So-called science has repeatedly erred in making false claims.

[blackbird]

The media seems to periodically publish another fictitious article as if it is genuine science, but in reality is only fiction or speculation.  That is much the same as Darwinism.  If one cares to look, Charles Darwin really knew little to nothing about biology or science around his claim of how life came to be as it is today.  Biology in the 1800s was actually very primitive and had very little knowledge.

But fast forward to today and we periodically see a new strange speculation on the news feed such as this one:

"Alien life may not be carbon-based, new study suggests

Self-sustaining chemical reactions that could support biology radically different from life as we know it might exist on many different planets using a variety of elements beyond the carbon upon which Earth's life is based, a new study finds.

On Earth, life is based on organic compounds. These molecules are composed of carbon and often include other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur.

However, scientists have long wondered if alien life might evolve based on significantly different chemistry. For example, researchers have long speculated that silicon might also serve as a backbone for biology.

Related: The search for alien life 

"It's important to explore these possibilities so that we have an idea of what all forms of life can look like, not just Earth life," study senior author Betül Kaçar, an astrobiologist, bacteriologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told Space.com"

Alien life may not be carbon-based, new study suggests (msn.com)

Once a society rejects the Biblical account of creation, which was a supernatural event, in favour of man-made speculation or theories, then they are on a slippery slope.  The theory of evolution or Darwinism is a downward spiral for society in many ways.  It is a rejection of absolutes and truth.  It leads to a hopeless existence and living for nothing because according to these defeatists there is nothing.  Life was just a cosmic accident.

Now they are coming up with speculation that life could have developed in other ways besides the kind of life we know of on earth.  

They are so easily deceived into believing anything.

Edited September 10 by blackbird

[eyeball]

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

They are so easily deceived into believing anything.

You say this so unselfconsciously it's almost supernatural.

[TreeBeard]

On 9/10/2024 at 12:23 AM, blackbird said:

Now they are coming up with speculation that life could have developed in other ways besides the kind of life we know of on earth.  

If scientists didn’t speculate, we would still think the sun revolved around the earth.  🌍 ☀️ 

[blackbird]

52 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If scientists didn’t speculate, we would still think the sun revolved around the earth.  🌍 ☀️ 

How do you know?

[slady61]

On 9/10/2024 at 3:23 AM, blackbird said:

The media seems to periodically publish another fictitious article as if it is genuine science, but in reality is only fiction or speculation.  That is much the same as Darwinism.  If one cares to look, Charles Darwin really knew little to nothing about biology or science around his claim of how life came to be as it is today.  Biology in the 1800s was actually very primitive and had very little knowledge.

But fast forward to today and we periodically see a new strange speculation on the news feed such as this one:

"Alien life may not be carbon-based, new study suggests

Self-sustaining chemical reactions that could support biology radically different from life as we know it might exist on many different planets using a variety of elements beyond the carbon upon which Earth's life is based, a new study finds.

On Earth, life is based on organic compounds. These molecules are composed of carbon and often include other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur.

However, scientists have long wondered if alien life might evolve based on significantly different chemistry. For example, researchers have long speculated that silicon might also serve as a backbone for biology.

Related: The search for alien life 

"It's important to explore these possibilities so that we have an idea of what all forms of life can look like, not just Earth life," study senior author Betül Kaçar, an astrobiologist, bacteriologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told Space.com"

Alien life may not be carbon-based, new study suggests (msn.com)

Once a society rejects the Biblical account of creation, which was a supernatural event, in favour of man-made speculation or theories, then they are on a slippery slope.  The theory of evolution or Darwinism is a downward spiral for society in many ways.  It is a rejection of absolutes and truth.  It leads to a hopeless existence and living for nothing because according to these defeatists there is nothing.  Life was just a cosmic accident.

Now they are coming up with speculation that life could have developed in other ways besides the kind of life we know of on earth.  

They are so easily deceived into believing anything.

I understand your concerns and why people may write such things as speculative articles and evolution. This has been the challenge when seeking to differentiate between speculation and evidential-based research. A science is a way through which the world can be understood and new developments might improve on the known facts.

[SkyHigh]

On 9/8/2024 at 7:50 PM, blackbird said:

You simply don't want to watch or listen to anything contrary to your own personal view.  Very narrow-minded IMO

Nope, I said nothing from creation.com is worth considering, as it openly and without shame admits they don't follow the scientific method. They have already decided what they believe and cherry pick things that comport to their presuppositions.

