Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

Each of your statements about evolution here is false, and the very essence of christian extremist propaganda. Your snotty remarks about the statement i made, which is no less and no more clear now than it was when first i made it in this thread are not only gratuitous, they are extraneous to the discussion. In the sentence which reads, in part: " . . . because there is no proof to back evolution up as the origin of man."--lies the core, fallacious assumption about which the religiously fanatical rage. No one involved in science purports that "evolution is the origin of man." A theory of evolution posits that species change over time in response to the need for adaptive changes corresponding to environmental changes, or that failing in an adaptive response, die off sooner or later. A theory of evolution simply attempts to reconstruct the process whereby protein molecules formed which were capable of self-replication, and then mutating for one of a variety of reasons, lead to more complex structures based on those proteins. Your statement is fatally flawed by its attempt to simplistically characterize a complex methodology. Evolution is a theory, and science does not purport to have all the answers to all the questions, science does not purport to have any answers. Those to whom we commonly refer as scientists without more specificity of a description of their particular field of concentration, use a scientific methodology to find answers to some of the questions which arise in comparing the fossil record to existing organisms. It is hoped that soon it will possible for such a theory to pass some of the tests of falsification through the comparison of non-fossil samples with living organisms.

Religious dogma, however, does purport to have all the answers to all the questions. This is why science--a methodology and not a belief system--and religion--a belief system inimical to a methodological investigation of is core tenets--cannot be directly compared. That is why this is a case of apples to oranges.

0 Replies

gospelmancan2 wrote:

I am very literal in my interpetation of the Bible and I have yet to find anything in it that contradicts anything I see in the natural world.

Do you believe the earth is around 6500 to 10,000 years old? According to scholars studying the Old Testament literally, the Old Testament dates the earth as being around 6500 years old, 10,000 years old at the oldest: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm

So are you saying that science, which has determined the earth is at least millions and millions of years old is wrong?

I would say this is a very clear and direct conflict between something the Bible literally says and what science has concluded. Do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Yes or no?

0 Replies

Bishop Ussher has informed us that the first day of Creation was on a Tuesday, October 23rd, 4004 B.C. His work was subsequently confirmed by John Lightfoot, who put the time at 9:00 am on that October 23rd.

And if you don't believe that entirely sound, scripturally-based set of statements, may you writhe in eternel torment in Hell.

Bless you, my child.

0 Replies

setanta wrote:

science does not purport to have any answers.

extra medium wrote:

So are you saying that science, which has determined the earth is at least millions and millions of years old is wrong?

Funny, how in one instance they make science out to be something that uses the error-then fix error procedure, then they try to call gospelman a religious-fanatical because he does not accept this guess by scientists.

Quote:

Religious dogma, however, does purport to have all the answers to all the questions. This is why science--a methodology and not a belief system--and religion--a belief system inimical to a methodological investigation of is core tenets--cannot be directly compared. That is why this is a case of apples to oranges.

They are not the same, but that doesn't mean the things they hold true have to contradict.

0 Replies

Your use of the pronoun "they" in this sentence: "Funny, how in one instance they make science out to be something that uses the error-then fix error procedure, then they try to call gospelman a religious-fanatical because he does not accept this guess by scientists."--is completely unwarranted. You have no reason to assume or to assert that what Extra-Medium chooses to contend, and what i contend, are derived from the same, or even a similar source.

I do not by any means accept Extra-Medium's statement from authority that the earth is "at least millions and millions of years old." I will point out, however, that the best evidence available, upon a basis of sound methodological investigation, supports a contention that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, at the least.

0 Replies

gospelmancan2 wrote:

There is no faith found in science? They don't call it the law of evolution because there is no proof to back evolution up as the origin of man. On that theory( of which there is no real proof and only supposition) a large amount of what we call biology is based and woe betide the person who treads on the sacred ground of Darwinism.

This of course, also falls into the fallacious thought that a theory has no proof to back it up.

On the contrary, a scientific theory does have proof to back it up, which is why it is called a theory. The precursor to theory is a hypothesis, formed from hypo meaning under and thesis (a proposition that is maintained by argument).

If Evolution were a hypothesis, then by all means, you would be absolutely correct to say it has no real proof. However, it is not. It is a theory, like Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Both are theories because they stand up under scrutiny and that experiments done on these theories and evidence obtained relating to these theories have not proven them wrong.

They are not Laws, as of such, because they have not been proven 100% correct.

You may say that this is an error that means we shouldn't say Evolution is fact. However, you forget that the fact that God exists cannot be proven 100% correct either. So if we hold God to the same logic you use for evolution, then He does not exist.

However, seeing as I cannot prove that He doesn't exist, I will give Him the benefit of a doubt. You should do the same with evolution.

Quote:

When they couldn't find the "missing link" to fit the way the used to think evolution happened, they came up with the idea that the changes just happened spontaneously with no link at all that coul be found. Sure sounds like faith to me.

Currently, there are two competing models for Alzheimer's Disease.

There are the Tauists (yeah, corny name) that believe that Tau plays the critical role in alzheimer's. Then there are the Baptists (the first three letters, standing for Beta Amyloid Protein) who believe that Beta amyloid protein is responsible.

My point being that this world is very, very complicated.

Science is full of competing models and theories, all of which have evidence to back them up.

