Do you believe that science is a religion?

[UppsalaDragby]

Your adherence to young-earth creationism mandates specific beliefs. You have to believe that the scientific community is inherently biased and has an agenda, is extremely bad at their jobs, is under some sort of satanic delusion, or a combination of all three. What other explanation do you have for the fact that the world's scientific community has rejected YEC for the last two centuries?

Well, your adherence to evolution also mandates specific beliefs so you are coming over as a complete hypocrite. You have to pretend that the scientific community is not biased and that simply being good at one's job means that one is correct. I acknowledge that scripture testifies about satanic deception and that the wisdom of this world is not on par with the wisdom of God. Why shouldn't I?

And again, no one said peer review was perfect. But it's obviously the best method we have for reducing bias and spotting errors in scientific work....because it works. I mean, just about everything around us today is a product of peer-reviewed science.

And?

I have already dealt with you eggagerated misrepresentation of what I said, so why reapeat your folly?

I wonder just how you think it should be changed though. How do you envision the peer-review process going under your preferred scenario? Should scientists check all their results against the Bible? If so, whose interpretation of the Bible? Yours? Mine? Ken Ham's? Francis Collins'? The Pope's?

I didn't say I thought it should be changed. You seem to be an expert att spitting out strawmen.

In any case, people who believe that the scientific comunity dictates a stronger truth thant scripture will make that choice with or without peer review. If you don't want to check your results agains the Bible then that is YOUR choice.

And as I pointed out before, YOU are depending on human interpretation ALL THE TIME! Don't pretend that you don't, because you will only make a complete fool of yourself.

I also find it completely LAUGHABLE that someone who interprets the word "let" as being evidence of evolution in the Bible can utter a single word around here about biblical interpretation!

 

[River Jordan]

As I said, the analphabetic may have problems.

I guess you think that James, Cephas, and John looked like post?

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, ...

Ah, personal insults. Lovely.

Scripture directly states that the earth sits on pillars: "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He set the world on them."

The scripture describes looking down on the Earth, as a circle.

What do you see in a photo of the Earth?

I see a globe. I can tell the difference between looking down on a ball and looking down on a dinner plate. Can you?

Others realize that God said He didn't reveal all things.

Lot of folks back then thought the Earth was flat, so?

That was a long time ago.

Except they specifically cited scripture and demanded that they be read literally to support their views. Sound familiar?
But, check this out, you'll get a big laugh out of this!

Up until real recent; evolutionary scientists, and their devout followers, thought they had the origin of life all figured out; wrote all kinds of books for the devoted followers to read and chant.

Sorry, but given your other claims, I'm not taking your word for it.

I note you trying to put words in my mouth and having a truth challenged moment.

Oh, so you do read those scriptures literally?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Except they specifically cited scripture and demanded that they be read literally to support their views. Sound familiar?
But, check this out, you'll get a big laugh out of this!

Perhaps you should check this out:

http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism

It's also a bit ironic that Daniel Shenton, the president of the Flat earth Society, believes in evolution. :lol:

 

[River Jordan]

Well, your adherence to evolution also mandates specific beliefs so you are coming over as a complete hypocrite.

Here's the funny thing about that....it doesn't. In fact, I would love to be the scientist who overturns evolutionary theory! I'd be the most famous biologist in the history of science!

The difference between science and creationism was put on display in the Ham on Nye debate this week. When asked "What would change your mind", Ham answered "nothing" whereas Nye said "evidence".

You have to pretend that the scientific community is not biased and that simply being good at one's job means that one is correct. I acknowledge that scripture testifies about satanic deception and that the wisdom of this world is not on par with the wisdom of God. Why shouldn't I?

Except I don't pretend there's no bias in the scientific community. In fact, a long time ago scientists recognized the human tendency for bias and developed a process to address that....peer review. So not only is no one pretending there's no bias, we've developed and continue to implement a procedure to directly address it.

And?

Like I said...it works. It's the reason for much of what makes our modern lives possible. Funny how young-earth creationists only scream "bias" and say that the results can't be trusted when it comes to things that disagree with their fundamentalist beliefs. But oh....when it comes to most of the other stuff, no problems with peer reviewed science at all!

I didn't say I thought it should be changed. You seem to be an expert att spitting out strawmen.

So you believe it's so fundamentally flawed that its results in the earth, life, and cosmological sciences for the last 200 years are 99.99999999% in error....

....but it shouldn't be changed? :blink:

In any case, people who believe that the scientific comunity dictates a stronger truth thant scripture will make that choice with or without peer review. If you don't want to check your results agains the Bible then that is YOUR choice.

