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

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

It is evidence to the person who has the right faith.

I have faith that all religious people are delusional.  Wouldn’t it be better to gather evidence to find the truth?  I can believe any crazy thing on faith. 

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, User said:

you can have faith or not that I do in fact have a quarter in my left hand

Why would I believe it’s in your left hand?  I simply wouldn’t believe it until I have sufficient good evidence.  No faith is required and faith should not be used. 
 

 

 

2 hours ago, User said:

Then you go too far to make a complete non-sequitur that faith is not a reliable path to truth. 

If I have faith that religious people are not as smart as atheists, is that a reliable way to determine the truth of that assertion?

[User]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why would I believe it’s in your left hand?  I simply wouldn’t believe it until I have sufficient good evidence.  No faith is required and faith should not be used. 

I told you it was there. You seen I had it before. Your choosing not to believe doesn't discount the evidence you do have. Your argument now is you want more evidence. 

The argument was never about faith being "required" or if it should be used. The argument was about how faith doesn't mean an absence of any evidence. 

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If I have faith that religious people are not as smart as atheists, is that a reliable way to determine the truth of that assertion?

Depends on what your faith is based on as to how reliable it is. It would seem in this circumstance, your faith isn't very reliable at all. 

 

[TreeBeard]

24 minutes ago, User said:

I told you it was there. You seen I had it before. Your choosing not to believe doesn't discount the evidence you do have. Your argument now is you want more evidence.

Of course I want more evidence to believe it.  Why would I believe something before there is good evidence?

 

24 minutes ago, User said:

Depends on what your faith is based on as to how reliable it is. It would seem in this circumstance, your faith isn't very reliable at all. 

What is the method to determine if faith is reliable?

[User]

25 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Of course I want more evidence to believe it.  Why would I believe something before there is good evidence?

The argument was never about how much subjectively "good" evidence exists for you to believe something. It was merely, again, that faith doesn't mean no evidence. 

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

What is the method to determine if faith is reliable?

That was not the issue, as to what determines if faith is reliable. I very clearly said it depends on what is was based on in this circumstance. E.g. what evidence is your faith based on here?

 

 

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, User said:

what evidence is your faith based on here?

Does Judaism have the same, more or less amount of evidence as Christianity?  

Edited October 15 by TreeBeard

[User]

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Does Judaism have the same, more or less amount of evidence as Christianity?  

I hate rhetorical questions like this. Just make your point, whatever it is, save us both the time. 

[French Patriot]

5 hours ago, User said:

What makes Christianity not moral

The topics you have constantly run from.

Thanks for your other juvenile apologist non answers.

[User]

Just now, French Patriot said:

The topics you have constantly run from.

Thanks for your other juvenile apologist non answers.

What topic have I ever run away from you on?

Our exchanges almost exclusively result in you not answering questions and running away. Just as you are doing here. 

[TreeBeard]

20 minutes ago, User said:

I hate rhetorical questions like this. Just make your point, whatever it is, save us both the time. 

You don’t understand what rhetorical is.  A rhetorical question is not meant for the person to answer it. It’s meant to make a point.   “Would it kill you to make sense once in a while” is an example.  
 

My question wasn’t rhetorical.  In actual discussions, it’s not just about “making a point”.   But are you interested in an actual discussion?

Edited October 15 by TreeBeard

[User]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

You don’t understand what rhetorical is.  A rhetorical question is not meant for the person to answer it. It’s meant to make a point.   “Would it kill you to make sense once in a while” is an example.  
 

My question wasn’t rhetorical.  

So, why are you asking me what I think about how much evidence exists between Christianity and Judaism? 

Yet again... you are still wasting our time. 

 

[TreeBeard]

6 hours ago, User said:

So, why are you asking me what I think about how much evidence exists between Christianity and Judaism? 

Yet again... you are still wasting our time. 

 

Is that a difficult question to answer?

[User]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Is that a difficult question to answer?

Apparently, my question for you was?

[TreeBeard]

34 minutes ago, User said:

Apparently, my question for you was?

You’d think it was obvious.  I’m trying to have a conversation about faith with you and the difference between beliefs based on faith.  