Geology gave us the old Earth prediction. Genetics and protein engineering are giving us insights into how the individual components evolved. Biology (or maybe it's taxonomy) shows us physical similarities between species that show a gradual evolution. Paleontology, phylogenetics... there are so many different branches of science, each one providing evidence to help support evolution.

I'm sure one of the other rational people here can help provide evolutionary evidence, for I have nothing more to say, as I have partaken in several debates on evolution, none of which have actually dug up any positive proof for creationism.

0 Replies

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/sun.asp

Problem of the universe billions of years old.

0 Replies

thunder, Ever wonder how christians are able to reconcile two facts of the bible? 1) the earth is 5,000 years old according to the bible, and 2) the bible is the word of god.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/sun.asp

Problem of the universe billions of years old.

The usual gooblydegook from answersingeneis. If we used their logic I could easily prove that man can't drive cars. Simply because one small part of a theory proves to be wrong hardly disproves a billion other observations.

0 Replies

parados, Comparing the bible to driving cars is not logic; it's apples and oranges - or carrots.

0 Replies

Quote:

The usual gooblydegook from answersingeneis. If we used their logic I could easily prove that man can't drive cars. Simply because one small part of a theory proves to be wrong hardly disproves a billion other observations.

How is this gooblydegook? If the age of the Earth is not as large as previously thought, then you may as well start repenting now :wink:
That part of the theory may be bigger than you think...

Quote:

thunder, Ever wonder how christians are able to reconcile two facts of the bible? 1) the earth is 5,000 years old according to the bible, and 2) the bible is the word of god.

Yes.

0 Replies

It is gooblydegook because it argues that the earth is only 6000 years old because there was only 200 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 1.4 million years ago. Do you see the problem with the argument? I do.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It is gooblydegook because it argues that the earth is only 6000 years old because there was only 200 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 1.4 million years ago. Do you see the problem with the argument? I do.

I assume you mean to say that the facts in question are "gobbledygook," not "gooblydegook." (That's some snide and silliness just for Setanta Wink

)

Anyways, it's not "gobbledygook," it's simply one of the many facts that ruin the foundations of the millions/billions of years argument.

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

parados wrote:
It is gooblydegook because it argues that the earth is only 6000 years old because there was only 200 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 1.4 million years ago. Do you see the problem with the argument? I do.

I assume you mean to say that the facts in question are "gobbledygook," not "gooblydegook." (That's some snide and silliness just for Setanta )

Anyways, it's not "gobbledygook," it's simply one of the many facts that ruin the foundations of the millions/billions of years argument.

Gee Rex.. so provide the direct coorelation that creates the conclusion.

This is a simple case of deciding what you want the outcome to be then cherry picking "facts" that you think disprove other theories without ever presenting any evidence to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old. It is false logic no matter how you look at it.

0 Replies

Quote, "It is gooblydegook because it argues that the earth is only 6000 years old ..." With this I totally agree; I just missed the point about the bible's age of the earth and man's driving a car. Sorry 'bout that!

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Problem of the universe billions of years old.

I know, this is a problem, huh?

Lets make it really simple:

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, when did the dinosaurs walk the earth? What are those bones from?

Did the dinosaurs walk the earth when the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians were hanging around? I wonder why they didn't include the dinosaurs in all their art? Was it illegal for them to mention dinosaurs or something?

0 Replies

Yeah, god forgot to mention the dinosaurs. I wonder why?

0 Replies

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

You guys really need to look at this site without bias...por favor!

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

You guys really need to look at this site without bias...por favor!

Perhaps you need to look at it without bias. Every attempt on it is laughable from a logic standpoint.

Please explain the logic to me of how a couple of new discoveries in physics prove that the bible is correct because I don't see how the conclusion can be drawn that answersingenesis does. It is NOT logical as attempted there.

Logic is normally. A exists, B exists therefore because of A and B we can conclude C. Answersingenesis never provides any evidence to prove the bible is correct. It only points out errors in other theories and then uses those errors to conclude it is correct. That logic would easily disprove the bible's version of creation since I can point to a thousand different things that prove the bible can't be true. The rate of sedimentation, the rate of erosion, the rate of decay of 10 different isotopes, fossils, etc, etc, all point to the earth can't be only 6000 years old. The problem with answersingenesis is they ignore those thousands or millions of other facts to concentrate on the one or two that they think makes there case.

Pick a page, any page on answersingenesis and I will be happy to pick it apart and show how it can't reach the conclusions it does.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

You guys really need to look at this site without bias...por favor!

The nice little fantasy about dinosaurs and how they lived only 4500 years ago requires a lot of dispension of belief. Lets see the problems with this story.

1.) it states the the story of the flood was true. This means that the entire surface of the earth was covered with water. Where did that water come from? Where did it go? What laws of physics explain your answer.

2.) Sedimentation is the slow layering of eroded materials. Explain how a single flood would create distinct and multiple layers of sedimentation at one time. Again use existing laws of physics.

3.) Rock is created over time through pressure. Explain how sedimentation from 4500 years ago not only became rock but was buried under hundreds of feet of other sedimentation that could have created that pressure.

4.) Explain how if all that sedimentation occurred that mountains still existed after that time.

5.) Explain the erosion of rock in the last 4500 years and how geological structures like the Grand Canyon came to be. If the layers of sedimentary rock were created by the flood then the Grand Canyon would have been created in only 4500 years. Why can't we measure continued erosion if it can occur that fast?

0 Replies

Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know