Ah, but I do check my beliefs against scripture. Nice try at a straw man though.

And as I pointed out before, YOU are depending on human interpretation ALL THE TIME!

Don't you? I mean, you are human, aren't you? And you're the one doing your own interpretation, aren't you?

I also find it completely LAUGHABLE that someone who interprets the word "let" as being evidence of evolution in the Bible can utter a single word around here about biblical interpretation!

I'm sure you do. But you haven't given me one reason to believe otherwise.

Perhaps you should check this out:

http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism

It's also a bit ironic that Daniel Shenton, the president of the Flat earth Society, believes in evolution. :lol:

How does negate that some prominent Christian scholars such as Martin Luther strongly believed scripture taught a flat earth? Luther's Bible even had a drawing of it!

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Here's the funny thing about that....it doesn't. In fact, I would love to be the scientist who overturns evolutionary theory! I'd be the most famous biologist in the history of science!

Oh.. the old "disprove evolution and you get the Nobel prize, all the fame you every dreamt of, and a nice big cold glass of pineapple juice" argument. Prestigious scientists such as yourself just LOVE to be proven wrong, that's what we hear all the time. The problem though is that the theoretical part of evolution is practically impossible to "overturn".

The difference between science and creationism was put on display in the Ham on Nye debate this week. When asked "What would change your mind", Ham answered "nothing" whereas Nye said "evidence".

Well let me ask you this then. You claim to believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. What do you base that belief on, and what would make you change your mind?

Except I don't pretend there's no bias in the scientific community. In fact, a long time ago scientists recognized the human tendency for bias and developed a process to address that....peer review. So not only is no one pretending there's no bias, we've developed and continue to implement a procedure to directly address it.

Peer review does NOT prevent bias. There are ATTEMPTS to address the problem of bias in peer review, such as Anonymous peer review or blind review, but this has been challenged – for example by Eugene Koonin, a senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information.

Like I said...it works. It's the reason for much of what makes our modern lives possible. Funny how young-earth creationists only scream "bias" and say that the results can't be trusted when it comes to things that disagree with their fundamentalist beliefs. But oh....when it comes to most of the other stuff, no problems with peer reviewed science at all

So is Eugene Koonin a young earth creationist?

So you Believe it's so fundamentally flawed that its results in the Earth, Life, and cosmological sciences for the last 200 years are 99.99999999% in error........but it shouldn't be changed?

Where did I say that it was "fundamentally flawed"? Your exaggerations are comical. All I'm saying that it is prone to bias since if involved peoples judgement. Is that equivalent to saying that everything in science is 99.99999999% in error!!!

As far as I can see it is the best method we have in a field that is confined to exploring the physical world with our physical senses. So what changes am I supposed to introduce?

Don't you? I mean, you are human, aren't you? And you're the one doing your own interpretation, aren't you?

I never said that I was immune to other people's interpretation. YOU are the one who attacked biblical interpretation here as if to say that what the scientific community suggests is free from interpretation. That is what brought me into this discussion. So why are you trying to throw the question back at me?

How does negate that some prominent Christian scholars such as Martin Luther strongly believed scripture taught a flat earth?

It doesn't. Why should it?

 

[KingJ]

Yes we do. CLICK HERE to read Carl Zimmer's description of how evolutionary relationships between diverse taxa are used to discern genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy.

Perhaps a decade ago when that was done we could be fooled. But not today. We have moved on in our knowledge of mutations. We now know that mutations are neutral / broken down / harmful. There is no uphill evolution to be found, only downhill.

Mutation is one of the mechanisms behind evolution. You and I each have over 100 new mutations. Even AIG says that creationists shouldn't argue that there are no beneficial mutations.

Did you read the link? Makes for an interesting read.

