Total Posts:377|Showing Posts:361-377|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reasons to Believe Creation Model

Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:42:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/27/2015 9:38:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:27:54 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:15:31 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Evolutionists are still trying to prove Darwin right.

With this you establish yourself as incapable of understanding even the most basic ideas about what a scientific theory is and what the scientific community does. You're ignorant and proud of it.

Today no one refers to contemporary evolutionary biology as Darwinism, except for its strawman-inclined unlettered detractors such as yourself. It no longer is Darwin's theory and it's been that way for quite some time now. It's a body of knowledge that adopts Darwin's fundamental premise, yes, but one that has also rejects many of his original claims, as they did not stand the test of time.

The fact that you don't get this simple idea bodes terribly for your chances of even beginning to grasp the theory itself, let alone refute it. You rather indulge in this petty juvenile playground game of yours of quote mining as though it proves anything to anyone with an IQ higher than a sack of cement.

It doesn't.

Today's evolutionists are known as neo-Darwinism or Darwinism for short. You are trying to distance yourself from Darwin and yet claiming to believe in evolution. That is an oxymoron.
Very soon you will be calling Darwin and idiot. You should limit yourself to atheism. You require no real knowledge to maintain your atheistic position.

I know an idiot when I read one.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:48:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/27/2015 9:42:09 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:38:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:27:54 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:15:31 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Evolutionists are still trying to prove Darwin right.

With this you establish yourself as incapable of understanding even the most basic ideas about what a scientific theory is and what the scientific community does. You're ignorant and proud of it.

Today no one refers to contemporary evolutionary biology as Darwinism, except for its strawman-inclined unlettered detractors such as yourself. It no longer is Darwin's theory and it's been that way for quite some time now. It's a body of knowledge that adopts Darwin's fundamental premise, yes, but one that has also rejects many of his original claims, as they did not stand the test of time.

The fact that you don't get this simple idea bodes terribly for your chances of even beginning to grasp the theory itself, let alone refute it. You rather indulge in this petty juvenile playground game of yours of quote mining as though it proves anything to anyone with an IQ higher than a sack of cement.

It doesn't.

Today's evolutionists are known as neo-Darwinism or Darwinism for short. You are trying to distance yourself from Darwin and yet claiming to believe in evolution. That is an oxymoron.
Very soon you will be calling Darwin and idiot. You should limit yourself to atheism. You require no real knowledge to maintain your atheistic position.

I know an idiot when I read one.

Is that why in your profile you put age as 110 years, so we will recognize an idiot at first encounter? You have other things working for you that makes it even more obvious.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:55:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/27/2015 9:48:56 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Is that why in your profile you put age as 110 years, so we will recognize an idiot at first encounter? You have other things working for you that makes it even more obvious.

Ah, read back. I did *not* called you an idiot. Believe me, you'll know if I ever decide to do so. Your knee jerk reaction stopped you from noticing that that was a reference to your remark that

"Very soon you will be calling Darwin and idiot"

How soon? Will it at about the same time Christ finally returns? You know, that prediction that's been circulating for the past 2 000 years, with spectacular success? Nah, you rather insult people, Darwin included. Sure, in two weeks' time no one will remember Darwin charitably but will herald the anonymous forum user Harikrish.

Sounds legit.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:27:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/27/2015 9:55:22 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:48:56 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Is that why in your profile you put age as 110 years, so we will recognize an idiot at first encounter? You have other things working for you that makes it even more obvious.

Ah, read back. I did *not* called you an idiot. Believe me, you'll know if I ever decide to do so. Your knee jerk reaction stopped you from noticing that that was a reference to your remark that

"Very soon you will be calling Darwin and idiot"

How soon? Will it at about the same time Christ finally returns? You know, that prediction that's been circulating for the past 2 000 years, with spectacular success? Nah, you rather insult people, Darwin included. Sure, in two weeks' time no one will remember Darwin charitably but will herald the anonymous forum user Harikrish.

Sounds legit.

I can see why you are uncomfortable identifying with Darwin. First he insults your ancestors by calling them monkeys. Then he says the descendants of monkeys underwent even more unflattering changes which triggered The Descent of Man. From your posting it is quite clear the descent was more rapid than previously imagined. I am sure you have lost all tree climbing skills.
Hugh Ross might restore some of the higher aspirations you lost. Check his RTB site.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:01:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So you seem to believe insulting people will somehow manage to persuade them of your points?
Okay.
It might work.

There's no reason to believe the 99.7% of the natural sciences community is about to change its mind about what Ross has been saying for the past decades now. I realize you'll swear change is imminent, that this time around, yes!, at long last the natural sciences will be on their knees, ready to embrace Creationism as a viable model. I know that. I also realize you and others have been saying precisely that for the past days, weeks, years and that you'll be repeating it for the next days, weeks, years.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:33:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/27/2015 11:01:01 PM, Hitchian wrote:
So you seem to believe insulting people will somehow manage to persuade them of your points?

Hari doesn't insult to argue, Hitchian. He argues to insult.
glory_lyfe
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 11:31:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can tell many of you arguing on the side of religion have very little background knowledge. PREPARE TO BE EDUMACATED!!!
a) Nobody is descended from apes. In no Darwinian theory was that ever the case. You are descended from the apes ancestors. Humans and chimpanzees desccended from a common ancestor this is why Chimpanzees are so closely related to Humans.
b) He doesn't insult anybodies ancestors. Where do people get that crazy idea? The Torah dates the year as a few hundred years past 6000. So since the old testament uses the same dates then he literally is insulting people who don't even exist, to you. Also the earliest humans appeared Millions of years ago. 10 million is a big number. Let me show that to you, more than 1thousand six hundred times the number of years before adam and eve were born. Adam and eve did some stupid stuff, and that happened a lot closer.

c) 800 scientists is nothing compared to the vast majority of those who agree. It is a lot like climate change, EVERYONE AGREES. It is what we call a scientific consensus. Swahili is not a major world language even though a couple thousand people speak. That number has also been growing with Swahili... guess what. It is nothing to the rest of the world still.
You have enemies? Good that means you have stood up for something in your life.
-Winston Churchill
Harikrish
Posts: 26,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 2:34:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2015 11:31:26 PM, glory_lyfe wrote:
I can tell many of you arguing on the side of religion have very little background knowledge. PREPARE TO BE EDUMACATED!!!
a) Nobody is descended from apes. In no Darwinian theory was that ever the case. You are descended from the apes ancestors. Humans and chimpanzees desccended from a common ancestor this is why Chimpanzees are so closely related to Humans.