[Radiorum]

On 3/18/2024 at 12:34 PM, blackbird said:

Actually it has been thrown out by some scientists.  If you look at it closely, you have to admit it is unproven.  It is impossible to prove for one thing because it allegedly happened over hundreds of millions of years and it cannot be replicated in an experiment.  It cannot be observed.

The theory of evolution simply states that “life changes over time.” These changes are initiated by random mutations in DNA. When you say that the “theory of evolution has been thrown out” are you suggesting that DNA does not mutate?

Your choice of the words "unproven" and "proven" reveal some misunderstanding of the nature of science. "Proof" is only used in Math. In science, we say the hypothesis, or theory, is either supported or not supported by the evidence.

We don't need to replicate the entire history of life on earth to accept that life changes over time, nor that natural selection is the mechanism by which life changes. The evidence for this would fill a library. 

  

[blackbird]

On 11/17/2024 at 3:38 PM, Radiorum said:

These changes are initiated by random mutations in DNA. When you say that the “theory of evolution has been thrown out” are you suggesting that DNA does not mutate?

 

Offhand I don't know whether DNA mutates, but mutation does not add new information.  The vast information in a cell did not just happen by accident or chance.  It had to have been put there in the beginning by our Creator.   There is no other rational explanation.

The theory of evolution is untenable.  At the time Darwin came up with the theory of evolution he had no idea about DNA.  Not much was known about biology at that time.  DNA and all the complexity of a basic cell was not known until the mid or latter 20th century.  

There is many articles on the subject of natural selection.  This is just one:

It says "Despite the huge resources thrown at evolution in universities and research institutions, natural selection has never been shown to bring about this type of ‘inventive step’."

The reason natural selection does not cause evolution is because the information in cells for every species is extremely complex and natural selection never provided that information.  It was only provided by our designer-Creator.

This is a good article.

quote

This is an important ‘equation’1 that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution’.2 Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution.

If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing.

How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it.

The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack.

If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new.

This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained.

© CMI

The creationist chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810–1873) wrote about natural selection about 25 years before Darwin misappropriated it to support his theory of evolution. Blyth clearly saw this remarkable phenomenon as arising from the providence of the all-wise, all-knowing, ingenious Creator God.

Knowing God’s love for beauty (reflected in men and women who are made in His image), God probably also had in mind the spectacular array of birds, fish, dogs and cats that we have varied by ‘artificial selection’ purely for the sake of ‘beauty’ rather than survival.3

But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created.

Evolution desperately needs ‘Natural Invention’, ‘Natural Novelty’ and ‘Natural Creation’.

Patent law calls for a product to have an ‘inventive step’ in order for it to be patented. Mere changes in design of an existing product cannot be patented. Many legal battles over patent rights have been waged over this point. Evolution requires the same thing—an ‘inventive step’, a novel organ or body part, facilitated by new information in the DNA that wasn’t there before. Despite the huge resources thrown at evolution in universities and research institutions, natural selection has never been shown to bring about this type of ‘inventive step’.

Today’s Darwinists point to mutations as the mechanism which provides this novelty from which ‘Natural Selection’ selects. Evolutionists should then focus on mutations to defend their theory, instead of ‘Natural Selection’. When pressed for examples of novel genetic information or body organs created by mutation, they typically point to instances such as wingless beetles4 on islands, or the flightless cormorant on the Galapagos islands.5 The problem with these examples is obvious. While they may confer a benefit to the creatures in a specific, very unusual environment, nothing ‘new’ is added to the DNA or creatures’ body parts. They actually involve a loss or corruption of existing genetic information.6

Evolution desperately needs ‘Natural Invention’, ‘Natural Novelty’ and ‘Natural Creation’. ‘Natural Selection’ just does not pass muster as exhibit A for evolution. Rather, it is a wonderful tribute to God’s design, and His providence for a fallen world. Natural Selection ≠ Evolution.

unquote

Natural selection ≠ evolution

The fact is the first cells that God created had a vast amount of information in them.  This could not have happened by chance.  It had to have a Creator-Designer we call God.

Edited November 19 by blackbird

[Radiorum]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

Offhand I don't know whether DNA mutates, but mutation does not add new information.  The vast information in a cell did not just happen by accident or chance. 