And implying that anyone purposely won't look at things that contradict their personal views from you is rich. You have said yourself you have no need to read anything published by accepted science to the point you literally denied that there were people that studied evolutionary biology.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Nope, I said nothing from creation.com is worth considering, as it openly and without shame admits they don't follow the scientific method. They have already decided what they believe and cherry pick things that comport to their presuppositions.

And implying that anyone purposely won't look at things that contradict their personal views from you is rich. You have said yourself you have no need to read anything published by accepted science to the point you literally denied that there were people that studied evolutionary biology.

You have proven repeatedly that your mind is closed on the subject.  You simply do not accept the Biblical account of creation or the supernatural.  You also reject any articles or videos I point you to as being unscientific. 

The supernatural is beyond science although creation.com has many articles that consider evolution or other questionable science from a scientific point of view.  Not all scientists accept the theory of evolution.

But you want to determine what subject I am to bring up and it has to be according to your world view, which is extremely biased and non-productive.

So where do we go from here? 

Edited September 19 by blackbird

[SkyHigh]

54 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You have proven repeatedly that your mind is closed on the subject.  You simply do not accept the Biblical account of creation or the supernatural.  You also reject any articles or videos I point you to as being unscientific. 

The supernatural is beyond science although creation.com has many articles that consider evolution or other questionable science from a scientific point of view.  Not all scientists accept the theory of evolution.

But you want to determine what subject I am to bring up and it has to be according to your world view, which is extremely biased and non-productive.

So where do we go from here? 

Let's for the sake of argument say the theory of evolution (accepted by ostensibly the entire scientific community),is complete hog wash.You're still no further in proving biblical creation, nevermind the supernatural even exists and on top of that your specific flavor of the supernatural is the correct one.

We could start there. 

P.S. I'm sorry but until they submit their findings to review creation.com has zero merit.

 

Edited September 19 by SkyHigh

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Let's for the sake of argument say the theory of evolution (accepted by ostensibly the entire scientific community),is complete hog wash.You're still no further in proving biblical creation, nevermind the supernatural even exists and on top of that your specific flavor of the supernatural is the correct one.

We could start there. 

P.S. I'm sorry but until they submit their findings to review creation.com has zero merit.

 

"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason.  But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence! (Michael Denton)"

-from the book Darwin's Universe, From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing by Yan T. Wee.

This book is available on Amazon but also a used copy is available on Alibris.com.

We are not going to settle this on here.  Believing in the King James Bible (1611) and in the God of this Bible is a matter of faith.  So if you are serious in wanting to get to the bottom of this you will have to investigate it, maybe spend a few dollars for a book, and do some reading yourself.  I don't see any way to convince you on here.  You can choose your own path or perhaps you already have chosen and closed you mind.

You are incorrect in saying or implying all scientists believe in the theory of evolution.  That is not a fact.  The great majority might but it is not a universal belief.  The book I mentioned makes a very strong case against evolution.  There is no way I can print the whole book on here.  

And by the way, the book quotes and gives references to many highly educated scientists, scholars, and scientific articles in publications. 

By the way the so-called peer review process in the scientific community is run by secular humanists and so they do not accept the premise of Biblical creation.  Therefore it is nonsense to use that as any kind of guide on the truth or falseness of the creationist point of view.  Of course a creationist or Biblical point of view is not going to be accepted by them. They are driven by a purely secular humanist paradigm.  That is part of the world system which is by nature anti-Bible and anti-Biblical God.  Satan is a real person and for now, he controls or drives the world system.  

 

Edited September 19 by blackbird

[French Patriot]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

Satan is a real person and for now, he controls or drives the world system.  

You are not even getting the gender correct. Look again for the first timed.

Name her, or be seen as a liar.

Edited September 19 by French Patriot

[SkyHigh]

On 9/19/2024 at 2:58 AM, blackbird said:

By the way the so-called peer review process in the scientific community is run by secular humanists

Why must you resort to dishonesty when I bring up legitimate points?

You yourself have made arguments that directly contradict this statement 

1) you have said (and I agreed) that many scientists are believers. Well many of them have published papers in this "so called peer review" and many are themselves the peers that review and therefore confirm (or deny) the validity of papers. So are you saying that all the christians in science not only accept this supposed bias science has against their most cherished beliefs but actually participate in making their world view seem antiquated and obsolete?