But are there such things as beneficial mutations? In short, no, but let me explain. While I have yet to see evidence of a truly beneficial mutation, I have seen evidence of mutations with beneficial outcomes in restricted environments. Mutations are context dependent, meaning their environment determines whether the outcome of the mutation is beneficial. One well-known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In an environment where antibiotics are present, mutations in the bacterial DNA that alter the target of the antibiotic allow the bacteria to survive (the bacteria are faced with a “live or die” situation). However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for the normal functioning of the bacteria (such as nutrient acquisition). If the antibiotics are removed, typically the antibiotic resistant bacteria do not fare as well as the normal (or wild-type) bacteria whose proteins and systems are not affected by mutations (see also Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?). There are numerous other examples as well. Thus, the benefit of any given mutation is not an independent quality, but rather a dependent quality based on the environment. For example, there are people with mutations in the CCR5 gene that make them virtually immune to HIV. There are also a class of cancer drugs that are 100% effective, but only in a minority of individuals that have a certain mutation. Both of these mutations could seriously improve a person's chance of survival. It is true that there are people who have mutations with beneficial outcomes. For example, individuals with the CCR5 mutation who are exposed to HIV are not likely to develop an infection and subsequently AIDS. Individuals who develop cancer but have certain mutations can be effectively treated with a certain class of cancer drugs. However, there may be currently unknown detrimental effects from these mutations as well. For example, studies have shown that people with the CCR5 mutation may be at a higher risk of developing West Nile Virus illness and hepatitis C. In addition, the detrimental effects may not be detrimental enough to affect the overall fitness of the individual, and thus, the ability of the individuals to survive in most environments does not differ from those without the mutations. These mutations are not selected against by natural selection, and so, they remain in the population. In humans, determining the beneficial or detrimental outcomes of mutations is many times difficult to assess since the mutations do not result in a “live or die” situation as is often the case for bacteria (i.e. upon exposure to antibiotics). Again, the mutations only improve a person’s chance for survival in a given environment (external or internal), such as if the person is exposed to HIV or cancer develops within a person’s body. It is possible that the mutations would not be beneficial in other environments (i.e. if the person is exposed to West Nile Virus). Keep in mind that beneficial, information-gaining mutations are a necessary mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution, so focusing on any potential for this is essential for evolutionists. What doesn’t seem to be often addressed is the vast amount of data to the contrary. But even if there were a clearly beneficial mutation, this would by no means “prove” the mechanism for evolution (for one thing, beneficial, information-gaining mutations would have to be a regularly occurring phenomenon and would have to “build” on previous mutations so as not to be “undone” and to keep the evolution going “uphill”), nor negate the truth of God’s revelation of His Creation in Genesis.

For example, you posted, "Gravity is observable, evolution is not. It has no observational consequence."
From our previous discussions, you know that's not true. I've posted to you not only examples of the observed evolution of new species, but observational consequences as well. Yet despite the fact that your talking point is demonstrably false, you continue to repeat it.

And then you have to audacity to call me dishonest? Wow.

You really do appear to be dishonest River. You are simply not looking at things objectively. Take the Tiltaalik as an example. It is a nice looking creature. It is assumed to be a missing link. There is a great (99.99%) possibility that it still has nothing to do with evolution. You are missing many missing links! I could just as easily construct my own model of a similar theory and seek matching pieces to my puzzle. Now it is not such an issue if it is merely believed by people who do not believe in scripture. But for those that do believe in scripture, what excuse can they bring for placing faith elswewhere?

 

[aspen]

but survival of the species is the positive outcome of mutation so how can you claim no positive mutations? Even if thedrug resistant bateria mutation result is weaker than the original, it doesnt matter, because it no longer has to compete with the original because the original is killed off by the antibiotic - and if the antibiotic is not present the mutation is not beneficial for the survival of the species and is culled out by natural selection.

 

[KingJ]

but survival of the species is the positive outcome of mutation so how can you claim no positive mutations? Even if thedrug resistant bateria mutation result is weaker than the original, it doesnt matter, because it no longer has to compete with the original because the original is killed off by the antibiotic - and if the antibiotic is not present the mutation is not beneficial for the survival of the species and is culled out by natural selection.

That is not what's happening with mutation. Read the link River gave or that green posted section from it by me.

Example: Dunk yourself in radiation. You will get sick. If you once walked, now you will crawl. The road spikes to stop you from running don't work as you are now crawling. When you learn to hop at a decent speed you become a threat again to the matrix and they need a different means to deal with you. What evolution suggests is that dunking ourselves in radioactive ooze turns us into superman or causes us to develop faster legs or iron feet. The 'benefits' could be something like... since you can't run any longer, you get fat. Now as a fat person you block the road from other bad people getting past you.

It is very interesting that there is a huge increase in mutation among sample exposed to radiation. Think on that.

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

I suppose if you and I both agree that the scientific method is the best means we have for investigating our universe, and that while peer review isn't perfect, it is a good way to reduce the effect of personal bias and isn't in need of fundamental change....

...then there's no need to argue!

Perhaps a decade ago when that was done we could be fooled. But not today. We have moved on in our knowledge of mutations. We now know that mutations are neutral / broken down / harmful. There is no uphill evolution to be found, only downhill.

LOL. Didn't even bother to read the link, did you? You claimed that we don't need evolution to study DNA. The tool described in that article demonstrates your claim to be.....yet again.......wrong.

Did you read the link? Makes for an interesting read.

Sure. It's more AiG ridiculous denialism, but let's have at it.