It does add new information, by random mistakes and accidents that evolve genes and genomes over time, and this has produced the vast diversity of life on this planet.

Errors in DNA replication, DNA recombination, or DNA repair led to changes in DNA sequence, or the movement of transposable DNA elements (transposons) that colonize a genome and spread within it. Chromosomes have also grown by the insertion of viral elements that become part of the genome.

So, all of these might be considered “inventive steps.”

One of the things about the evolution of life on this planet that is difficult to wrap our minds around is the very long time it has been going on – billion of years.

Genomes change very slowly. Consider humans and chimpanzees. We diverged from the common ancestor 5 million years ago, but our genomes remain largely identical.

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

It had to have been put there in the beginning by our Creator.   There is no other rational explanation.

Citing a supernatural source is not rational at all. It refutes all the scientific evidence.

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

At the time Darwin came up with the theory of evolution he had no idea about DNA. 

Darwin never used the word “evolution.” He called it “descent by modification.” His theory of natural selection does not depend on understanding DNA.  

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution’.

That’s right. The theory of evolution states that species change over time, the theory of natural selection describes the mechanism of the change.

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

Knowing God’s love for beauty

To me, God is beauty – and all else that exists. Nature, and the Universe itself – are God. In this way, I consider myself a scientific pantheist, a form of spirituality that fully embraces science.

Here are the basic principles of scientific pantheism:

• Reverence, awe, wonder and a feeling of belonging to Nature and the wider Universe.
• Celebration of our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
• Respect and active care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
• Promotion of non-discrimination, religious tolerance, freedom of and from religion and complete separation of state and religion.
• Realism – belief in a real external world that exists independent of human consciousness.
• Strong naturalism – without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
• Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Cosmos.

 

Finally, I want to thank you for your thoughtful response. I respect your right to your beliefs.

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Citing a supernatural source is not rational at all. It refutes all the scientific evidence.

This is where you are wrong.  Scientific evidence so called does not prove the theory of evolution.  There are countless articles on the creation.com website refuting the theory of evolution.  

The Bible says in Genesis ch. 1 that God created the universe and life in six literal days.  This was a supernatural event.  This is what many Bible believers believe.  That is what I believe.  I thank God for the gift of faith to believe this.

The theory of evolution is a rejection of God and his almighty power to create everything is six days.  Everyone is free to believe what they want, but according to the Bible, rejecting the supernatural has eternal consequences.  

"11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. "  1 Corinthians 2:11-15 KJV

Unless the Holy Spirit of God gives a person the gift of faith to believe the Bible, he will not believe it.

There is a battle going on in the world between God and Satan.  Satan's destiny is already determined.  He is not going to win.  But he wants to take as many souls down with him as possible in the meantime.  All I can tell you is if you have any interest in knowing the truth, you need to read the King James Bible with an open mind and be born again.  Remember we are talking about the supernatural.  Read the gospel of John.  Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and seen by eye witnesses as recorded in the Bible.  This was a supernatural event just as creation was.

Edited November 19 by blackbird

[Radiorum]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Scientific evidence so called does not prove the theory of evolution.

Science does not use the word "prove." Instead it uses the word "supports." And yes, the evidence does support the theory that life changes over time. 

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There are countless articles on the creation.com website refuting the theory of evolution.  

If you are going to criticize the science, you need to know the science, not what a religious website says.

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Bible says in Genesis ch. 1 that God created the universe and life in six literal days.  This was a supernatural event.  This is what many Bible believers believe.  That is what I believe.  I thank God for the gift of faith to believe this.

If I hold all of the scientific books ever written in one hand, and the Bible in the other, I will give the scientific books more weight. I thank God for my rational, questioning, thinking mind.

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

rejecting the supernatural has eternal consequences.

I don't believe in hell.

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is a battle going on in the world between God and Satan. 

In this whole, big wide universe, what makes us special?

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Satan's destiny is already determined

I don't believe in Satan.

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

if you have any interest in knowing the truth

I have a great interest in truth. But I will not have it handed to me unquestioned and ready-made. I will use my faculties to figure it out myself. Why did God give me faculties if He did not intend me to use them?

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Radiorum said:

If you are going to criticize the science, you need to know the science, not what a religious website says.