2) you accept that the scientific method can produce results, make technological and medical advancements and help answer questions to better understand the reality we all share ( regardless of world view). You're problem is most (if not all) of the science you accept is directly related to the science you deny and uses the exact same method. Here's just a couple of examples.

A )The device you're using to have this conversation is most certainly made of petroleum products (not to mention other natural components). The way they find oil is based on the exact same science (the geological column) that they use as one (of many) of the evidences that support evolution.

B ) Paternity tests. You do believe that with DNA someone can prove who their parents, grandparents etc.. are, yes?  Again it's the exact same science they use to trace different species to a common ancestor.

I have no qualms continuing this conversation but have no interest in having an argument against your pseudo science.

I'll try this again. For the purpose of the rest of this discussion I will grant you that the theory of evolution is totally fabricated and has no relation to reality, but that still gets you no closer to showing that your god created the world, so instead of trying to disprove evolution, please provide me with a positive argument for your assertion that 

God created everything in 6 days, then two thousand years after wiped out all of humanity and started over with 8 people and a bunch of animals on a mountain in the middle east and how that spawned the diversity of life we have today 

Or even just how kangaroo's got to Australia , seriously answer that one question and I will honestly consider reevaluating my views of the Bible 

 

 

Edited September 28 by SkyHigh

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Or even just how kangaroo's got to Australia , seriously answer that one question and I will honestly consider reevaluating my views of the Bible 

"First, flying animals could make it to all sorts of places more easily than those animals that have to walk on the land. But many people instantly think land animals couldn’t have walked to Australia or North and South America from the Middle East where Noah’s Ark landed. But we think they could have. Actually, the event of the Ice Age is very important here. During the Ice Age, a lot of water was taken out of the oceans and accumulated on the land in the form of ice and snow. Most think that the ocean level dropped by about 350 feet! This drop would expose land bridges in different places throughout the world. Remember that Noah and his sons built the Ark, and it survived a global Flood! Noah lived 350 years after the Flood and Shem lived 500 years after it too. So they could easily have shared how to build some pretty neat ships. Many people could have traveled by boat to the Americas, Australia, Madagascar, and other places, possibly taking animals with them."

How Did Animals Reach Other Continents After The Flood? | Kids Answers (answersingenesis.org)

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

1) you have said (and I agreed) that many scientists are believers. Well many of them have published papers in this "so called peer review" and many are themselves the peers that review and therefore confirm (or deny) the validity of papers. So are you saying that all the christians in science not only accept this supposed bias science has against their most cherished beliefs but actually participate in making their world view seem antiquated and obsolete?

I don't know how the peer review process works and who is permitted to make submissions to it.  

What you believe about the Bible and creation is really a matter of faith.  It is not something anyone can prove to you in simple scientific terms today.  The only Biblical account we have is what is in Genesis.  So how you regard that and the Bible is really what matters.

The evidence that God created everything is a matter of logic and the evidence of the creation before our eyes.

It is so complex and I already pointed out the complexity of a single cell that it could not have happened without a designer-Creator we call God.  There is a book written by the great Reformation leader John Calvin.  It is available to read online.  If you want to know more about the rational proof to establish belief of the Scripture (which includes the account of creation in Genesis) perhaps you could read Chapters 7 and 8.  I would recommend you read them and understand what they are saying.

Here is a link to chapter 7 of the book which is available to read online.

John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org)

 

Edited September 28 by blackbird

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"First, flying animals could make it to all sorts of places more easily than those animals that have to walk on the land. But many people instantly think land animals couldn’t have walked to Australia or North and South America from the Middle East where Noah’s Ark landed. But we think they could have. Actually, the event of the Ice Age is very important here. During the Ice Age, a lot of water was taken out of the oceans and accumulated on the land in the form of ice and snow. Most think that the ocean level dropped by about 350 feet! This drop would expose land bridges in different places throughout the world. Remember that Noah and his sons built the Ark, and it survived a global Flood! Noah lived 350 years after the Flood and Shem lived 500 years after it too. So they could easily have shared how to build some pretty neat ships. Many people could have traveled by boat to the Americas, Australia, Madagascar, and other places, possibly taking animals with them."

How Did Animals Reach Other Continents After The Flood? | Kids Answers (answersingenesis.org)

Fail.

How are there no fossil records of kangaroo's existing anywhere outside of Australia and New Guinea?

