quote:

ORIGINAL: tacitus

Describing what happened after the Big Bang? That's science

Describing what happened before the Big Bang? Well, you'll probably have to consult a philosopher (of science) to determine if that question is even valid.

On a completely irrelevant side note, I applied and was accepted for a degree course in the Department of Natural Philosophy of Glasgow University once upon a time. Alas, I see from looking at their web site that the department is no more, or rather it has been renamed as the Department of Physics.

But it's just as well I decided to look elsewhere for a degree. I enjoyed physics in high school, but I would have had a terrible time with all the mathematics that a physics degree course would have entailed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

You dopn't have faith that a prescription will work in a patient? No faith that medical treatments can treat cancer?

That's not "faith" at all! Those are conclusions derived from scientific methodology and personal observation of the evidence. Neither of these have ever once shown that specified complexity arises from random unguided processes, which is the faith that evolutionists possess in thinking NDE has led to earth's biodiversity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

veritas, I really can't help you if after five years of posting on these S&O threads you still have no inkling of the difference between origins science and operational science.

quote:



Of course I trust the "laws of nature pertaining to medicine" - they were created by God and are upheld by Him continually! I use operational science with every patient I care for.

quote:



But this has absolutely ZERO to do with evolutionism as the explanation for origins! There is not one shred of observational evidence which even remotely suggests NDE has ever occurred, either in nature or from the Bible.

quote:


Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.

He has a PhD and does research on baraminology at Bryan College.

quote:

It seems as though if we had had a competent creator, we wouldn't really NEED the science of medicine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

It seems as though if we had had a competent creator, we wouldn't really NEED the science of medicine.

creaton, let me save you a lot of time and effort here. I can tolerate your self-centered pseudo-intellectualism when you spew your invectives at me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr57

I saw the following in an ID thread. It seemed to be off topic so I thought I'd start a new thread and reply here,

How? Evolution has no religious tenets. No worship ceremonies. It does not hold reverence for any supernatural forces. It imposes no moral laws. It has no rituals, no sacraments, no ceremonies, no attempts to explain ultimate reality.

Just WHAT does evolution have in common with religious beliefs?


Dante

EVOLUTION ISM
EvolutionISM is a religion....the preachers are guys such as Gould, Darwin...Bill Nye the Science guy, etc.

They fervently follows the beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of the above preachers.

Then there are little evongelist such as the false prophest who post on this forum....claiming EVOLUTION ISM IS TRUE....as they thump their text books...Now that is enough to make anyone sick

The evo-scientist always looking for a hand out...offering, can you say grant?
Even your donations to the religion of EvolutionISM are often tax deductable.

Sure the preachers of evolutionISM may not have a stained glass windowed buildings...but they do have lecture halls where the deceived come to hear the latest.
The evos use these institutionalized system to ground themselves in such belief and worship of mans fallible science.

The Christians uses the book of Genesis from the Word of God to help us understand our Godly origins while the disciples of evolutionISM try to force fit fossils into some fragmented gapped filled so-called evolutionary linage.
Christianity says we need salvation...we are all sinners and need the blood of Jesus Christ to wash us white as snow...while the typical evolutionISM believer says there is no sin, no price to pay....no need for salvation. Their claim is man is the measure of all means.

Of course there are different denominations of evolutionISM, considering they all don't believe the same thing. Some are gradual, some are punctuated. Some claim birds are dinos while some preach, no way!. Some followers of organized religious denominational evolutionISM allow god as a creator.
Some of the different sects of evolutionISM have man continuing to evolve and achieving the Omega Point......tell me that's not religion.

Christianity has miracles, evolutionISM has the need for magical mutations.
The evos belief is in reverence for the power of natural selection and other powers regarded as a creation force that governs the universe.

EvolutionISM is truly an ISM theory. It has NEVER been witnesses, predicted or repeated in a lab. There are no examples of morphological mutations.
Most of the followers of evolutionism are fervent in their faith...the way the evos act here easily proves that point.
They follow their cause, their principle, and pursue their activities with zeal and conscientious devotion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

It seems as though if we had had a competent creator, we wouldn't really NEED the science of medicine.

creaton, let me save you a lot of time and effort here. I can tolerate your self-centered pseudo-intellectualism when you spew your invectives at me.

quote:



But I am applying Matthew 10:14 when you maliciously insult our Creator on a Christian discussion board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: creaton

One will note that you seem unable to provide any actual evidence for anything you claim.

