Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

[danielsgram]

Hi again Jbuck:

I said I was aware of antecedents. I wasn’t about to qualify my statement all over the place because I happen to know about Roger Bacon.

Well, I figured that you knew about Roger Bacon and probably many others but I believe that it is very important to start the scientific age before the 14th century. Those are the folks who laid down the rules for the study of science. The quotes that I gave you were to show experiment is necessary. Evolution by definition is not scientific. It is a philosophy or religion.

For that matter, Aristotle and Ptolemy were decent scientists by the standards of their times, though ancient Greek thought ended up being more a hindrance than a help to the advancement of science

Agreed regarding Aristotle and Ptolemy but not the Catholic scientists whom I quoted.

If you want a true scientist who was devoutly Catholic, go with Galileo (no fooling)

You are too late regarding Galileo, I know waaaay too much about him. “Devoutly Catholic” is not the first adjectives that I would use to describe him.

or, much later, Gregor Mendel.

Mendel believed that the laws of genetics he deduced just seven years after Darwin’s Origin of Species was published posed a serious challenge to the theory of “transformism” (that one species can be transformed into another).

If I start second-guessing or anticipating every response everyone from the entire spectrum of opinion and/or serious thinking that exists here, every post would be endless. Everyone here is so defensive. I make what seems to me a common sense statement supported by the current state of knowledge and not at all contradictory to faith and people come back at me as though I was questioning the divinity of Jesus.

I’m not sure what you mean there Jbuck. I don’t believe in evolution, you do, so I thought that I would show you that evolution cannot be substantiated by science. It is a philosophy or a religion and does not belong in the scientific category.

Donna

 

[Maranatha]

Well, I figured that you knew about Roger Bacon and probably many others but I believe that it is very important to start the scientific age before the 14th century. Those are the folks who laid down the rules for the study of science. The quotes that I gave you were to show experiment is necessary. Evolution by definition is not scientific. It is a philosophy or religion.

Investigation of a past event is usually referred to as Forensic Science. How is this not science? If a Crime Scene Investigators can’t turn back the clock and become present at the scene of a crime, should we refrain from call what they do science?

 

[steveandersen]

…I’m not sure what you mean there Jbuck. I don’t believe in evolution, you do, so I thought that I would show you that evolution cannot be substantiated by science. It is a philosophy or a religion and does not belong in the scientific category.

Donna

I’m not quite sure what to say to that

Evolution is one of the most substantiated fields in science.

it is quite rigorous and multidisciplinary
How you could equate it with a religion or philosophy I don’t understand.

It makes no references to the supernatural so how can it be a religion?

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Maranatha:

“Secular science actually agrees with the necessity of repeatable observations for the application of the scientific method, of which the penultimate step is the experimental testing of a theory. [14] Quite inconsistently, however, the propagandists for atheistic naturalism claim that only science through the application of the scientific method can discover the past history of the universe, the earth and life on earth, even though their hypotheses aimed at doing so are based upon observations that are unrepeatable. This situation can be seen to have arisen because the Genesis doctrine of creation was rejected by “enlightenment” philosophy, and was later replaced by a fallacious “positivism”.” theotokos.org.uk/pages/cr…/humanevo.html

Science must be:
· observable
· measurable
· repeatable

Evolution is based on observations that are unobservable, immeasurable and unrepeatable. Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Donna

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Steve:

Evolution is one of the most substantiated fields in science.
it is quite rigorous and multidisciplinary
How you could equate it with a religion or philosophy I don’t understand.
It makes no references to the supernatural so how can it be a religion?

A philosophy is a belief system as is religion. It isn’t true that evolution is substantiated in fact it cannot be substantiated therefore anyone holding that position must have faith in it to hold to it.

Donna

 

[jbuck919]

I’m not quite sure what to say to that

Evolution is one of the most substantiated fields in science.

it is quite rigorous and multidisciplinary
How you could equate it with a religion or philosophy I don’t understand.

It makes no references to the supernatural so how can it be a religion?

I know what to say to it. We have a lot of members here who are on some kind of fringe based on pure ignorance. It’s been news to me too over the last few days (I’ve been posting here for months). Staying out of the way of such people is the only solution. They probably also believe that the Earth is flat…

 

[steveandersen]

No Phil, been there done that. When a person points out the problems with the evolutionary theory the evolutionists rarely if ever deal with the information at hand. As a rule the evolutionist will ignore the evidence that an anti-evolutionist presents and posts more evolution “evidence” that then if the discussion continues the anti-evolutionist is required to debunk that “evidence”. I have done my homework and have argued until I’m blue in the face. Evolution is a religion for some folks evidence be darned.

