an active christian ever since.

Praise God. That’s a good testimony Paul.

I suppose I must be older than you,

It sounds like it. I’m 39.

because in my youth Fred Hoyle was still proclaiming the steady state theory and I remember reading both sides and lived through the times as the science articles shifted from saying the jury was out to the evidence now favors the big bang theory of the origin of the universe.

Yep, you are older. It was settled by my time and I knew little of it till later in life. I do discuss this in my seminars though.

What? No controvery over whether or not Einstein's theories were correct?

I believe Hubble’s red shift, light bending around the eclipse, and possibly even atomic clock elevation experiments probably all precede even you, unless you are very old. I do present Einstein’s work in a favorable light usually. His book on relativity is the first book I read cover to cover in one day. In fact, I grew up idolizing the man, and physics is still one of my favorite subjects.

No controversy over big bang vs steady state theory? You don't recall plate tectonics being first dismissed by the majority and then coming to being accepted by the majority, based on the evidence?

Both of these were consensus view before the late 1970s, so yes, I missed it. I do discuss this in my seminars. But all this is beside the point anyway since you missed my point altogether. It was not the debate over competing naturalistic theories that I was alluding to. It was the debate about whether or not naturalism is sufficent to begin with. To assume it is demonstrates bias.

Certainly in reading about these some scientists would take one side and other woud take another. I would just about always, however, read where one side would take into account the arguments of the other and respect the other point of view.
I would often read where the scientist would state that the investigations have explained a few things and have opened up more questions that need answering.

I began to expect it to be perfectly normal for scientists to have more questions up in the air than it was possible to answer at any given time, but that they would have some good, solid answers for some things.

How about the flood explaining geology, would that be one? How about special creation for the complexity of the universe?

Did you ever read about the disgreement between Shapely and Hubble over the proper interpretation of the nebula that were showing up in the astronomer's telescopes? Shapely held they were gas clouds. Hubble held that they represented vast starry "island universes". The issue was settled by the evidence and today we all speak of the galaxies as being immense conglomerations of stars, separated by empty spaces with few or no stars between them.

Yep, that was in the late 1920s, and another interesting fact in my presentations. Our knowledge of science is in its infancy. Here’s another one for you. Do you remember when the science journals made a big deal over the nanotech at the cell level and how that fundamentally changed our view on the origin of life since we used to believe the cell was just chemical soup? No? Neither do I. But it is coming.

I'm sorry that all you ever got out of science was a party line. It has been much more exciting that a mere rote presentation of party line facts that you'd better accept or else.

Genuinely sorry no doubt.

By the way, the issues concerning the age of the universe and the common descent of all life are among those that have been settled,

Spoken like a true Bible believing Christian.

along with plate tectonics

Yep, awaiting acceptance and understanding of a global catastrophic scenario.

and galaxies as "island universes".

Yep, that ones proven.

Continued…..

[ June 11, 2005, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene
I'm truly sorry you missed out on a proper presentation of the evidence that leads us to accept evolution as fact.

Oh, I didn’t miss it, I was indoctrinated fully. But thanks to science I have now seen a new model emerging. Nothing like the shock of going from simple chemical interactions to nanotech in the cells to shake things up a bit. I assume you do still read about science don’t you. You seem very familiar with the past. Maybe you have gotten so old your stuck in dying paradigm.

THe kind of ultimate conclusions we share about the origin of the universe as being created by God who is worthy of worship and calls for us to follow Him
go beyond science, into the realm of theology and philosophy. I certainly agree the journey is worth taking, but I don't call it science.

So the Bible is not scientifically accurate? Oh, yes, I can here it now, it was a local flood, or a global flood, but it didn’t change the geology. Of course, I see it now, those days in Genesis were actually great ages. Never mind God saying that stuff about the morning and the evening stuff, He was just trying to communicate to those numbskulls back then. I wonder if it is not that He trying to communicate it to the numbskulls today instead.

The stink is about calling such a conclusion "science". It is religion or philosophy or both. And having open questions still on a subject - such as the details of the complexity of a living cell - is NOT proof that they can't be explained "naturally".

And why would you be so hopeful they are? Is it that you have a great deal invested in this complicated faith you have that tries to reconcile atheistic naturalism and the Bible? I’m elated that it is complex beyond our wildest imaginations. Oh, and I just love telling Christians in churches all over the place about it. I’m sure you do the same.

Funny, I was just reading a science article that stated we have no idea how to explain the reason for the exact values of the forces of nature and the properties of matter and hoping that further research will give us an idea. See the June 2005 issue of Scientific American, page 56, "Inconstant constants".

How about the April edition that makes fun of creationists? I guess you like that one too. You probably fear ridicule don’t you? You have to have a little intestinal fortitude to stand up against atheists you know, they’ve really got faith that is hard to shake. I wonder why they are hoping for a naturalistic explanation? I bet I know why.