Actually many of the articles and videos on the creation.com website are speaking from a scientific point of view to demonstrate how the theory of evolution is not credible.  Many authors have degrees and are scholars.

[Radiorum]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Actually many of the articles and videos on the creation.com website are speaking from a scientific point of view to demonstrate how the theory of evolution is not credible.  Many authors have degrees and are scholars.

98% of scientists accept the theory of evolution as a valid scientific theory. Creation.com found the 2% who don't know what they are talking about.

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

I have a great interest in truth. But I will not have it handed to me unquestioned and ready-made. I will use my faculties to figure it out myself. Why did God give me faculties if He did not intend me to use them?

I would say you ignore many angles and thoughts around the subject of evolution, the Bible and the supernatural.  

You come across as someone who holds strictly to a purely humanistic, worldly view and seem to reject the supernatural and God out of hand.  

That is not rational.  Man was not present at the time of creation and therefore has only theories of how it all started and happened.

Logic should tell you an extremely complex universe with all the life forms could not come into existence just by an accident of the cosmos.  In other words something as complex and wonderful as the universe and man had to have a designer-Creator.  Something does not come from nothing.  That is the first principle of logic.  Extreme complexity does not come from nothing.

 

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

98% of scientists accept the theory of evolution as a valid scientific theory. Creation.com found the 2% who don't know what they are talking about.

I don't know what the percentages are.  Truth is not determined by numbers.  Truth is truth, whatever it may be.

Most of the world believes in false gods or false religion.  

So what do numbers prove?  Nothing.

There is a very good book called Darwin's Universe, From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing, Survival for Nothing by Yan T. Wee.   You can purchase it on Alibris as a used book and other websites.

This is a bit of information about the book:

"Darwinists hope to bury God in an avalanche of a causeless universe and a godless evolution. But instead of liberating us, they plunge us into a cosmic depression. We are reduced to: From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - an accidental leftover from the Big Bang, evolved by a lucky chance, and are here for no ultimate purpose. We are just walking molecules, birthed through a cosmic accident, dancing to the music of our DNA, and destined to disappear in a cosmic blink - nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. And when we look to science and evolution for answers, all we get is a blank look. Life has no real purpose dude - it is about the survival of the genes in us - feeding, fending, fleeting and fathering - just live through it and get it over. Our final destination is the hole in the ground. But is it true? Perhaps we are: From Someone, By Someone, For Someone . Perhaps there is an unexplored and awesome universe beyond the Darwinian world of survival for nothing. Science encourages us to think critically and let us place Darwinism in the crosshairs and examine it in the light of empirical science - is it observable, falsifiable and repeatable? If not, it is not experimental science. And, as we shall see, Darwinism is an unobservable and unreproducible pseudo-science. This book will walk us through cosmology, biology, philosophy and end with theology, the queen of the sciences. Empirical science buries Darwinism and resurrects Creationism. We are more than cosmic orphans lost in an accidental, uncaring and dying Universe; we are living souls, made in the image of God, and designed to have a wonderful relationship with an awesome Creator. Yan T Wee, the founding Pastor of Shalom Baptist Church, Singapore, writes from his fascinating research into the latest skirmish between speculative Darwinism and deducible Creationism. He concludes that Darwinism, when viewed in its entirety, is not only disingenuous, but a guaranteed, one-way ticket into the universe of ultimate meaninglessness and despair."

Darwin's Universe - From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing by Yan T Wee: Compare Prices on New & Used Copies | Alibris

 

 

[Radiorum]

I don't believe an acceptance of science (and the theory of evolution) precludes a belief in "God."

I invite you to once again read the principles of scientific pantheism I posted earlier.

For me, the Bible is a text written by humans thousands of years ago, and not supernaturally inspired. While there is a lot of wisdom (especially from Jesus) in the Bible, there is also a lot cruel judgement (especially in the old testament) and I choose not to make it my guide in life.

[Radiorum]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - an accidental leftover from the Big Bang, evolved by a lucky chance, and are here for no ultimate purpose. We are just walking molecules, birthed through a cosmic accident, dancing to the music of our DNA, and destined to disappear in a cosmic blink

I'm okay with that! The morale of the story is to make the most of your time while you're here.