Who said anyone descended from apes. You should read what the arguments are before jumping in with your mind blank.

Read again Darwin's famous admission.
"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded."
-----
Simians are divided into two groups: catarrhine (narrow-nosed) monkeys and apes of Africa and southeastern Asia and platyrrhine ("flat-nosed") or New World monkeys of South and Central America. Catarrhines consist of Old World monkeys (such as baboons and macaques), gibbons and great apes; New World monkeys include the capuchin, howler and squirrel monkeys. Humans are the only extant catarrhines to have spread successfully outside of Africa, South Asia, and East Asia, although fossil evidence shows many other species were formerly present in Europe. New primate species are still being discovered. More than 25 species were taxonomically described in the decade of the 2000s and eleven have been described since 2010.

b) He doesn't insult anybodies ancestors. Where do people get that crazy idea? The Torah dates the year as a few hundred years past 6000. So since the old testament uses the same dates then he literally is insulting people who don't even exist, to you. Also the earliest humans appeared Millions of years ago. 10 million is a big number. Let me show that to you, more than 1thousand six hundred times the number of years before adam and eve were born. Adam and eve did some stupid stuff, and that happened a lot closer.

You haven't read Darwin's the Descent of Man nor have you read Hugh Ross old earth Creation Model Approach. I feel like I am talking to an unprepared idiot who didn't even bother to familiarize himself with the topic under discussion.

c) 800 scientists is nothing compared to the vast majority of those who agree. It is a lot like climate change, EVERYONE AGREES. It is what we call a scientific consensus. Swahili is not a major world language even though a couple thousand people speak. That number has also been growing with Swahili... guess what. It is nothing to the rest of the world still.

Here is another list of 3000 scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism.

http://www.rae.org...

Now add to that another 2 billion Christians and you have quite a skeptical population rejecting Darwinism.
There are people like you who accept Darwinism without even reading what Darwin wrote. They are commonly known as what monkey see monkey do. Darwin had no hesitation concluding their common ancestor were monkeys.
You are a monkey, mate!!!
https://m.youtube.com...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:49:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2015 2:34:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Here is another list of 3000 scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism.

http://www.rae.org...

From the link:

"Many on this list are secure tenured professors, teach at Christian Universities"

No one cares what those Creationists believe, it is irrelevant. Their answer to everything is "Godunnit"
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 4:53:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2015 2:34:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/1/2015 11:31:26 PM, glory_lyfe wrote:
I can tell many of you arguing on the side of religion have very little background knowledge. PREPARE TO BE EDUMACATED!!!
a) Nobody is descended from apes. In no Darwinian theory was that ever the case. You are descended from the apes ancestors. Humans and chimpanzees desccended from a common ancestor this is why Chimpanzees are so closely related to Humans.

Who said anyone descended from apes. You should read what the arguments are before jumping in with your mind blank.

Read again Darwin's famous admission.
"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded."
-----
Simians are divided into two groups: catarrhine (narrow-nosed) monkeys and apes of Africa and southeastern Asia and platyrrhine ("flat-nosed") or New World monkeys of South and Central America. Catarrhines consist of Old World monkeys (such as baboons and macaques), gibbons and great apes; New World monkeys include the capuchin, howler and squirrel monkeys. Humans are the only extant catarrhines to have spread successfully outside of Africa, South Asia, and East Asia, although fossil evidence shows many other species were formerly present in Europe. New primate species are still being discovered. More than 25 species were taxonomically described in the decade of the 2000s and eleven have been described since 2010.

b) He doesn't insult anybodies ancestors. Where do people get that crazy idea? The Torah dates the year as a few hundred years past 6000. So since the old testament uses the same dates then he literally is insulting people who don't even exist, to you. Also the earliest humans appeared Millions of years ago. 10 million is a big number. Let me show that to you, more than 1thousand six hundred times the number of years before adam and eve were born. Adam and eve did some stupid stuff, and that happened a lot closer.

You haven't read Darwin's the Descent of Man nor have you read Hugh Ross old earth Creation Model Approach. I feel like I am talking to an unprepared idiot who didn't even bother to familiarize himself with the topic under discussion.

c) 800 scientists is nothing compared to the vast majority of those who agree. It is a lot like climate change, EVERYONE AGREES. It is what we call a scientific consensus. Swahili is not a major world language even though a couple thousand people speak. That number has also been growing with Swahili... guess what. It is nothing to the rest of the world still.

Here is another list of 3000 scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism.

http://www.rae.org...

Now add to that another 2 billion Christians and you have quite a skeptical population rejecting Darwinism.
There are people like you who accept Darwinism without even reading what Darwin wrote. They are commonly known as what monkey see monkey do. Darwin had no hesitation concluding their common ancestor were monkeys.
You are a monkey, mate!!!
https://m.youtube.com...

When is this imminent shift in academic consensus to happen? I'm not looking for a precise date but rather a time frame. Provide one. You will be held accountable when the time comes.

The claim that one cannot adopt the modern principles of Evolutionary biology without reading a founding text by Darwin and endorsing it oh so spectacularly betrays a complete, perhaps unrectifiable, ignorance of how Science works.

The figure of 2 billion Christians not accepting Evolution is of course another complete fabrication. Fallacies, ignorance, lies, creationism.
Amoranemix
Posts: 564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 2:48:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
tstor 251
Hominids:
Neanderthals have no genetic connection to humans
Neanderthals show very little genetic diversity
Excluding Africans, scientists believe humans have about 2 to 3% of their DNA from Neanderthals. How does the RTB model account for that ? I can't find a prediction about future discoveries on that topic on http://www.reasons.org....