I'm not a polster, but my concern is that the majority of the youth are being alienated from the church as being, in their eyes, irrelevant and disconnected from the modern world.

I wonder why Paul? Could it be that naturalism has a role? Thank God for showing us His nanotech before we became just like Europe. Based on a recent cartoon in the Cincinnati Enquirer atheists are showing up on the shores of England like pilgrims fleeing the revival in the U.S. The reason why is the intellectual justification for atheism, it’s scientific basis, is crumbling.

I'm not a scientist, but I'll tell you that it will be easier for scientists to adjust to the idea that something could remain soft and pliable over 65 million years than to overturn the current ideas about the age of the dinosaurs. The idea that things decay depends on their being bacteria present to cause decay. What if something killed absolutely all the bacteria present in structure, leaving it with nothing to cause decay?

And thus you show your ignorance of science on this issue. I was at a debate a month ago in open forum at Tennessee Tech in Chattanooga. The evos refused to participate if it was video taped. I wonder why? An evangelist with my organization, Dr. Charles Jackson was there, as well as Dr. John Baumgardener of ICR fame, and a creationist with the Abington, Virginia creationist group, Dr. Alan White. Dr. White has a doctorate in organic chemistry from Harvard and 36 patents in polymers through his employment at Tennessee Eastman Chemical where he is a senior research fellow. The evo side was represented by 3 TTU evo profs. The debate did not go well for them, and 300 students were there to see. All subsequent invitations for discussions with students off line were turned down by the evo profs. But during the presentation this T-Rex soft tissue was discussed. Dr. White, pointed out that the “chemical” breakdown (not bacterial) of these structures limited their preservation. He said He could hardly believe they were thousands of years old, but certainly that was not as ridiculous as 68 million. Response?

Hmmm . . . some inexplicable reason. You mean the doctrine of seperation of church and state? That famous baptist distinctive, that Baptists seem to have started to forget?

So scientific evidence that is contrary to the theory of evolution violates separation of church and state? You really believe that scientific evidence, not the Bible, should be withheld from students in public schools? Scientific evidence that converted a world famous hardened atheist that made refuting the idea of God his life’s work for 66 years? This is indicative of the fear in your heart that these kids will readily reject what you have tried all your life to reconcile with your faith. You clearly illustrate for all that read this thread the ridiculousness of your position.

[ June 11, 2005, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:
Ok, I guess I touched a nerve. Wow, that was an amazing diatribe. I really guess I deserve it though, I kinda did try to ruffle your feathers a bit.

never fear, I believe you managed to outdo me in terms of diatrabing . . .

People do science Paul.

And people do religion and theology, and when they start saying there is or is not a God, they are no longer doing science, regardless of what they say or who they are.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is not a mere bias, however, that leads scientists to claim that the earth is billions of years old and all life is of common descent. There is scientific evidence in favor of these facts.

Oh there is evidence all right. But the way it is interpreted…well…..as we say in East TN…..that’s somthin else.
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, you know, seeing three toed horses in the past geological record and seeing splints on the legs of modern horses tends to make me think the horses have evolved. What does that evidence do for you?

I’m 39.

I'm 63.

I do present Einstein’s work in a favorable light usually. His book on relativity is the first book I read cover to cover in one day. In fact, I grew up idolizing the man, and physics is still one of my favorite subjects.

I've been working all my life on trying to understand Einstein's theory of realativity and believe I've made some progress. It is amazing.

all this is beside the point anyway since you missed my point altogether. It was not the debate over competing naturalistic theories that I was alluding to. It was the debate about whether or not naturalism is sufficent to begin with. To assume it is demonstrates bias.

Oh, well, if you want to say that naturalism is insufficient to establish why anything exists at all, I'm certainly in agreement with that! I believe all the universe including the life in it and you and me are grounded in the creative and sustaining work of God, and nothing less will suffice to explain it.

Where science has its value and worth is to investigate what can be investigated using only natural means of investigation, eliminating philosophical and religious bias. By eliminating this bias and depending solely on verifiable evidence, we find out what truth we can find out in the physical realm, whatever it turns out to be. People of various religious persuasions and philosophies are able to collaborate at the basic science level.

There is, however, bad news for those who believe things about the physical universe that shown to be false by science.

Christianity went through this sort of thing before, you know. As a student of both science and christianity, you are well aware of the drastic mistake made by Martin Luthor regarding the upstart Copernicus who taught, contrary to the literal interpretation of scripture, that it is the rotation of the earth that causes night and day.

How about the flood explaining geology, would that be one? How about special creation for the complexity of the universe?

