So if it turns out that clay substrates acted as a catalyst for the formation of the first life-forms on earth (which has been suggested for years now), what does that mean Arnie? Will you accept it as valid science?
Smart Jew Questions Evolution
- Thread starter Arnie Manitoba
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I think the question should be the other way around .... will you now consider the merits of the Genesis account where God formed man from dust of the earth ?River Jordan said:
No. My spirit was not formed from the dust and these words testify to that fact.
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
I always have. But in order for you to cite this science in the way you are, one has to agree with evolutionary theory. Are you now doing that?Arnie Manitoba said:
Then your posts in this thread....
"Scientists now think life began in clay
Sounds a lot like Genesis 2:7 ..... then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"
and
"will you now consider the merits of the Genesis account where God formed man from dust of the earth ?"
....don't make any sense. You cited this research in a "Hey look, science confirms the Bible" kind of way, but now you're backing away from it. Strange.
"Scientists now think life began in clay
Sounds a lot like Genesis 2:7 ..... then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"
and
"will you now consider the merits of the Genesis account where God formed man from dust of the earth ?"
....don't make any sense. You cited this research in a "Hey look, science confirms the Bible" kind of way, but now you're backing away from it. Strange.
Nice tryRiver Jordan said:
The big God in the bible says He formed man from (clay) (dust etc) and then breathed life into him.
The little gods on earth (biologists) say man just "evolved" from clay for unknown reasons
Big difference
I expect that some day scientists will be lead (by science) to the point where they throw their arms in the air and say everything points to a creator.
I do not have to acknowledge the science , it is the scientist who must eventually acknowledge a Creator
By the way River Jordan .... do you have an opinion on what Berlinski says in the videos ?
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I do not think scientists care if there is a creator or not - they are just publishing what they see. Sometimes I think this comes down to an issue of people expecting scientists to work outside their expertise. Think of it this way - a football player who is in the game is going to have a completely different understanding of the game than the fans. Loud mouth fans who use their perspective to armchair quarterback, along with football theory and hindsight are missing the practical, real time aspect of the game. They have the right to their opinion, but no one is going to mistake it for expertise - in essence, the fan is practicing football without a license. On the other hand, coaches who have a bird's eye perspective of the game, just like the fans are going to see things unfolding that the players miss. All parties involved make predictions based on their perspectives. No one expects a fan to have all the information - no one expects the players to either - they need the coaches perspective. Yet, coaches who have never player the game are not as effective. Scientists are technicians - just like doctors - and librarians for that matter......no one expects a technician to be a philosopher, they also should not hold them responsible for having a specialized view of the world based on their perspective. Should librarians be criticized or considered liars or incompetent if they view the world as orderly or organized in categories? Furthermore, if a philosopher decided that he should be allowed to practice philosophy in a hospital, and call his practice superior to the medical care provided by the doctors, it seems to me that he would receive some redirection from the doctors. He would be practicing philosophy, but billing it as medicine - rekki is a good example of this.
In my opinion, the creation institute is practicing science without a license - based on the debate between Hamm and Nie (?), creationism is not based on observation and prediction - in fact, Hamm undermined science during the debate - his point was that the scientific method was not a viable method for discovering the truth about the universe ....... which is a bit awkward when he was also claiming to be a scientist....
It would be like a soccer player showing up on a football field and expecting to not only play, but, really expecting all the football players to conform to his rules. The soccer player could try to claim that soccer is actually called football in most of the world......and that soccer is a sport, but he would be failing to make his case because soccer is not the same game as American football.
In my opinion, the creation institute is practicing science without a license - based on the debate between Hamm and Nie (?), creationism is not based on observation and prediction - in fact, Hamm undermined science during the debate - his point was that the scientific method was not a viable method for discovering the truth about the universe ....... which is a bit awkward when he was also claiming to be a scientist....
It would be like a soccer player showing up on a football field and expecting to not only play, but, really expecting all the football players to conform to his rules. The soccer player could try to claim that soccer is actually called football in most of the world......and that soccer is a sport, but he would be failing to make his case because soccer is not the same game as American football.
Yep.Arnie Manitoba said:
LOL! Scientists are now "little gods" to you? I doubt you appreciate the Freudian nature of what you just posted. And I promise you there's not one single paper in any scientific journal that says anything about "reasons" for human evolution.
Everything? Even the parasite that causes malaria? The virus that causes smallpox? All the pathogens that have killed billions and caused immeasurable suffering? If you're taking the stance that evolution can't generate anything new or complex, then how did those organisms get the abilities necessary to cause disease?
Again, then why did you post it in the first place?
Yes...he's full of it. Funny how these creationists think they have such amazing arguments against evolution, but they also apparently think they're only worthy of Youtube videos and not published papers in major science journals.
They're pretending to conduct science in the hopes that their beliefs will be given the same credibility that science has earned over the centuries.aspen said:
More like a group of people in the stands claiming to be able to beat every team in the world and show people what "true soccer" is, but whenever anyone says "Why don't you guys get out on the field and play" they invoke some sort of conspiracy among the soccer organizations as an excuse for never even trying.
IOW, they're all talk and no game.
I am thinking when evolutionists claim we all descended from a common ancestor they may be partly correct
Perhaps is the common ancestor they see is the ground (dirt) clay) (dust) etc.
eg:
~~A new scientific study has found that Clay might have been the catalyst for life to originate on Earth
~~Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky
~~Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils
.
references:
Genesis 2:19
Genesis 2:7
http://www.ibtimes.com/life-earth-may-have-come-clay-new-study-suggests-1459376
.
Perhaps is the common ancestor they see is the ground (dirt) clay) (dust) etc.
eg:
~~A new scientific study has found that Clay might have been the catalyst for life to originate on Earth
~~Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky
~~Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils
.
references:
Genesis 2:19
Genesis 2:7
http://www.ibtimes.com/life-earth-may-have-come-clay-new-study-suggests-1459376
.
Similar threads