Donna

Phil,

This might be another one for your archive.

It seems no matter how hard we try to teach, nature evolves a new anti-evolutionist.

Donna,

I don’t mean to be uncharitable but your vague assertions of this data debunking that without references or example are not helpful. In fact your first line “No Phil, been there done that.” seems to indicate that you have no intention of having a discussion, just of declaring you views as correct regardless of what others say.

You made the claim that Miller was debunked and that we all should do our homework. Phil challenged you on it and gave examples and asked pointed questions. You did some hand waving rather than answer.

Some of us here have done our homework. If you are to make broad assertions challenging the current state of the science, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Merely claiming victory isn’t enough.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Jbuck:

Do you notice that no one has anything to rebut what anti-evolutionists write? All they get are ad hominem and ridicule. There is never anything substantial. After I quoted actual scientists to show what is necessary for something to be scientific my husband asked me how do you think that he will respond? I told him that you would ignore what I had to say and write something unrelated.

I know what to say to it. We have a lot of members here who are on some kind of fringe based on pure ignorance.

That is pure obfuscation.

It’s been news to me too over the last few days (I’ve been posting here for months). Staying out of the way of such people is the only solution. They probably also believe that the Earth is flat…

That is just silly. You can’t deal with the information so you denigrate it with insults.

Donna

 

[Maranatha]

Evolution is based on observations that are unobservable, immeasurable and unrepeatable. Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Donna

Hi Donna,

The Theory of Evolution is based on repeatable observable experiments applied against the forensic evidence. I believe your objection lies not with the evidence but with the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

Maranatha

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Maranatha:

The Theory of Evolution is based on repeatable observable experiments

Where can I see those experiments?

Donna

 

[steveandersen]

Hi Steve:

A philosophy is a belief system as is religion. It isn’t true that evolution is substantiated in fact it cannot be substantiated therefore anyone holding that position must have faith in it to hold to it.

Donna

Just because you say it can’t be substantiated doesn’t mean that is so.

I do not hold scientific theories on the basis of faith. It is insulting to suggest that I do. I work in a technical field, I can’t “believe” that the road won’t crumble or the pipe won’t burst…I have to know it and prove it.

If you think that there are unsubstantiated areas in Evolution then please provide your data and your alternative mechanism.

 

[Maranatha]

Hi Maranatha:

Where can I see those experiments?

Donna

In forensic science, investigators gather clues and perform tests on these clues. When testing very old clues test can include things such as carbon dating. When comparing species, DNA records can be examined. When researching the environment geological tests can be performed.

 

[Maranatha]

If you think that there are unsubstantiated areas in Evolution then please provide your data and your alternative mechanism.

Here’s two to start.

1. 
   *]What about “iriducible complxity?”
   *]Can evolution explain who life “evolved” from non-life?"

 

[steveandersen]

Hi Maranatha:

Where can I see those experiments?

Donna

Well there is the ever-popular Observed Instances of Speciation. Which includes both laboratory and field observations. The list is a few years old now but it is a good start.

For examples of the predictive power of the theory of Evolution you should read up on the discovery of the origin of ants or the recent work done with the descent of whales. Both are great examples of predicting transitory species both physiologically, geographically and chronologically and then locating them in the field.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Steve:

Some of us here have done our homework. If you are to make broad assertions challenging the current state of the science, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Merely claiming victory isn’t enough.

I must confess agree with you. But offering evidence doesn’t do any good.I have been having discussions with evolutionists for months now. I have done research and posted my findings but instead of dealing with my findings the evolutionists just post another bit of what they consider evidence that the anti-evolutionist is expected to chase down. I did this for months. Lets face it; evolutionists and anti-evolutionists have the same body of evidence. The difference is in the interpretation of that evidence. For example is the Archaeopteryx a mere bird or not? It depends on which scientist you ask. I think that you know that. I have come to a conclusion. People who are interested in this topic can be categorized as:

creationists: Usually fundamentalist Christians who take it by faith that evolution is a crock. But know little or nothing about the science of it and don’t care

evolutionists: Who take it by faith that evolution is true and do not even for a minute consider the interpretation of the evidence that anti-evolution scientists offer. Instead of dealing with the anti-evo argument, they ridicule. The type of people who are in this camp are, it seems, atheists and some Catholics.

anti-evolutionists: Those who do not believe in evolution but do not use the bible to back up their interpretations. They use science for this. I number among anti-evolutionists but I’m not a scientist I just read the evidence for and against and use my critical thinking skills to determine which interpretation is believable. The type of people who are in this camp seem to be mostly if not all Catholic.