Well, there is evidence against a universal flood. There are annual layers laid down in the ice at Greenland going back over 200,000 years; likewise in Antarctica. Ice would never have survived a world wide flood, as you know.

Do you remember when the science journals made a big deal over the nanotech at the cell level and how that fundamentally changed our view on the origin of life since we used to believe the cell was just chemical soup? No? Neither do I. But it is coming.

Oh, I get it, you are PREDICTING that science will go in that direction! Let me share with you what I HAVE observed.

When I was a kid, life was discussed as something mysterious, something that was added to matter as an addition; matter was taken as something plainly mechanical, with a hint of being inadequate to be the full explanation of life.

Today, life is discussed as a chemical reaction, explained as patterns enacted through matter exclusively; and lo, in a wondrous transmigration, matter itself is considered to be more mysterious something other than what used to be considered strictly mechanical.

An interesting transition to watch. God, of course, made all matter and all life, its merely looking at what God made in a different way.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> By the way, the issues concerning the age of the universe and the common descent of all life are among those that have been settled,

Spoken like a true Bible believing Christian. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly, since that is what I am. I have the advantage over you, in that my own interpretation of the bible is consistent with the findings of science.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

You seem very familiar with the past. Maybe you have gotten so old your stuck in dying paradigm.

Predictions of the death of darwinism have been made by sectarian opponents of science since it appeared and the death has not been forthcoming yet . . .

So the Bible is not scientifically accurate? Oh, yes, I can here it now, it was a local flood, or a global flood, but it didn’t change the geology. Of course, I see it now, those days in Genesis were actually great ages. Never mind God saying that stuff about the morning and the evening stuff, He was just trying to communicate to those numbskulls back then. I wonder if it is not that He trying to communicate it to the numbskulls today instead.

Please do not imply that I would call anybody numskulls. I consider that to be a slur on my character. Do you think Archimedes was a numbskull for failing to use calculus to derive the value of pi? They were simply not ready for the literal truth of the universe, and God in His wisdom chose to reveal Himself as creator in terms that could be understood in all ages.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The stink is about calling such a conclusion "science". It is religion or philosophy or both. And having open questions still on a subject - such as the details of the complexity of a living cell - is NOT proof that they can't be explained "naturally".

And why would you be so hopeful they are?
</font>[/QUOTE]Are all your interpretations so far from the mark? My hope from science is for greater understanding as time goes by, that's all. Based on the track record to date I expect that to happen, and I'm extremely interested in what science finds out.

How about the April edition that makes fun of creationists? I guess you like that one too. You probably fear ridicule don’t you? You have to have a little intestinal fortitude to stand up against atheists you know, they’ve really got faith that is hard to shake. I wonder why they are hoping for a naturalistic explanation? I bet I know why.

Yeah, that's why I keep posting about science here in this forum, sheer fear of ridicule from scientists who don't even know me.

Well, you've apparantly decided that mere ridicule will frighten off the opposition, since you seem to be resorting to it. It may win hearts even . . . but it is not a valid form of logical discussion.

I was at a debate a month ago in open forum at Tennessee Tech in Chattanooga. The evos refused to participate if it was video taped. I wonder why?

Probably because they suspected the tapes might be edited unfairly for later replay.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Hmmm . . . some inexplicable reason. You mean the doctrine of seperation of church and state? That famous baptist distinctive, that Baptists seem to have started to forget?

So scientific evidence that is contrary to the theory of evolution violates separation of church and state? You really believe that scientific evidence, not the Bible, should be withheld from students in public schools? </font>[/QUOTE]You've got to stop trying to read minds. You are not very good at it. I believe that scientific evidence should be taught, not witheld; the Bible should be presented as a fact of history and handled respectfully along with other facts of history such as the existence and history of the Koran.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
never fear, I believe you managed to outdo me in terms of diatrabing . . .

Funny. Me thinks this may be something we have in common.

And people do religion and theology, and when they start saying there is or is not a God, they are no longer doing science, regardless of what they say or who they are.

We agree here as well. Are you ceding my point that science can be biased since it is performed and taught by people?

Well, you know, seeing three toed horses in the past geological record and seeing splints on the legs of modern horses tends to make me think the horses have evolved. What does that evidence do for you?

Only the prevailing thought currently in science that the original model of horse evolution doesn’t work at all. I also believe in genetic variation and speciation, so minor changes in distinct forms are not worrisome to me. However, as you probably know, I doubt the interpretation of geologic layers as a “record” of Earth’s ancient history.

I'm 63.

Cool.

I've been working all my life on trying to understand Einstein's theory of realativity and believe I've made some progress. It is amazing.

Same here. Another thing we have in common. I just love discoveries in physics like that. God’s creation is so marvelous, and discoveries like that on unveil its majesty, and how little we understand about it.