But are there such things as beneficial mutations? In short, no, but let me explain. While I have yet to see evidence of a truly beneficial mutation, I have seen evidence of mutations with beneficial outcomes in restricted environments.

That first sentence should tip you off at the absurdity that is to follow.

Mutations are context dependent, meaning their environment determines whether the outcome of the mutation is beneficial. One well-known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In an environment where antibiotics are present, mutations in the bacterial DNA that alter the target of the antibiotic allow the bacteria to survive (the bacteria are faced with a “live or die” situation). However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for the normal functioning of the bacteria (such as nutrient acquisition). If the antibiotics are removed, typically the antibiotic resistant bacteria do not fare as well as the normal (or wild-type) bacteria whose proteins and systems are not affected by mutations (see also Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?).

Um....yeah. So if the environment changes and a new mutation produces an effect that makes those with it better able to survive, that's not a "beneficial mutation" because the environment could always change back?

I've seen stupid arguments from AiG before, but this one is just...well pathetic.

I'd give you examples of documented beneficial mutations that produce effects that aren't dependent on a change in the environment (IOW, they're beneficial across the board), but since you've already shown that you won't look at anything that doesn't conform to your version of reality, there's no point in doing so.

You really do appear to be dishonest River. You are simply not looking at things objectively.

Ah yes, what would a post from you be without the personal attack?

Take the Tiltaalik as an example. It is a nice looking creature. It is assumed to be a missing link. There is a great (99.99%) possibility that it still has nothing to do with evolution. You are missing many missing links! I could just as easily construct my own model of a similar theory and seek matching pieces to my puzzle. Now it is not such an issue if it is merely believed by people who do not believe in scripture. But for those that do believe in scripture, what excuse can they bring for placing faith elswewhere?

This is all nothing but bluster and arm-waving to try and distract from the fact that.....again.....one of your creationist arguments is wrong.

The fact remains, based on evolutionary theory, scientists predicted what sort of organism should be found, where it should be found, what features it should display, and what age it should have existed in. So they went out and looked, and found exactly what they predicted. That's an unequivocal "observational consequence", which you claimed can't be.

You can shout, name call, bluster...do whatever you want. But the facts remain.

 

[aspen]

boy that radiation example is a real mess - i am not sure i can untie it. it sounds to me like there is some of that 'giraffes have long necks because they stretch their necks and past on a long neck trait to their offspring' kind of thinking that predated evolution.
also, something tells me that if all the missing links came to your house for dinner one night, you would show them a kent hovid debate.......
this kind of reminds me of the guys who try to claim that Jesus's bones were found in his grave - remember them? i remember the responses from Christians - the idea (which was proven to be without merit) really frightened them.....it made me think, is my faith in Christ able to survive if it was proven that He was just a good teacher and not God? Today i can say yes, but i would have to change the way i talked about Jesus if He was proven to be merely human - it goes against my moral code to deny evidence in order to keep a favorite narrative intact

 

[KingJ]

LOL. Didn't even bother to read the link, did you? You claimed that we don't need evolution to study DNA. The tool described in that article demonstrates your claim to be.....yet again.......wrong.

You didn't read or didn't grasp my reply? I read your link and if you would but read the second link you provided you would find it's argument is obsolete today.

Sure. It's more AiG ridiculous denialism, but let's have at it.

Then why post a link to them? You are a joke.

.

That first sentence should tip you off at the absurdity that is to follow

That you quoted without reading further. You are a joke.

Um....yeah. So if the environment changes and a new mutation produces an effect that makes those with it better able to survive, that's not a "beneficial mutation" because the environment could always change back?

You fail to grasp what you are reading. As I said in the other forum, I cannot give you English lessons. I will only conclude you are a joke.

I've seen stupid arguments from AiG before, but this one is just...well pathetic.

You need to tell yourself that. Can you prove mutation is uphill evolution?

I'd give you examples of documented beneficial mutations that produce effects that aren't dependent on a change in the environment (IOW, they're beneficial across the board), but since you've already shown that you won't look at anything that doesn't conform to your version of reality, there's no point in doing so

blah blah blah, you are a joke.

Ah yes, what would a post from you be without the personal attack?

Calling you dishonest is not a personal attack, it is a fact. I will explain that to you at the bottom of this post.

This is all nothing but bluster and arm-waving to try and distract from the fact that.....again.....one of your creationist arguments is wrong.The fact remains, based on evolutionary theory, scientists predicted what sort of organism should be found, where it should be found, what features it should display, and what age it should have existed in. So they went out and looked, and found exactly what they predicted. That's an unequivocal "observational consequence", which you claimed can't be.