In forensic science, investigators gather clues and perform tests on these clues. When testing very old clues test can include things such as carbon dating. When comparing species, DNA records can be examined. When researching the environment geological tests can be performed.

Yes, and I know (in a cyber sort of way) an anti-evolutionist who does carbon 14 dating. Anti-evolution scientists study the same things and come to different conclusions.

Donna

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Steve:

From that study: 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

As I mentioned I’m not a scientist but it seems to me that that is what is referred to as microevolution, which is observable. I call that adaptation. My neighbor’s ancestors emigrated from Africa. They are darker than me. My recent ancestors hailed from Erin’s Isle but we are all human beings. The new Primrose was still a flower. What are some repeatable experiments for macroevolution?

Donna

 

[steveandersen]

Here’s two to start.

[1]What about “iriducible complxity?”

What about it?

Generally speaking, irreducible complexity is neither irreducible nor complex.

The notion of “half an organ “ is a misrepresentation of what evolution actually claims. Anti-evolutionists try to paint the situation as a linear progress to some predetermined outcome rather than just a modification of an organ that is performing another task.

While “half a leg” may hamper you or me, a fin with boney structures inside that allow a would-be tetrapod to poke his head above the water, scurry around in the shallows, or whatever is perfectly functional.

The notion that “half and eye” is useless just doesn’t hold water. The ability to see light and motion conveys a great advantage. Very simple animals and even plants are sensitive to light. Half and eye (or more accurately a more rudimentary eye) is better than none.
The very primiative “eye cups” of starfish and flatworms are a classic example of what the earliest “eyes” in our lineage may have looked like.

[2]Can evolution explain who life “evolved” from non-life?"

No, that is not evolution that is abiogenesis. Different subject.
Evolution really doesn’t care where life came from. All it says is that once life is here, isolated populations will genetically diverge from each other. And we see that happening all the time.

There are some good working hypotheses on abiogenesis. I’m not up on the latest maybe someone else could provide some information for you. I had posted some links here a year or more ago listing the latest on primitive self-replicating molecules. I don’t have the time to re-create the list now maybe in a couple of days.

Many anti-evolutionists seem to be under the assumption that the first life had to be a fully functional, modern, single-cellular organism. While no scientist would ever seriously suggest that. Things like viruses are much more primitive than bacteria. The first “life” would be much simpler still if we could even recognize it as life.

but like I said, that is not evolution.

 

[PhilVaz]

It seems we have to re-invent the wheel in all our creation-evolution discussions in here. Donna appears tired of the “debate” and so am I so I won’t respond.

Steve << Phil, This might be another one for your archive. It seems no matter how hard we try to teach, nature evolves a new anti-evolutionist. >>

I possibly could include Donna’s comments, but its hard to top the comments I have saved in my Catholic Creationism article. I am looking for belligerent hardcore anti-evolutionist Catholics not your garden-variety “evolution doubter.” But Donna may qualify, I’ll wait for more.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/BD05.gif

Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics
My Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth
Theistic Evolution and the Church
Communion and Stewardship statement on creation and evolution

Phil P

 

[danielsgram]

Phil:
Judging by your little cartoon you didn’t read or you ignored the definitions that I posted. You never deal with the anti-evolutionists interpretations. You just clog up the discussions with ad hominem.
Donna

 

[PhilVaz]

Donna << Phil: Judging by your little cartoon you didn’t read or you ignored the definitions that I posted. >>

The cartoon was from Jack Chick and is part of my Catholic Creationism article. I was responding to SteveA’s comments, not your definitions.

I basically agree with your various definitions, but I don’t agree there is any valid “science” to creationist arguments since they’ve been answered for 50 years. Nor do I agree that the “science” of the creationists hasn’t been considered. It was considered and rejected 50 years ago. The Institute for Creation Research (where these arguments originate) dates to the 1960s. Before that it was George McCready Price (preacher and amateur geologist) and the Seventh-day Adventists who defended this kind of thing. Christian and professional geologists knew the creationist arguments were wrong for over 150 years.

And I am still looking for what science in Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, or what science in Keith Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, or what science in Darrel Falk’s Coming to Peace with Science is wrong. If you don’t have those books, I suggest getting them since they are some of the best books on this topic. You said Ken Miller has been “debunked.” WHERE?

Phil P