Oh, well, if you want to say that naturalism is insufficient to establish why anything exists at all, I'm certainly in agreement with that! I believe all the universe including the life in it and you and me are grounded in the creative and sustaining work of God, and nothing less will suffice to explain it.

Praise God. Nothing else can explain it. I use Antony Flew in my presentations as an illustration of this. He is a man that made it his life’s work to prove otherwise, and is world famous in doing so, so that took a great deal to make him recant his life’s work. We can all agree that the universe and life is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine. Of course this is due to God’s authorship.

Where science has its value and worth is to investigate what can be investigated using only natural means of investigation, eliminating philosophical and religious bias. By eliminating this bias and depending solely on verifiable evidence, we find out what truth we can find out in the physical realm, whatever it turns out to be. People of various religious persuasions and philosophies are able to collaborate at the basic science level.

I certainly agree with looking for natural causation for phenomena in science. For someone who goes to the doctor when I’m sick, it would be quite hypocritical to state otherwise. But I think we must be cautious to realize that some things are untouchable by the scientific method. We must realize that naturalism, especially in addressing origins, is used quite effectively by atheists to take the emphasis off of God, and in fact show that He is not even needed. I think that this bias on the issue of origins is pervasive in scientific investigation and instruction, and that it is stifling to people of faith. The very atmosphere excludes these points of view. Do you disagree?

There is, however, bad news for those who believe things about the physical universe that shown to be false by science.

Christianity went through this sort of thing before, you know. As a student of both science and christianity, you are well aware of the drastic mistake made by Martin Luthor regarding the upstart Copernicus who taught, contrary to the literal interpretation of scripture, that it is the rotation of the earth that causes night and day.

Yes I know. Of course the geocentric model originated in Greek thought, and was propagated by a church/state regime that killed dissenting Christians for over 1000 years, so I do not believe your point is without some serious caveats. And of course the same could be said today regarding the prevailing view by Christian scientists that evolution is true. It may turn out that the high degree of specificity and complexity at the cell level will necessitate that evolution be discarded as a false paradigm that the great majority of professing Christians worldwide believed. Counting the RCC, there are about 2 billion “professing” Christians worldwide. Only a very small minority take Genesis literal. To your point, maybe we are trying to be too literal. Or maybe, the German higher rationalism of the 1800’s that cast doubt on Genesis as literal history started us down a path of error. There are many possibilities. You and I could go back and forth all day with them. But I think nanotech at the cell level has God back on the table. It also illustrates just how wrong science can be. If it’s nanotech in the cells and not chemical soup as Darwin posited, he was at least wrong in one major area. Certainly it will not be long, maybe 30 or 40 years tops, until we are able to demonstrate that evolution happened or not based on cell biology and genetics. I think it is fair to say that we can for all practical purposes rule out the chemical origin of cells. I certainly encourage more research in this area, especially since it is proving the primordial soup option unworkable. I also encourage more detailed understanding of cells, and how they interrelate with all the complicated function and systems integration within living creatures. As chemical origins has been shown to born out of ignorance, I believe evolution will be also.

Continued…..

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Well, there is evidence against a universal flood. There are annual layers laid down in the ice at Greenland going back over 200,000 years; likewise in Antarctica. Ice would never have survived a world wide flood, as you know.

I know of this problem. And if you are honest you know that the past climates have to be assumed to recognize them in the layers. This is circular reasoning. We use the layers to determine the climates, but we assume things about that caused the rings, like annual warming cycles. Therefore a forced presumption is already in place to confirm the experimental data. The fact is that we cannot be reasonably sure about these things. I have a buddy that is a Paleoclimatologist with ORNL, and trust me, his is more adamant about this than you are, but still cedes I have valid points in this arena.

Oh, I get it, you are PREDICTING that science will go in that direction! Let me share with you what I HAVE observed.

Nope, I’m saying it has, but it has not filtered out to the culture, and the scientists in the know are not saying much.

When I was a kid, life was discussed as something mysterious, something that was added to matter as an addition; matter was taken as something plainly mechanical, with a hint of being inadequate to be the full explanation of life.

Today, life is discussed as a chemical reaction, explained as patterns enacted through matter exclusively; and lo, in a wondrous transmigration, matter itself is considered to be more mysterious something other than what used to be considered strictly mechanical.

No brother, today it has been shown to be infinitely more complex than simple chemistry. You would do well to get up to speed about the technology of the cell.

Exactly, since that is what I am. I have the advantage over you, in that my own interpretation of the bible is consistent with the findings of science.