- Amoranemix 265
An intelligent creator is just one possible explanation for apparent design. What makes you think it is the best one ?
- Harikrish
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

- Amoranemix 265
"God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm."
You have quoted that several times, but never supported it. The same could be said of Satan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Klaus. I have issues with the word privilege.
- tstor 266
You can fill in the information about anything. People have filled in the details about all the names you listed.
You misunderstood. I meant you could substitute those characters for God.

- Amoranemix 265
That doesn't address common ancestry.
Instantaneous in geological time does not mean instantaneous in evolutionary time.
What evidence is there that first life was complex ?
- tstor 266
http://www.discovery.org...[12]
The the first life is believed to be cyanobacteria, which was complex. While the oldest fossil we have is 3.5 billion years old, it is reasonable to conclude that they first appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. In fact, there are two articles from RTB about this life:
http://www.reasons.org...[13]
http://www.reasons.org...[14]
[12] That is a long text about the Cambrian explosion. What relevance does it have ?
[13] It is an example of humans changing the design of a cell rather than building a cell from scratch and was complicated. We don't understand how this could naturally be done from scratch, therefore some designer must have done it. I was hoping for positive evidence that first life was complex, the kind of evidence the RTB guys claim they should provide.
[14] Where in the article is the evidence ?

- Amoranemix 265
[15] Can you prove that ?
- tstor 266
Sure, though I am discussing this with RuvDraba currently, so I suggest you just read out dialog as it progresses.
We shall see.

- Amoranemix
[16] It is true that it is possible to interpret the Biblical creation account to fit the facts, but it is easier to interpret it to contradict the facts.
- tstor
I strongly disagree.[17] There are no leaps of logic I have to commit in order to see the harmony.
[17] That is a claim I would expect only from a fanatical religious lunatic, so I suspect you weren't thinking when you wrote that. So, what did you mean ?
There are no leaps of logic I have to commit to see the incompatibility.

- Amoranemix 265
[17] Your source is using the god of the gaps argument : Scientists don't know how first life appeared. Therefore some designer must have done it.
- tstor 266
Not at all.[18] Though the model has to be formulated on what is currently known. It would just be weird to build a model on assumptions.
[18] Your denial is ambiguous, so I assume you deny that they are using the god of the gaps argument. However, you fail to provide reason for your scepticism.

- Amoranemix
John was describing a vision. It would be silly to use a metaphor for that.
- tstor
How do you figure?
Using metaphor makes descriptions harder to understand. That can however be mitigated by the audience's background knowledge (allowing to identify it as a metaphor), which they lack in case of a vision.

- Amoranemix
[19] Notice how the author avoids metaphorically claiming God's people are grasshoppers and the heavens a tent.
John didn't say something like : "It was as if the earth had four corners in each of which an angel was standing. They were like holding the four winds of the earth."
- tstor
I am not seeing the point you are trying to make.
The point was made by dee-em. They are using analogies in stead of metaphors to avoid confusion. Hence John was probably being literal.

- Amoranemix 265
[20] That is not what I said. I said they appear to be interpreting the data based on their faith. They seem to be assuming (their version of) Christianity is true, do some Christian coloured science and then, o sunrise, conclude that Christianity best describes reality. It looks too bad to be true. So I expected you to correct me, but yes I read the OP.
- tstor 266
They are not interpreting data based on their faith. A strong indicator of that is Hugh Ross' early life. He did not become a Christian until the age 27, which is when he realized that the Bible matched with modern science.
How is it a strong indicator they are not interpreting the data based on their faith ? And why would that piece of evidence conclusively demonstrate they aren't doing that ?

- Amoranemix
[21] You (and Ross as well since it is in his presentation) are giving a lot weight to that prediction. However, it is very soft because :
1) You have almost 50% chance to get it right by simply guessing.
- tstor
Or suggesting that there was time prior to the big bang would falsify it.
Can you translate that to English please ?

- Amoranemix
2) Having one's deity create everything is more attractive as that would make him more awesome.
- tstor
What?
Deities that create everything are more awesome since they did more than those that created only part of the world. In addition they provide closure.

- Amoranemix
3) That the universe had a beginning is almost certain by now. So that prediction is almost risk-free.
- tstor
The bible has always taught it, even before most scientists accepted it. If this was some kind of brand new idea then I would agree.
That you would agree under some circumstance does nothing to undermine it.

- Amoranemix 265
I didn't say it had bearing on the text.
Assume you have primitive people write a text of 5 million characters with lots of references to geography, biology and astronomy, while having no more knowledge than the average educated person of the first century BC. I would expect it be possible by cherry-picking and ad hoc interpretation to find several claims that are consistent with modern science. Confirming the cherry-picking would be a lot of work (although someone has probably done that and put it on the internet), but since he gave an example of science in the Bible with Romans 8, we can confirm the ad hoc interpretation. Doctor Ross sees the second main law of thermodynamics in there and the cooling on the universe. Do you think that anyone that didn't already know about those could deduce those from Romans 8 ?
- tstor 266
I disagree.[22] We should see errors in it, but there are none. All of the Bible is scientifically accurate, Hugh Ross is arguing that all of it is accurate. There is no cherry-picking with that approach.[22'] As for your question concerning the interpretation of Romans 8, someone probably would have guessed that from the text. Maybe not cooling, but that all matter will decay.[23']
[22] Reality does not depend on your agreement.
[22'] If Hugh Ross and you say so it must be true.
[22'] In that case they would have understood something that is false.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 3:12:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2015 3:49:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/2/2015 2:34:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Here is another list of 3000 scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism.

http://www.rae.org...

From the link:

"Many on this list are secure tenured professors, teach at Christian Universities"

No one cares what those Creationists believe, it is irrelevant. Their answer to everything is "Godunnit"

They are all qualified scientists. There are no scientists on the list with creationists degrees. You just don't read too well. Get help.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 3:25:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2015 2:48:12 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
tstor 251
Hominids:
Neanderthals have no genetic connection to humans
Neanderthals show very little genetic diversity
Excluding Africans, scientists believe humans have about 2 to 3% of their DNA from Neanderthals. How does the RTB model account for that ? I can't find a prediction about future discoveries on that topic on http://www.reasons.org....