You can shout, name call, bluster...do whatever you want. But the facts remain.

The fact is on matters of faith you don't take the bible's side you choose to hold onto pie in the sky / straws. Like an evolutionists donkey.

Here is a fact for you River. Claims / beliefs of evolution oppose theistic evolution. The only way a Christian can support evolution is to believe God had a guiding hand and set thing in motion. Now if you were honest you would scrutinize all your theories in this light. Which you don't do. You continue to to be blind / naive / dishonest on those claims they attack scripture head on.

Take Adam as an example. Mankind was created intelligent. Mankind is accountable for sin because of their intelligence. Now evolution places this man 200 000 years ago in Ethiopa...when scripture places Adam 4004 bc. There is no scripture prior to that. Inspired scripture explains events prior to flood but not beyond 4004 Adam. There are many more examples but I am simplifying it to the biggest issue.

You have 1 of 2 options. 1: Acknowledge that evolution has the timeline of mankind wrong and therefore the timeline of many prior wrong or 2. Acknowledge that the bible is wrong. I am guessing you will take 3 = wiggle away like a worm.

So am I going to call you honest, dishonest or a worm?

boy that radiation example is a real mess - i am not sure i can untie it. it sounds to me like there is some of that 'giraffes have long necks because they stretch their necks and past on a long neck trait to their offspring' kind of thinking that predated evolution.
also, something tells me that if all the missing links came to your house for dinner one night, you would show them a kent hovid debate.......
this kind of reminds me of the guys who try to claim that Jesus's bones were found in his grave - remember them? i remember the responses from Christians - the idea (which was proven to be without merit) really frightened them.....it made me think, is my faith in Christ able to survive if it was proven that He was just a good teacher and not God? Today i can say yes, but i would have to change the way i talked about Jesus if He was proven to be merely human - it goes against my moral code to deny evidence in order to keep a favorite narrative intact

Then ignore the example but do not ignore the green section in post. Mutation is never ''uphill evolution!''

 

[aspen]

this thread is getting too rude

 

[River Jordan]

KingJ absolutely cannot abide anyone having a different view than his. This is consistent with the black/white, absolutist way of thinking typical of fundamentalists. His last post shows this in spades. Everything is presented in an "A or B", all or none framework, with no other possibilities even considered.

It's very simplistic, requires minimal thought, and provides assurance and comfort to those who emotionally crave certainty. That's why his responses to me are so childish...call me names and yell. Very simple, requires minimal thought.

When you read his posts with that understanding, they make a lot more sense.

 

[KingJ]

KingJ absolutely cannot abide anyone having a different view than his. This is consistent with the black/white, absolutist way of thinking typical of fundamentalists. His last post shows this in spades. Everything is presented in an "A or B", all or none framework, with no other possibilities even considered.

It's very simplistic, requires minimal thought, and provides assurance and comfort to those who emotionally crave certainty. That's why his responses to me are so childish...call me names and yell. Very simple, requires minimal thought.

When you read his posts with that understanding, they make a lot more sense.

Scripture is simple . And yes it is A or B. God does not deceive. Your problem is that you create a 'C' and therein welcome the devil and his whole family. I think the only scripture you and I might agree on is 'God is love'. But other then that, I would never have guessed you read scripture unless you told me. At my church you wouldn't be allowed to open your mouth until you endured a couple weeks of sound doctrine. As I have said before, if evolution was our only dispute I would have more patience with you...but it's not. You have scary / un-scriptural / River only opinions on many things. I think your bible sits next to the god delusion.

 

[River Jordan]

Thank you KingJ for demonstrating my point so well.

 

[KingJ]

Thank you KingJ for demonstrating my point so well.

You must get it a lot. The need to tell people you are a Christian. As nobody would ever guess it from what you write.

 

[River Jordan]

Only from fundamentalists.

 

[KingJ]

Fundamentalists choose to respect scripture not urinate on it. I take the warning in Luke 17:2 very literally. May God have mercy on you.

 

[Mr.Bride]

'I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions'

 

[aspen]

Well, River, I have a question for you......if you have determined that KingJ is a fundamentalist, why are you shocked by his posts? He seems extremely predictable to me. And please do not deny that you are shocked - every time you respond to him, you are basically pointing and laughing and attempting to get everyone to recognize your great discovery. Look, I know I have been guilty of doing this too, but I think it is a futile effort. Pantsing the narcissist in a nudist colony is just not that shocking.....You cannot cure fundamentalist - nor can you shock people who post here by pointing it out. Believe me, people around here will side with fundamentalism over liberalism (everything beyond fundamentalism) every day of the week.