Answer because they exist by the process of evolution by natural selection.

For the last time answers in Genis , creation.com, Kent (or Eric) Hovind or any other organization that openly admits to not using the scientific method  is in no way , shape or form to be used as educational material.

If that's all you have we can just end the conversation here as you have already conceded that you have nothing but faith ,(something that can't discern fact from fiction) and therefore no logical leg to stand on

 

[SkyHigh]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't know how the peer review process works and who is permitted to make submissions to it. 

And yet you make blanket statements saying the whole process is completely against your supposed "science" , your dishonesty knows no bounds.

 

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What you believe about the Bible and creation is really a matter of faith

Exactly, no reason required 

All you can say is some (5000 year old) book says a thing. I have thousands of books updated and and advanced continuesly through out thousands of years all confirming the efficacy of the scientific method that has never supported and has in fact disproved much of what is written in your one book.

 

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The evidence that God created everything is a matter of logic and the evidence of the creation before our eyes

Logic is a language we use to support assertions. Faith and logic are polar opposites. 

Seriously take some time and learn about not only the concepts but the literal words you use. 

[herbie]

Dictionaries and Thesaurus are fake news.
Words are whatever the speaker thinks they mean. Dogma is logic for modern pseudo-conservatives.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

ow are there no fossil records of kangaroo's existing anywhere outside of Australia and New Guinea?

I just gave a possible explanation but the Bible doesn't say how they travelled.  

If you are so hung up on fossil records,  tell me where are the fossil records that prove evolution?  They don't exist.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Exactly, no reason required 

All you can say is some (5000 year old) book says a thing. I have thousands of books updated and and advanced continuesly through out thousands of years all confirming the efficacy of the scientific method that has never supported and has in fact disproved much of what is written in your one book.

If you don't have faith in what God wrote in the Bible, then you are not going to believe anything about it.

I gave a link to help explain why the Bible should be believed, but of course you ignored it.

All I can do is give you the reasons why you should believe the Bible.  If you refuse to read it, there is nothing much I can do.

quote

Though Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is obvious that the world as a whole does not pay attention to what the Bible says. So why should we pay attention to what the Bible says?

What is Faith?

A nineteenth-century philosopher by the name of Comte held that we should believe only what we can observe personally. Though advanced as a practical philosophy, it is impossible to live with this definition of faith. Everyone in his daily life is constantly believing and acting upon certain facts that are not necessarily proved.

For instance, if we drive a car across a bridge, how do we know by observation that the bridge will not break down? If we board an airplane for a flight to a distant city, how do we know whether the thousands of workers who put the plane together did a good job, whether the mechanics properly checked the plane, whether enough fuel has been added, and whether the flight crew is competent to fly the plane? We have been able to observe none of these factors, and yet we board a plane with a good deal of confidence. In everyday life, faith is a part of the way we live.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

But faith is not a totally irrational step. After driving over many bridges and observing others doing the same, we assume that bridges are constructed safely. After flying thousands of miles, we assume that those involved in the process of flying have done their duty well. Though we have only partial knowledge, we believe it is sufficient upon which to base our faith.

In coming to the Bible, we do not have all the proofs that the Bible is the Word of God, but we have many that are quite sufficient. A study of the Bible not only provides an object of faith, something to believe in, but gives us many reasons why we should believe what the Bible states. The answer to why we believe the Bible involves many facts that together provide an intelligent basis for believing the Bible to be a supernatural statement of truth. The Bible itself claims to be a supernatural book that God produced through human authors.

The Bible Inspired of the Holy Spirit

The authors of the Bible do not claim to be men of supernatural knowledge, and they freely admit that God is the source of their information. This is brought out in a central text that states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The claim in this statement is that all Scripture, that is, all the “holy Scriptures” (2 Tim. 3:15), comes from God, who guided the men who wrote it. This was a supernatural process that human minds cannot understand, but the practical effect was that the writers wrote what was their thinking, but their thinking was so guided by God that the very words they used to express the truth were exactly what God wanted them to use.

Because of this, the Scriptures are effective in teaching spiritual truth about God, about morals, about salvation, and about our future hope. The Scriptures are capable of rebuking those who are not obeying its commands. The Scriptures also provide correction. They answer the question, How can a person who is not doing the will of God correct his life and make it correspond to the will of God? They also provide training, or schooling, in righteous living as well as teach all the truth about God, His righteousness, His justification, and the righteousness that He can provide for a Christian. The end result is that the man of God as he studies the Bible will be equipped thoroughly, as the Scripture states, for every good work into which God leads him.