- Amoranemix 265
An intelligent creator is just one possible explanation for apparent design. What makes you think it is the best one ?
- Harikrish
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

For all the scientific knowledge and theory. Scientists have not been able to create a living life form in the lab. The only intelligent answer that is available is an intelligent creator created life and everything else.

- Amoranemix 265
"God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm."
You have quoted that several times, but never supported it. The same could be said of Satan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Klaus. I have issues with the word privilege.
- tstor 266
You can fill in the information about anything. People have filled in the details about all the names you listed.
You misunderstood. I meant you could substitute those characters for God.

- Amoranemix 265
That doesn't address common ancestry.
Instantaneous in geological time does not mean instantaneous in evolutionary time.
What evidence is there that first life was complex ?
- tstor 266
http://www.discovery.org...[12]
The the first life is believed to be cyanobacteria, which was complex. While the oldest fossil we have is 3.5 billion years old, it is reasonable to conclude that they first appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. In fact, there are two articles from RTB about this life:
http://www.reasons.org...[13]
http://www.reasons.org...[14]
[12] That is a long text about the Cambrian explosion. What relevance does it have ?
[13] It is an example of humans changing the design of a cell rather than building a cell from scratch and was complicated. We don't understand how this could naturally be done from scratch, therefore some designer must have done it. I was hoping for positive evidence that first life was complex, the kind of evidence the RTB guys claim they should provide.
[14] Where in the article is the evidence ?

- Amoranemix 265
[15] Can you prove that ?
- tstor 266
Sure, though I am discussing this with RuvDraba currently, so I suggest you just read out dialog as it progresses.
We shall see.

- Amoranemix
[16] It is true that it is possible to interpret the Biblical creation account to fit the facts, but it is easier to interpret it to contradict the facts.
- tstor
I strongly disagree.[17] There are no leaps of logic I have to commit in order to see the harmony.
[17] That is a claim I would expect only from a fanatical religious lunatic, so I suspect you weren't thinking when you wrote that. So, what did you mean ?
There are no leaps of logic I have to commit to see the incompatibility.

- Amoranemix 265
[17] Your source is using the god of the gaps argument : Scientists don't know how first life appeared. Therefore some designer must have done it.
- tstor 266
Not at all.[18] Though the model has to be formulated on what is currently known. It would just be weird to build a model on assumptions.
[18] Your denial is ambiguous, so I assume you deny that they are using the god of the gaps argument. However, you fail to provide reason for your scepticism.

- Amoranemix
John was describing a vision. It would be silly to use a metaphor for that.
- tstor
How do you figure?
Using metaphor makes descriptions harder to understand. That can however be mitigated by the audience's background knowledge (allowing to identify it as a metaphor), which they lack in case of a vision.

- Amoranemix
[19] Notice how the author avoids metaphorically claiming God's people are grasshoppers and the heavens a tent.
John didn't say something like : "It was as if the earth had four corners in each of which an angel was standing. They were like holding the four winds of the earth."
- tstor
I am not seeing the point you are trying to make.
The point was made by dee-em. They are using analogies in stead of metaphors to avoid confusion. Hence John was probably being literal.

- Amoranemix 265
[20] That is not what I said. I said they appear to be interpreting the data based on their faith. They seem to be assuming (their version of) Christianity is true, do some Christian coloured science and then, o sunrise, conclude that Christianity best describes reality. It looks too bad to be true. So I expected you to correct me, but yes I read the OP.
- tstor 266
They are not interpreting data based on their faith. A strong indicator of that is Hugh Ross' early life. He did not become a Christian until the age 27, which is when he realized that the Bible matched with modern science.
How is it a strong indicator they are not interpreting the data based on their faith ? And why would that piece of evidence conclusively demonstrate they aren't doing that ?

- Amoranemix
[21] You (and Ross as well since it is in his presentation) are giving a lot weight to that prediction. However, it is very soft because :
1) You have almost 50% chance to get it right by simply guessing.
- tstor
Or suggesting that there was time prior to the big bang would falsify it.
Can you translate that to English please ?

- Amoranemix
2) Having one's deity create everything is more attractive as that would make him more awesome.
- tstor
What?
Deities that create everything are more awesome since they did more than those that created only part of the world. In addition they provide closure.

- Amoranemix
3) That the universe had a beginning is almost certain by now. So that prediction is almost risk-free.
- tstor
The bible has always taught it, even before most scientists accepted it. If this was some kind of brand new idea then I would agree.
That you would agree under some circumstance does nothing to undermine it.

- Amoranemix 265
I didn't say it had bearing on the text.
Assume you have primitive people write a text of 5 million characters with lots of references to geography, biology and astronomy, while having no more knowledge than the average educated person of the first century BC. I would expect it be possible by cherry-picking and ad hoc interpretation to find several claims that are consistent with modern science. Confirming the cherry-picking would be a lot of work (although someone has probably done that and put it on the internet), but since he gave an example of science in the Bible with Romans 8, we can confirm the ad hoc interpretation. Doctor Ross sees the second main law of thermodynamics in there and the cooling on the universe. Do you think that anyone that didn't already know about those could deduce those from Romans 8 ?
- tstor 266
I disagree.[22] We should see errors in it, but there are none. All of the Bible is scientifically accurate, Hugh Ross is arguing that all of it is accurate. There is no cherry-picking with that approach.[22'] As for your question concerning the interpretation of Romans 8, someone probably would have guessed that from the text. Maybe not cooling, but that all matter will decay.[23']
[22] Reality does not depend on your agreement.
[22'] If Hugh Ross and you say so it must be true.
[22'] In that case they
Amoranemix
Posts: 564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 2:58:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the second debate you linked to with Ross vs. Stenger () a questioner referred to an Islamic industry of finding signs in the Koran. Basically Muslim scientists are saying that the Koran shows remarkable agreement with scientific discoveries, while the Bible is full of errors.
For example, from 'On the creation of the universe' by Maurice Bucaille from http://www.sultan.org... :
"This brief survey of Qur"anic references to creation clearly shows us how modern scientific data and statements in the Qur"an consistently agree on a large number of points. In contrast, the successive phases of creation mentioned in the Biblical text are totally unacceptable. For example, in Genesis 1:9-19 the creation of the earth (on the 3rd day) is placed before that of the heavens (on the 4th day). It is a well known fact that our planet came from its own star, the sun. In such circumstances, how could anyone claim that Muhammad, the supposed author of the Qur"an, drew his inspiration from the Bible. Such a claim would mean that, of his own accord, he corrected the Biblical text to arrive at the correct concept concerning the formation of the Universe. Yet the correct concept was reached by scientists many centuries after his death."