Your interpretation is consistent with a prevailing dogma in science, and is inconsistent with the Bible itself. As science changes, so will your view, because that is truly what your view is based on, if you were honest you would admit that. I’m not trying to be mean, just pointing out a fact. It is also a fact that this dogma is being challenge by highly accredited scientists currently based on new information that our science has discovered. The nanotech world of the cell, as the ID community know, offers a tangible, testable means through which to dispel all reasonable doubt on origins. Chemistry is out as a causative factor for the first cells. But moreover, the intense integration of information and molecular machine systems at a mind bogging scale (4 billion cells fit in a thimble) will offer us the ability to know if mutations lead to different organisms, or that the cell is preprogrammed with such an immense capability for Adaption that it blurs the lines of kinds. From what I have seen so far, people in my position that reject evolution may be invited back to the upper rooms of science. We shall see.

Predictions of the death of darwinism have been made by sectarian opponents of science since it appeared and the death has not been forthcoming yet . . .

It has always been dead for those like me that truly believe the Bible, ahead of the wisdom of man. And of course, no one could have ever imagined that God had millions of molecular robots in each cell using billions of pieces of information to do thousands of things a second. We are rebuilt at the molecular level, and that is why we live 70 years or so. People use to scoff at the Bible’s claims of people living to 900 years of age, but the question now is why do we die? Anything with nanotech that can rebuild itself real time, the question becomes, why does it slow down. As it turns out we have molecular clocks that gradually slow function. We are programmed to age and die. This is consistent with the Bible since we were designed by the creator to live forever. Only after the fall were we tuned down. We were tuned down again after the flood. So the findings of science are completely consistent with this possibility. I even heard recently that those who are under 40 may never have to die, that we may be able to conquer death will cellular technology. Now I think this is an overstatement (the time-frame anyway), like nuclear fusion becoming a reality in 50 years, like it was said 50 years ago. Plus I would rather go on to heaven myself anyway, but this info should give one pause as to how close to the end we may be, in terms of the second coming (you do believe in this don’t you?). Just think of the military applications of this. Forget about clones and stem cells, how about a bear with a genius human brain, the eyes of an owl for night vision, and able to regrow limbs like salamanders. In a nuclear age with EMPs that destroy electronics, the battles of the future may be between monstrous creations of man. Maybe that stuff in Revelation is not so figurative after all.

But we are still seeking to understand this vastly complex nanotech system. Until only recently there was little formal discussion in major journals about the true nature of the bulk of genetic code….introns. As it turns out the false prediction made by evo scientists that this was “junk DNA” are proving to be false. Just as vestiges in the form of functionless organs are a black eye on evo predictability, it is also shaping up to be true also for these DNA regions deemed to be vestigial. That is why our similarity to apes, which has been so widely touted, will shortly be shown to be overblown. As if similarity proves evolution more than common design anyway.

Continued……

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Please do not imply that I would call anybody numskulls. I consider that to be a slur on my character. Do you think Archimedes was a numbskull for failing to use calculus to derive the value of pi? They were simply not ready for the literal truth of the universe, and God in His wisdom chose to reveal Himself as creator in terms that could be understood in all ages.

Do you treat Christians who do not believe evolution as being ignorant of science, or unwilling to accept or understand it? If you do, you are treating them as such, which is just another way of calling them that. What say ye?

Are all your interpretations so far from the mark?

Just following the science where it leads. Of course it doesn’t impact years of reconciling my faith on deficient scientific views, so it is not very painful.

My hope from science is for greater understanding as time goes by, that's all. Based on the track record to date I expect that to happen, and I'm extremely interested in what science finds out.

And of course you will gladly change your views to coincide with what God told you in His word, as soon as science says it’s ok to do so. In the meantime God has called some men to stand in the Gap.

Yeah, that's why I keep posting about science here in this forum, sheer fear of ridicule from scientists who don't even know me.

Try posting over at the Internet Infidels forum against Ph.D. atheist scientists like I do. Then you might understand what it is like to stand against the enemies of God. But with your belief system, you would have much more in common with them than me.

Well, you've apparantly decided that mere ridicule will frighten off the opposition, since you seem to be resorting to it. It may win hearts even . . . but it is not a valid form of logical discussion.

I’m sorry if I have ridiculed you. Much is lost in the written word, and these forums are geared around debate, so I can get out in the flesh a bit much. I assure you that if we met face to face it would be a very cordial meeting. But I will say that truth does not come from pure logic, it must come from the heart. If you disagree, please consult your Bible on that matter. I am not won over by the psychologists that know nothing of the psyche (Greek for soul). I believe the heart is much more than chemistry that leads to emotions. The fool hath said in his heart there is no God; he didn’t say it in his head.

Probably because they suspected the tapes might be edited unfairly for later replay.