Par for the course.

quote:

but mark never provides links or outside sources.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shakezula

quote:

ORIGINAL: creaton

One will note that you seem unable to provide any actual evidence for anything you claim.

Par for the course.

that's a really good point! i never thought of it before, but mark never provides links or outside sources.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

veritas, I really can't help you if after five years of posting on these S&O threads you still have no inkling of the difference between origins science and operational science. Of course I trust the "laws of nature pertaining to medicine" - they were created by God and are upheld by Him continually! I use operational science with every patient I care for. But this has absolutely ZERO to do with evolutionism as the explanation for origins! There is not one shred of observational evidence which even remotely suggests NDE has ever occurred, either in nature or from the Bible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
- if it's from a creationist source then that invalidates it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SanguisDominus

Referring to the Theory of Evolution as "Evolutionism" is no different from calling the Theory of General Relativity "General Relativityism", or Germ Theory "Germism.".

It's a pathetic attempt of creationists to try and paint the theory as a religion, when it's no more or less a religion than general relativity, or germs.

Even worse is "Darwinism".

Why not "Galileoism"?
Or "Einsteinism"?
Or "Pasteurism"?
Or "Newtonism"?

quote:

the evolutionist preferred to believe in the chance combination of nonliving chemicals to be that which started life on this planet then the idea of a Creator.

That is a statement of faith, based upon a religious view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri

quote:

the evolutionist preferred to believe in the chance combination of nonliving chemicals to be that which started life on this planet then the idea of a Creator.

That is a statement of faith, based upon a religious view.

This is blatantly false.

The notion that living matter can arise from non-living matter is strongly supported among the scientific community and is backed up by multiple experiments that have shown that the building blocks of life can arise naturally. To suppose then that it is possible for the building blocks of life to have naturally become assembled at some point in the distant past is not far fetched by any stretch of the imagination.

A person who accepts the fact of evolution and also accepts the extreme likelihood of life having arisen naturally based on the evidence is not a statement of faith, and again, neither evolution nor abiogenesis can be defined as religions.

Furthermore, it was not a "chance combination." Biochemistry is NOT chance.


Dante

quote:

Then what would you call it if not "chance"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri

quote:

Then what would you call it if not "chance"?

Exactly what I did call it, biochemistry.

"Chance" implies a roll of the dice, where the outcome is unpredictable, which does not apply at all to abiogenesis. Chemicals react a certain way based on a variety of factors. In the great petri dish that the early Earth was, there were innumerable reactions occurring simultaneously. It was not chance, life was an inevitability because of the conditions and chemicals that were around.


Dante

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972
How do we know what the earth was like when life first existed? Or do we know this only because it is the only way abiogenesis can hold any water?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RSchorne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972
How do we know what the earth was like when life first existed? Or do we know this only because it is the only way abiogenesis can hold any water?

Geologists have a pretty good idea of the formation of the earth and the various atmospheric, magnetic and chemical compositions that prevailled.

If you're interested, Ohioman, you could go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timetable_of_the_Precambrian for a basic understanding and follow the various references for a more complete picture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972

How do we know what the earth was like when life first existed? Or do we know this only because it is the only way abiogenesis can hold any water?

quote:

Even an observation of tens of thousands of generations of fruit flies reveals what everyone knows if they are honest: they are still nothing other than fruit flies.

quote:

- There is no evidence of modern things changing into other things. Even an observation of tens of thousands of generations of fruit flies reveals what everyone knows if they are honest: they are still nothing other than fruit flies.

quote:

- There is no evidence of ancient things changing into other things. The fossil record remains an embarrassing epic fail for evolution.

quote:

- There is no evidence that life can ever come from non-life.... except when an outside intelligence is involved.... and even those results are questionable.

quote:

And yet, evolutionists pitifully cling to the belief that someday, somewhere, some mechanism will be discovered that validates their currently fictitious beliefs.

quote:

On the other hand, we have Christianity with its historically validated Scriptures (none of which have been proved false historically, archaeologically, or scientifically)

quote:

the fact that nature appears to be intelligently designed

quote:

Actually, the number of observed generations of mutated fruit flies is now approaching 1.5 million! No novel complex tissues or structures, no evolving into version 2.0, no evidence of evolution whatsoever. Just sick fruit flies...

quote:

Source?