I assume you, tstor, think Dr. Bucaille is biased and that you want to avoid interpreting the Bible with bias. How do you assure you are interpreting the Bible without bias ?

- Amoranemix 268
For example doctor Rana mentions the Cambrian explosion from 550 million years ago. So he believes in that event. How does that fit into the chronology presented in http://www.reasons.org... ? Or how does their model predict it ? Rana talked about steps and their model mentions steps, but can they correlate them with the fast appearances of species in the fossil record ?
Fast speciation after mass extinction events is consistent with the theory of evolution.
- Harikrish 269
Hugh Ross addresses the Cambrian Explosion in The Great Unconformity.
http://www.reasons.org...
The chronological account in Genesis places the Cambrian Explosion on the fifth day of creation.[23]
(That is an article by Dr. Rana, not Ross.)
Rana : "The Cambrian explosion represents the type of features one would expect to see if a Creator was responsible for bringing animal life into being."
The same can be said for evolution, but Dr. Rana doesn't want to draw attention to that.
[23] Where in Genesis is the Cambrian explosion mentioned ? Birds didn't appear then in case you forgot that.

- Amoranemix 268
From http://www.reasons.org...
I am having difficulty seeing where he gets his predictions from. Naturalism doesn't predict anything other than the continued absence of the supernatural.
- Harikrish 269
There are gaps in the natural sciences.[24] Applying Occam Razor. God is the simplest explanation with the least number of speculation.
[24] Do you think the god of the gaps argument is a good argument ?
God simple ? Since when ? Christians spend their life trying to understand God and fail. Scientists have barely scratched the surface.

- Amoranemix 268
What you could say of the people today has no bearing on the beliefs of John.
- Harikrish 269
Those were colloquial expressions.[25] Don't confuse the big picture with semantics.
[25] Can you prove that ?

- tstor 170
Job did know better. He was receiving revelation from God.
- Amoranemix 268
Can you prove that ?
- Harikrish 269
Job was not the only one receiving revelations. There is plenty of corroborative examples of God talking to His prophets in the Bible. Some 3000 years of divine communication has been accounted for.
So you claim. Where is the evidence ?
In addition, even if Job was receiving revelation from God, that would not imply has was knowledgeable about science, because God may have been revealing him only science fiction.

- Amoranemix 268
[4b] What is exactly what atheist, who believe the Bible is a bad book, would expect, unlike the Christians who claim the Bible interprets itself.
Whoever gave the science revelations of the Bible did not appear to be a science guru either.
- Harikrish 269
Hugh Ross's qualifications as a scientist is irrefutable.
I was talking about what is in the Bible, not about its interpretation.

- Amoranemix 268
There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding that article. 'Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres' appears to be a magazine, not an article.
A book review does not constitute a validation of the model, nor a peer review of a piece of their model as you make it out to be. In addition, in the preview of the review David Deamer states : "Their book " Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Face Off " attempts to reconcile scientific knowledge and their religious faith. Do they succeed? Not quite, in my opinion, but it is fascinating to follow their struggle with the dilemma."
- Harikrish 269
The 'Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres is a peer-review journal. Dr. . Fazale Rana has submitted some 15 papers to the review journal on the subject.
I can't find an article from him in that journal. Relevance ?

- Amoranemix 270
Would you ever derail a thread ?
- Harikrish
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

dhardage 275
And everything I've read is nothing but rehashed arguments disproven by current science. Example:
You forgot to provide links. The content of seemingly at least two unknown articles appear to be mingled with your comments.

Harikrish 281 to dhardage
The Cambrian explosion also proves the sudden explosion/appearance of species just like the creation model predicted where the process was not gradual but spontaneous.[26]
RTB also explains specialization through convergence evolution which is an alternate scientific theory of evolution that is gaining wider acceptance.[27] :Evolution is also the evolution of ideas in God creation and the creation models suggests several makeovers which is quite observable and are quantifiable by science.[28]
[26] I am still waiting for that prediction of the RTB model about the Cambrian explosion.
[27] How does it do that ?
[28] Does it claim them or just suggest them ?

Harikrish 285
The RTB site gives you Creations beginnings (the Big Bang), the refutation of prebiotic soup, the origin of life, Cambrian explosion, evolution, hominids and the historical Adam. In short RTB gives you the whole picture.
No, it doesn't. It only gives their partial picture.

How does the RTB model answer these questions about the Galapagos islands ?
1) Why are there only small land animals while there are also big sea animals ?
2) For its size, there are more unique species on The Galapagos than anywhere in the world. Why ?
3) Why are the eastern islands older than the western ones ? Why do some of them look like extinct volcanoes ?
4) Why do the species on the islands appear related to the ones found in South America ?
5) Lava herons eat juvenile sally lightfood crabs. The juveniles wear camouflage black. The adults conspicuous red. Why ?
6) Why are about a third of the plants species endemic ?
7) Why are there almost no mammals on the islands ?
8) Why are there no amphibians ?
9) Why are there penguins at the islands, but not at the north pole ?
10) Why do the islands have no highland true trees, but tree like plants (like giant dandilons called scalesia) with smaller seeds in stead ?
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Amoranemix
Posts: 564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 1:38:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
- Harikrish 281
RTB also explains specialization through convergence evolution which is an alternate scientific theory of evolution that is gaining wider acceptance.
- dhardage 282
Only among those who wish to disbelieve the facts.
- Harikrish 285
It is supported by a body of scientists as a more probable explanation to natural selection.
More probable than what ?