Then why not publish their copy to prove impropriety? Scientists that run and hide when creationists are around, but roam the halls of academia freely beating up young minds in their own forum are at the very least cowards. Two of the three creationists on our panel were accomplished scientists, one in the public realm at Los Alamos, the other in the private realm at the largest employer in Tennessee, but who were the evos, just armchair philosophers that berate young students out of their faith in class. Is that where you lost your faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-10? But things are changing. Their oppressive tactics are having just the opposite effect. It is giving rise to a new generation of young people not afraid to Challenge anyone who does not believe the Bible is literally true, whenever, wherever. And these people are our youth, our future scientists, politicians, and everything in between. Not to mention the fact that all the science is lining up behind them.

You've got to stop trying to read minds. You are not very good at it. I believe that scientific evidence should be taught, not witheld; the Bible should be presented as a fact of history and handled respectfully along with other facts of history such as the existence and history of the Koran.

Ok….I’m holding the envelope up to my forehead now…….the question is……who is it that responded to scientific evidence converting a world famous atheist as violating the separation of church and state?

 

[UTEOTW]

"I know of this problem. And if you are honest you know that the past climates have to be assumed to recognize them in the layers. This is circular reasoning."

There is much more to it than just counting the layers. There are ways to crosscheck the data. Some layers can be dated directly through other means. Some layers show, say, ash from a volcano eruption that can then be checked against the same ask in other ice cores from diverse locations.

We have thread on this if you would like to continue.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/10.html?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:
I know of this problem. [note: we're talking about 200,000 + annual layers of ice in Greenland and Antarctica] And if you are honest you know that the past climates have to be assumed to recognize them in the layers. This is circular reasoning. We use the layers to determine the climates, but we assume things about that caused the rings, like annual warming cycles. Therefore a forced presumption is already in place to confirm the experimental data. The fact is that we cannot be reasonably sure about these things.

A reasonably honest opposition to the idea that these things are truly annual layers would take note of the cross checks that real scientists use to verify the count. Thinks like radio carbon dating of inclusions, correlating with ashes found in certain layers from known volcanic eruptions, the degree of agreement between the widely separated cores of the Antarctica and Greenland as to the climate variations (which also correlate with other findings about the length and timing of ice ages, while providing much better resolution)

Then the honest opposition would show an alternative explanation for these checks that explains why they didn't work. Lacking such, the evidence would be allowed to stand.

I've never seen anything like that. Perhaps you can help me out?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Oh, I get it, you are PREDICTING that science will go in that direction! Let me share with you what I HAVE observed.

Nope, I’m saying it has, but it has not filtered out to the culture, and the scientists in the know are not saying much. </font>[/QUOTE]Like I said, you're predicting what will happen in the future. . . that something is going to filter out into the culture. What's with this reflexive "no" you're stuck with?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />When I was a kid, life was discussed as something mysterious, something that was added to matter as an addition; matter was taken as something plainly mechanical, with a hint of being inadequate to be the full explanation of life.

Today, life is discussed as a chemical reaction, explained as patterns enacted through matter exclusively; and lo, in a wondrous transmigration, matter itself is considered to be more mysterious something other than what used to be considered strictly mechanical.

No brother, today it has been shown to be infinitely more complex than simple chemistry. You would do well to get up to speed about the technology of the cell.
</font>[/QUOTE]The reason life is coming to be understood as a chemical reaction explained as patterns enacted through matter exclusively is precisely because scientists are beginning to penetrate the formerly obscure complexities of processes within the living cell.

It is also a fact that this dogma is being challenge by highly accredited scientists currently based on new information that our science has discovered. The nanotech world of the cell, as the ID community know, offers a tangible, testable means through which to dispel all reasonable doubt on origins.

The id community - those who originated it - accept the great age of earth and the common descent of life, they merely think it had help. Is this your view? Why do you think they stick to the common descent of life and the great age of earth?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Predictions of the death of Darwinism have been made by sectarian opponents of science since it appeared and the death has not been forthcoming yet . . .

It has always been dead for those like me that truly believe the Bible, ahead of the wisdom of man.
</font>[/QUOTE]Like Martin Luther, who opposed the findings of Copernicus, Like the inquisition that opposed the findings of Galileo, you confuse your own interpretation with God's truth. It's not the first and last time this will happen.

And of course, no one could have ever imagined that God had millions of molecular robots in each cell using billions of pieces of information to do thousands of things a second. We are rebuilt at the molecular level, and that is why we live 70 years or so.

As I said, the knowledge of what is actually going on in the cell is replacing the mystical concept of a strange "life spirit" that used to be in vogue.

But we are still seeking to understand this vastly complex nanotech system. Until only recently there was little formal discussion in major journals about the true nature of the bulk of genetic code….introns. As it turns out the false prediction made by evo scientists that this was “junk DNA” are proving to be false. Just as vestiges in the form of functionless organs are a black eye on evo predictability, it is also shaping up to be true also for these DNA regions deemed to be vestigial. That is why our similarity to apes, which has been so widely touted, will shortly be shown to be overblown. As if similarity proves evolution more than common design anyway.