The process of inspiration is beyond our understanding. In reading Scripture, however, it becomes evident that inspiration does not hinder human expressions. As illustrated in many Psalms, the Scriptures record the thinking of the psalmist, even his doubts and his fears. They state his struggles. All of this, however, is by divine design, and what is written accurately portrays the situation and helps one to understand something of the spiritual struggles that every godly person goes through. This also explains how various sources of information can be used sometimes by direct revelation from God, as would be the case in regard to creation and in regard to eternity future or in regard to history as to whether an account of history is accurate or not. Inspiration would assure that God would correct any mistake in recording history and in any other writing that might be used as a basis for information, such as the genealogies and other facts that related to Israel written by the scribes in the Old Testament. In all these cases, inspiration guarantees that what they wrote was accurate and true and that God would supernaturally correct any mistakes that otherwise might appear."

For the full article:

3. Why Believe the Bible? | Bible.org

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

All you can say is some (5000 year old) book says a thing. I have thousands of books updated and and advanced continuesly through out thousands of years all confirming the efficacy of the scientific method that has never supported and has in fact disproved much of what is written in your one book.

False.  Nothing has disproved what the Bible says.

The fact that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead and seen by many eye witnesses proves he is who he said he is, God the Son, that is, God.  God is a trinity made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  Since Jesus recognized the Scripture as being from God, then that should be final.

[SkyHigh]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

False.  Nothing has disproved what the Bible says.

You're not even trying now. Here's just a few examples of where the bible is categorical wrong.

What's the smallest seed?

Do ants act independently?

Is π 3.14..... ?

If you answer yes to any of these (completely demonstrable) facts, than you acknowledge the Bible has errors.

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Is π 3.14..... ?

 That is not a legible verse reference?  What book of the Bible?  I assume the chapter and verse is 3:14 but what book?

Trying to attack the Bible is a losing proposition.  That proves nothing.  There are parts of the Bible that are hard to understand initially and require some study.  

 

Edited September 29 by blackbird

[SkyHigh]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

If you don't have faith in what God wrote in the Bible, then you are not going to believe anything about it

Faith can lead someone to believe in anything. Therefore can never be a path to truth.

Someone that has faith in Allah, Budda, crishna, Brahma , Vishnu,  etc . believes in their deity as strongly as you do and yet has come to a completely different world view. So again faith is irrelevant.

Saying you'll understand if you believe goes against every critical thinking,skill and logical reasoning , I and the entire human race has needed to survive for the last 140'000 years.

 

[SkyHigh]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 That is not a legible verse reference?  What book of the Bible?  I assume the chapter and verse is 3:14 but what book?

Trying to attack the Bible is a losing proposition.  That proves nothing.  There are parts of the Bible that are hard to understand initially and require some study.  

 

Kings 7: 23-26

Then again in

2 Chronicles 4: 2-5

Both KJV both say π is 3

Direct claim by the Bible demonstrably false.

[blackbird]

Just now, SkyHigh said:

Faith can lead someone to believe in anything. Therefore can never be a path to truth.

By faith I mean faith in the God of the Bible, the true God.  

 

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

Someone that has faith in Allah, Budda, crishna, Brahma , Vishnu,  etc . believes in their deity as strongly as you do and yet has come to a completely different world view. So again faith is irrelevant.

There you give examples of faith in the wrong thing.  Of course faith in false gods will lead nowhere.

I am talking about faith in the Bible, in English, the King James Bible of 1611.  If one has a basic understanding, they will realize that all these other gods you mention are false gods.  

Of course we are not talking about faith in just anything.  It has to be in the true God and his written revelation, the Bible.

5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Saying you'll understand if you believe goes against every critical thinking,skill and logical reasoning , I and the entire human race has needed to survive for the last 140'000 years.

Not correct.  If you don't understand the Bible at all, of course you won't see what this is all about.

You talk about critical thinking and logical reasoning, but you ignore the central truth that the universe was created by God and he revealed himself in the Bible.  You seem to be trying to make an argument that all of that is irrelevant when it is the central issue.

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Both KJV both say π is 3

What does that mean?  Is that some kind of Hebrew or Greek letter?  If so, I don't see what your point is.  I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar and it has no relevance here.