- Harikrish 281
Your problem is lack of understanding of scriptures and the position of creationists which Hugh Ross defends in his books and RTB site.
- DanneJeRusse 283
So what? Ross has debated many other prominent theist scholars over their understanding of scriptures, hence it's a battle of whose interpretation is correct. Irrelevant.
- Harikrish 292
Hugh Ross addresses the differences in interpretation by backing his Creation Model with his scientific learnings and scientific theories. That seems to escape your understanding.
Do these addressings support his interpretation is consistent with the knowledge of the authors or with current scientific knowledge ?

- DanneJeRusse 283
Sorry, but there is no evidence abiogenesis and evolution were guided, that is merely a leap of faith.
- Harikrish 292
You are wrong. Both position Creation and Evolution point to a guided process. Evolution applies natural selection, adaptation and gene flow. All forces of nature. Creation recognizes this force of nature as God. Again both positions recognize an external force and both are positions of faith relying on the same evidence I.e creation..
What external force does evolution by natural selection rely on ?

- dhardage 288
Every "prediction" he has made has been a post hoc correction, e.g. predicting complex life and claiming it was a single celled organism that fulfilled it 3.4 billion years ago? That's not a prediction.
Harikrish 296
Ross is not the one making tbe predictions. The Creation Approach is taking the events in the bible as predictions and correlating that with known scientific theories.
More accurately, the creation approach is trying to correlate the events in the Bible with modern science.

- Harikrish 303 to dhardage
You got it backwards. What was missing in religion was a 21st century relativity. Hugh Ross a scientist by profession and a Christian by conviction bridged the divide and showed a predictive Creation Model that explains the relevance of science to Christians and the relevance of the bible to scientists.[29] There are a lot of predictions in the bible that still need understanding. And there are gaps in science that can benefit from a predictive source like the bible.[29]
[29] Those claims still remain to be proven.

- bulproof 306
That's funny, he allegedly mentions creating BIRDS, the descendants of dinosaurs.
Go figure, oh and bats are birds according to this god dude.
Or was it ignorant bronze age goatherds who claimed that?
- Harikrish 307
RTB rejects the scientific view that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It appears they were right.[30]
As for bats being birds. That is less of a stretch than Gotham city believing the crime fighting bat was a man as in Batman!!!
[30] How does it appear they were right ?

Harikrish 309
The bible is not just a book of fables, folk tales and ignorance. It is the greatest story every told and the best selling book of non-fiction of all times.(Guinness ).
It will soon be the most read book by scientists now that Hugh Ross has highlighted its predictive significance to scientists as a Creation Model.
I think you are being overly optimistic.

- bulproof 314
Where is Adam and Eve?
- Harikrish 315
Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
October 1, 2010 By Dr. Fazale Rana
http://www.reasons.org...
I don't feel like debating a link, so I will just make two comments.
First, doctor Rana doesn't provide evidence for a single original pair. He merely argues that population size estimates of several thousands could be overestimates. So what ? They could be underestimates as well.
Second, he provides no evidence these common ancestors were unique, while the Bible suggests they were (even giving the pair a name).

Harikrish 321 to Hitchian
When the bible is studied objectively through the eyes of a scientist such as Hugh Ross who found evidence of a predictive Creation Model that is supported by scientific theories, the bible becomes less incredulous.[31] We finally have a modern interpretation of the bible that lends itself to scientific scrutinity even as it scrutinizes science from a Creation Model Approach.
[31] The Bible's credulity isn't in question. Its credibility is. Does Reasons to Believe make it less incredible ? Maybe, but it remains incredible nonetheless.

Harikrish 326 to RuvDraba
There is evidence of a higher intelligence. You have to look around at the scientist with the most brilliant minds struggling to produce an intelligent theory of everything.
Why should we have to do that ?

Harikrish 326
Victor J Stenger a physicist came up with several mathematical models of the universe and alternate universes. But confirmed the universe in existence was real and not just a mathematical model. So the Creation Model is mathematically possible.[32] In fact it is only model that scientists have for their other theories.[33]
[32] How does that follow ?
[33] I disagree. The universe being real does not imply a mathematical model for it being false.

Harikrish 326
For all of biological breakthroughs and theories of the origin of life and evolution. No scientist has ever produced life out of inorganic matter. In fact no life has ever been created in a lab. Yet the world is teeming with life, life is the most ubitiquously present fact surrounding us. Certainly speaks of a higher intelligence.
According to the RTB guys Christians rely too much on the god of the gaps argument. What do you think ?

MadCornishBiker 331 to OP
There is only one reason to believe it.
Its true.
Unless it is false, which it is.

- BOHICA 333
Order cannot come from chaos.
- Hitchian 334
How do you know that?
Prove it.
- BOHICA 335
Prove that it has happened. You can't.
Your fallacy of choice is shifting the burden of proof : http://rationalwiki.org...

BOHICA 333 to Hitchian
All I can say is, Seriously? Dude. You've left orbit.
Hmmm... I have seen better dodges. Are you new to debating ?

- B0HICA 334
The best reason to believe in a Creator is the simple fact that there is order in the universe. There is no other explanation that makes any sense.
- Hitchian 336
Argument from ignorance.
Just because B0HICA can't think of an explanation doesn't mean someone else doesn't have one or that one won't be found sometime in the future. The universe is not bound by what B0HICA thinks he knows or ignores.
- BOHICA 335
On the contrary. If there was another explanation for the universe, we could discuss it. But there isn't. Scientists don't have a clue.
Consider a mysterious phenomenon with explanation that no one knows. How would one go about discussing that explanation ?

- MadCornishBiker 331
There is only one reason to believe it.
Its true.
- Hitchian 332
Then it shouldn't be too hard to prove it beyond contention to the scientific community, should it?
- MadCornishBiker 346
It is not at all difficult to prove it, even within the scientific community, to those open to having their ideas changed, and not like those Christ describes in Matthew 13:15. That is why the more honest members of the scientific community are becoming Jws.
What evidence can you present that the more honest members of the scientific community are becoming Jws ?
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 3:07:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2016 1:38:52 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
- Harikrish 281
RTB also explains specialization through convergence evolution which is an alternate scientific theory of evolution that is gaining wider acceptance.
- dhardage 282
Only among those who wish to disbelieve the facts.
- Harikrish 285
It is supported by a body of scientists as a more probable explanation to natural selection.
More probable than what ?