Sloganeering some more? Truth is, only some of the junk DNA turned out to be useful, lots of it is known to be junk, including retro-viral inserts that became embedded and passed along. . . . and even, at times, became fuel for evolution!

Similarity CAN prove common descent when the similarity is - similar flaws. Primates, for example accidentally had their vitamin c gene corrupted. The same corruption was passed on from the one time it happened to the whole primate family. This is evidence for common descent of the primates.

It's not the only one. There are lots more.

Do you treat Christians who do not believe evolution as being ignorant of science, or unwilling to accept or understand it? If you do, you are treating them as such, which is just another way of calling them that. What say ye?

I say that most of them are simply sincerely misguided, and a few of them are in the situation of the Pharisees of whom Jesus said "If you were blind, you would have no sin, but since you say 'we see' your sin remains." (John 9:41)

In the meantime God has called some men to stand in the Gap.

Like Martin Luther and the Catholic Inquisition? Do you hope for the return of geocentric astronomy, based on literal biblical interpretation? Some do, you know . . . they are in the flat earth society. They are consistently literal.

History shows that sincere believers, such as Martin Luther, the Catholic Hierarchy, and yourself, are wrong to avoid the evidence.

But I will say that truth does not come from pure logic, it must come from the heart. If you disagree, please consult your Bible on that matter. I am not won over by the psychologists that know nothing of the psyche (Greek for soul). I believe the heart is much more than chemistry that leads to emotions. The fool hath said in his heart there is no God; he didn’t say it in his head.

The modern distinction of head and heart was not known to the ancients. They believed the seat of emotions was in the bowels and the seat of rationality was the heart. The Egyptians, when they embalmed Pharaohs, would throw away the brains as being relatively unimportant.

Truth takes, of course, everything we've got, including mind, heart, soul, prayer, and even when we do the best we can we can still make mistakes!

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"I know of this problem. And if you are honest you know that the past climates have to be assumed to recognize them in the layers. This is circular reasoning."

There is much more to it than just counting the layers. There are ways to crosscheck the data. Some layers can be dated directly through other means. Some layers show, say, ash from a volcano eruption that can then be checked against the same ask in other ice cores from diverse locations.

We have thread on this if you would like to continue.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/10.html?

Thanks for directing me to this. I'm meeting with a paleoclimatologist with ORNL at lunch tomorrow, so we should have a lively discussion.

Check out the name of the area he works in:
Complex Terrain / Dispersion Meteorology, Environmental Change Computational Sciences and Engineering Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Is that wild or what. See ya.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Do you hope for the return of geocentric astronomy, based on literal biblical interpretation? Some do, you know . . . they are in the flat earth society. They are consistently literal.

Could you quote Scripture to support the above statements that a literal interpretation of Scripture teaches a flat earth and a geocentric astronomy.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

A reasonably honest opposition to the idea that these things are truly annual layers would take note of the cross checks that real scientists use to verify the count. Thinks like radio carbon dating of inclusions, correlating with ashes found in certain layers from known volcanic eruptions, the degree of agreement between the widely separated cores of the Antarctica and Greenland as to the climate variations (which also correlate with other findings about the length and timing of ice ages, while providing much better resolution)

Then the honest opposition would show an alternative explanation for these checks that explains why they didn't work. Lacking such, the evidence would be allowed to stand.

I've never seen anything like that. Perhaps you can help me out?

Perhaps. Since this is moved to another thread I will address it there. I will say that I am not ignorant of what 150 years of biased research can accumulate on a particular issue. I’m not trying to be condemning, but just pointing out the fact that viewpoint does bias research. We are at a point in history where much of this research has been done with a particular pervasive viewpoint, and it will benefit greatly by a critical eye like that of creationists.

Like I said, you're predicting what will happen in the future. . . that something is going to filter out into the culture. What's with this reflexive "no" you're stuck with?

I am saying two things, both of which are obvious for those who read and understand our interactions thus far. First, I am saying that science is currently moving beyond the paradigm of naturalism for origins. Second, I am predicting, based on the movement of thought in the science of origins, that it is only a short matter of time for this to filter out to the culture at large. In fact, with battles over the teaching of evolution in school districts in twenty states now, most would agree the process of cultural filtration is well under way. With regard to the reflexive “no”, this is an effect that is very prevalent between adults and children, especially when the children do not listen.

The reason life is coming to be understood as a chemical reaction explained as patterns enacted through matter exclusively is precisely because scientists are beginning to penetrate the formerly obscure complexities of processes within the living cell.