Try to improve your reading and comprehension skills. Convergence evolution is more probable as an explanation than natural selection.

- Harikrish 281
Your problem is lack of understanding of scriptures and the position of creationists which Hugh Ross defends in his books and RTB site.
- DanneJeRusse 283
So what? Ross has debated many other prominent theist scholars over their understanding of scriptures, hence it's a battle of whose interpretation is correct. Irrelevant.
- Harikrish 292
Hugh Ross addresses the differences in interpretation by backing his Creation Model with his scientific learnings and scientific theories. That seems to escape your understanding.
Do these addressings support his interpretation is consistent with the knowledge of the authors or with current scientific knowledge ?

Hugh Ross is applying current scientific knowledge. Read his qualifications.

- DanneJeRusse 283
Sorry, but there is no evidence abiogenesis and evolution were guided, that is merely a leap of faith.
- Harikrish 292
You are wrong. Both position Creation and Evolution point to a guided process. Evolution applies natural selection, adaptation and gene flow. All forces of nature. Creation recognizes this force of nature as God. Again both positions recognize an external force and both are positions of faith relying on the same evidence I.e creation..
What external force does evolution by natural selection rely on ?

Try improving your reading and comprehension skills. Natural selection relies on the forces of nature...that is why it is called natural selection. Duh!!

- dhardage 288
Every "prediction" he has made has been a post hoc correction, e.g. predicting complex life and claiming it was a single celled organism that fulfilled it 3.4 billion years ago? That's not a prediction.
Harikrish 296
Ross is not the one making tbe predictions. The Creation Approach is taking the events in the bible as predictions and correlating that with known scientific theories.
More accurately, the creation approach is trying to correlate the events in the Bible with modern science.

The creation model is the product of seeing the correlation between creation story and modern science and satisfies the scientific method because it is predictive.

- Harikrish 303 to dhardage
You got it backwards. What was missing in religion was a 21st century relativity. Hugh Ross a scientist by profession and a Christian by conviction bridged the divide and showed a predictive Creation Model that explains the relevance of science to Christians and the relevance of the bible to scientists.[29] There are a lot of predictions in the bible that still need understanding. And there are gaps in science that can benefit from a predictive source like the bible.[29]
[29] Those claims still remain to be proven.

The biblical claims have all been made. God is waiting for science to catch up.

- bulproof 306
That's funny, he allegedly mentions creating BIRDS, the descendants of dinosaurs.
Go figure, oh and bats are birds according to this god dude.
Or was it ignorant bronze age goatherds who claimed that?
- Harikrish 307
RTB rejects the scientific view that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It appears they were right.[30]
As for bats being birds. That is less of a stretch than Gotham city believing the crime fighting bat was a man as in Batman!!!
[30] How does it appear they were right ?

You will find the answer in RTB.

Harikrish 309
The bible is not just a book of fables, folk tales and ignorance. It is the greatest story every told and the best selling book of non-fiction of all times.(Guinness ).
It will soon be the most read book by scientists now that Hugh Ross has highlighted its predictive significance to scientists as a Creation Model.
I think you are being overly optimistic.

What is wrong with being optimistic about science now that Scientists have a reliable source the bible and the Creation Model to guide them.

- bulproof 314
Where is Adam and Eve?
- Harikrish 315
Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
October 1, 2010 By Dr. Fazale Rana
http://www.reasons.org...
I don't feel like debating a link, so I will just make two comments.
First, doctor Rana doesn't provide evidence for a single original pair. He merely argues that population size estimates of several thousands could be overestimates. So what ? They could be underestimates as well.
Second, he provides no evidence these common ancestors were unique, while the Bible suggests they were (even giving the pair a name).

Dr. Rana presents his case using the discovery that both the Y Chromosome and Mitochrondia found in humans can be traced to just two individual male and female which is supported by a genetic bottleneck. Skepticalone have argued the population size could have been larger. But they have provided nothing that substantiate their assumptions.

Harikrish 321 to Hitchian
When the bible is studied objectively through the eyes of a scientist such as Hugh Ross who found evidence of a predictive Creation Model that is supported by scientific theories, the bible becomes less incredulous.[31] We finally have a modern interpretation of the bible that lends itself to scientific scrutinity even as it scrutinizes science from a Creation Model Approach.
[31] The Bible's credulity isn't in question. Its credibility is. Does Reasons to Believe make it less incredible ? Maybe, but it remains incredible nonetheless.

Discovering the predictive nature of the Creation Model found in bible is what make the bible incredibly useful.

Harikrish 326 to RuvDraba
There is evidence of a higher intelligence. You have to look around at the scientist with the most brilliant minds struggling to produce an intelligent theory of everything.
Why should we have to do that ?

Because they have all failed. They are grasping at straws.

Harikrish 326
Victor J Stenger a physicist came up with several mathematical models of the universe and alternate universes. But confirmed the universe in existence was real and not just a mathematical model. So the Creation Model is mathematically possible.[32] In fact it is the only model that scientists have for their other theories.[33]
[32] How does that follow ?
[33] I disagree. The universe being real does not imply a mathematical model for it being false.

The mathematical model scientist have is based on the real world which can be studied . Tweaking the existing mathematical model to suggest other worlds are also probable is mere speculation. Without the real world there would be no mathematical model to begin with and it is the only model that we know exists.

Harikrish 326
For all of biological breakthroughs and theories of the origin of life and evolution. No scientist has ever produced life out of inorganic matter. In fact no life has ever been created in a lab. Yet the world is teeming with life, life is the most ubitiquously present fact surrounding us. Certainly speaks of a higher intelligence.
According to the RTB guys Christians rely too much on the god of the gaps argument. What do you think ?

The gaps do exist and proves how incomplete scientific knowledge is.
Amoranemix
Posts: 564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 1:53:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
- Amoranemix 265
[15] Can you prove that ?
- tstor 266
Sure, though I am discussing this with RuvDraba currently, so I suggest you just read out dialog as it progresses.
We shall see.
- tstor

That was 250 days ago. We are still waiting for your proof.

- Hitchian 332
Go through the process of publishing peer-reviewed papers on the matter and then these people will have a shot at overthrowing the current model.
- MadCornishBiker 346
I have overthrown it many times, but most don't want to know.
Peer reviewed papers are only of use if you wish to maintain the Status Quo.[34] I am only interested in the truth.
[34] Why is that ?

- Harikrish 293
It does not name the millions species either. It is a book on Creation not an inventory of creation.
- bulproof 306
That's funny, he allegedly mentions creating BIRDS, the descendants of dinosaurs.
Go figure, oh and bats are birds according to this god dude.
Or was it ignorant bronze age goatherds who claimed that?
- IntellectVsSpirit5000 358
The current system used for labeling animals did not exist in Old Testament times. The actual word is not bird as in bird as we know them from the Hebrew texts. Bats were simply put into a phylum of "winged creatures". It's a translatory vs. Ancient allignment vs. modern allignment systems issue. Jews do not believe bats are "birds", or read any such texts because they read Hebrew rather than English off of Old English translations such as King James to New International Version type translations.
Taxonomy depends on knowledge of the system classified, like biology, ecology, genetics. The Bible's authors were clueless about the different origins of bats and birds and classified them according to similarities that any illiterate could see. Taxonomy is still changing to reflect newly acquired knowledge.

- IntellectVsSpirit5000 360
the reason being that the Hebrew Bible distinguishes animals into four general categories beasts of the land, flying animals, creatures which crawl upon the ground, and animals which dwell in water, not according to modern scientific classification. Simply put, they grouped animals in a different way.[34] According to their definitions for grouping animals the grouping is correct. There are many animals misclassified by ancient systems if you are using modern systems. If a future race of humans reevaluates and changes the order of animal systems to fit as they deem neccessary, it doesn't make us wrong if our labeling differs from theirs.[34] Example: If we say platypus belong to mammals we are right by our definition. If future humans classify differently and say any billed creature is a bird, they are right by their system, and we are right by our system. No one is wrong. The text here on bats vs. Birds can be translated many ways as well, each of which differs in meaning. There is no great transalatory option here. Meaning is lost in translation. Example: in Cherokee, there is no word for love, so how would you go about translating the English words,"I love you"? Now try "I love you and translating into Hebrew where there are 3 types of love. There's no easy or even 100% correct translation. The Bible tells us God divided languages because a unified languaged humanity would have to be destroyed because their unity would lead quickly to destruction and evil practice/ ideology.[35]
[33] Indeed. They classified life as one would expect bronze age goatherds to do.
In addition, some Christians claim that the Bible also addresses modern audiences. Hence, either these Christians are wrong, or the Bible, or both.
[34] Yes, it does. The tree of life is adapted to take into account the progress of science. Older classifications are inadequate in light of new insights.
We classify a platypus as a mammal because we believe it to have a common ancestor with other mammals. If that is wrong, then our classification is wrong.
[35] The result is that the Bible is hard to interpret and Christians blame everyone who disagrees with their interpretation, but are too infatuated with God to contemplate that he might be a little guilty too.

- Harikrish 368 to Hitchian
There is a growing scientific dissent from Darwinism. You should be better prepared if you intent to engage better informed members.
What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

Harikrish 374 to glory_life
Here is another list of 3000 scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism.
http://www.rae.org... [35]
Now add to that another 2 billion Christians and you have quite a skeptical population rejecting Darwinism.[36]
[35] So about 40% of US Americans (the general population) believe God created humans in their present form, while only a much smaller fraction of scientists (the educated) do. Why might that be ?
[36] Do all Christians reject evolution by natural selection ?

- Amoranemix 265
An intelligent creator is just one possible explanation for apparent design. What makes you think it is the best one ?
- Harikrish
[no response]
- Amoranemix 377
You forgot to answer my question.
- Harikrish 379
For all the scientific knowledge and theory. Scientists have not been able to create a living life form in the lab. The only intelligent answer that is available is an intelligent creator created life and everything else.
So because scientists haven't been able to create life in a lab, an intelligent designer must have designed life and the universe ? How is that supposed to follow ?

- Harikrish 285 to dhardage
It is supported by a body of scientists as a more probable explanation to natural selection.
- Amoranemix 381
More probable than what ?
- Harikrish 382
Try to improve your reading and comprehension skills. Convergence evolution is more probable as an explanation than natural selection.
Try improving your writing skills in stead of giving your readers bad advice. I assume you mean convergent evolution. It is part of the process of biological evolution and not an alternative to natural selection. Convergent evolution and natural selection both exist.

- Amoranemix 381
Do these addressings support his interpretation is consistent with the knowledge of the authors or with current scientific knowledge ?
- Harikrish 382
Hugh Ross is applying current scientific knowledge. Read his qualifications.
Maybe so, but that doesn't answer my question. I will answer it for you : it supports that some of his interpretations are consistent with current scientific knowledge. However, an interpretation that is correct is not the same as a correct interpretation.

- Amoranemix 381
What external force does evolution by natural selection rely on ?
- Harikrish 382
Try improving your reading and comprehension skills. Natural selection relies on the forces of nature...that is why it is called natural selection. Duh!!
Bad authors blame their readers.
Can you prove the forces of nature are external ?
Can you prove biological evolution relies on creationism ?
One of the forces of nature is electromagnetism. So, according to creationists, electromagnetism is God ?

- Amoranemix 381
More accurately, the creation approach is trying to correlate the events in the Bible with modern science.
- Harikrish 382
The creation model is the product of seeing the correlation between creation story and modern science and satisfies the scientific method because it is predictive.
It is also based on religious faith.
There is more to the scientific method than being predictive. Ask RuvDraba.

- Amoranemix 381
[29] Those claims still remain to be proven.
- Harikrish 382
The biblical claims have all been made. God is waiting for science to catch up.
Like the biblical claims, yours have been made, but not yet proven. Science still has to catch up with them.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.