The living cell is far beyond chemistry. Do you understand? Regarding life, and since you believe in evolution, how does man’s soul fit in. You have stated life is “a chemical reaction explained as patterns enacted through matter exclusively.” Please reconcile this.

The id community - those who originated it - accept the great age of earth and the common descent of life, they merely think it had help. Is this your view? Why do you think they stick to the common descent of life and the great age of earth?

Some in the ID community are YEC. But of course this is kept closely guarded, much like a missionary in Israel must closely guard the true nature of business there. Baby steps. As I said in the statement you responded to, the purpose of ID is to push for something unwanted by evos, a testable apparatus capable of reasonable falsification of evolution at molecular, cellular, and genetic level. Atheists know that ID is disguised creation science, and of course they are right. Unfortunately for them, it is purely scientific in execution.

My view is the same as the hundreds of scientists that identify themselves with ICR and AIG. I am obviously YEC, but of course this is yet another thing you seeming are unable to pick up on.

Like Martin Luther, who opposed the findings of Copernicus, Like the inquisition that opposed the findings of Galileo, you confuse your own interpretation with God's truth. It's not the first and last time this will happen.

Yes Paul, we hear you. Here is what I already told you about this: “Of course the geocentric model originated in Greek thought, and was propagated by a church/state regime that killed dissenting Christians for over 1000 years, so I do not believe your point is without some serious caveats. And of course the same could be said today regarding the prevailing view by Christian scientists that evolution is true.”

Since evolution is the predominate view today, it has more in common with the geocentric model, at least in that respect. Also like the geocentric model, it has all the marks of a bad theory about to fall. Just as the geocentric model required numerous work arounds to reconcile the multiple lines of observational data pouring in, evolution’s lack of evidence for the slow and gradual process it originally proported, being necessary for the huge leaps in body plans and morphology, has required extraordinary conjectures like puntuacted equilibria to reconcile it with the multiple discoveries in paleontology and biology. I think it is clear that evolution is on the ropes. But you have a great deal invested in it, so it would be hard for you to reject it, much like Luther. But what is really funny about this section of your post is that you are making predictions. How funny that you would cast stones at me doing so and then do the same in the very same response.

As I said, the knowledge of what is actually going on in the cell is replacing the mystical concept of a strange "life spirit" that used to be in vogue.

So you think the cell is ho hum? How about the brain? These are frontiers of science, and as we understand them, they become even more mysterious. But again, you do not believe in a life “spirit?”

Sloganeering some more?

I like this one. It’s like a comedian said one time: “you would be funny…………if you only had a sense of humor.”

Truth is, only some of the junk DNA turned out to be useful, lots of it is known to be junk,

This is an unsettled question, but if you knew anything of genetics you would know this.

Sloganeering some more? Truth is, only some of the junk DNA turned out to be useful, lots of it is known to be junk, including retro-viral inserts that became embedded and passed along. . . . and even, at times, became fuel for evolution!

Similarity CAN prove common descent when the similarity is - similar flaws. Primates, for example accidentally had their vitamin c gene corrupted. The same corruption was passed on from the one time it happened to the whole primate family. This is evidence for common descent of the primates.

It's not the only one. There are lots more.

So RV inserts are only passed vertically? So you think we have proven viruses, which hijack cell mechanisms to reproduce, cannot hijack similar regions of genes in similar organisms? Elaborate.

I say that most of them are simply sincerely misguided, and a few of them are in the situation of the Pharisees of whom Jesus said "If you were blind, you would have no sin, but since you say 'we see' your sin remains." (John 9:41)

Funny response. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Like Martin Luther and the Catholic Inquisition? Do you hope for the return of geocentric astronomy, based on literal biblical interpretation? Some do, you know . . . they are in the flat earth society. They are consistently literal.

History shows that sincere believers, such as Martin Luther, the Catholic Hierarchy, and yourself, are wrong to avoid the evidence.

Ah, and I have shown you that you are the one caught in a dying paradigm.

The modern distinction of head and heart was not known to the ancients. They believed the seat of emotions was in the bowels and the seat of rationality was the heart. The Egyptians, when they embalmed Pharaohs, would throw away the brains as being relatively unimportant.

Truth takes, of course, everything we've got, including mind, heart, soul, prayer, and even when we do the best we can we can still make mistakes!

We can still make mistakes, this I agree with. But this does not even remotely address what I said. You are way out there on your armchair mister philosopher. You contended truth comes from logic, I contend that it comes from God. Logic is, and always will be, insufficient in a universe stranger that we can imagine.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Do you hope for the return of geocentric astronomy, based on literal biblical interpretation? Some do, you know . . . they are in the flat earth society. They are consistently literal.

Once again could you quote Scripture to support the above statements that a literal interpretation of Scripture teaches a flat earth and a geocentric astronomy.