|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 1:33:19 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
The point is, they don't contradict scripture. Take archeology for example. The events in the Bible can be verified by the findings of archeology.
While there is certainly archaeological evidence of many of the historical events of the OT, there is no archaeological evidence of any of the OT events that are generally accepted as para-normal or super-natural.
In addition, the entire field of prehistoric archaeology contradict Genesis, as it is the study of human and proto-human artifacts of the Paleolithic period (200,000-20,000 BC).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 2:14:55 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
The point is, they don't contradict scripture. Take archeology for example. The events in the Bible can be verified by the findings of archeology.
While there is certainly archaeological evidence of many of the historical events of the OT, there is no archaeological evidence of any of the OT events that are generally accepted as para-normal or super-natural.
In addition, the entire field of prehistoric archaeology contradict Genesis, as it is the study of human and proto-human artifacts of the Paleolithic period (200,000-20,000 BC).
I would add that the traditional (Ussher) date for the Flood is 2348 BC, right in the middle of Old Kingdom Egypt. Needless to say, the archeological evidence shows a continuous culture, not a complete destruction.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 3:14:08 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:Veritasquote:
There's plenty of evidence for evolution. Morphology, fossil evidence, DNA evidence.
Here we go again. I ask for empirical evidence and you respond with materialistic interpretation. Do you not know the difference?
quote:
According to my dictionary, dogma is defined as "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true".
When you state that “science doesn’t know how abiogenesis happened” but will not allow anyone to question if it did happen you are stating that abiogenesis is incontrovertibly true. By your own definition abiogenesis IS dogma.
quote:
Christians don't present the dogma of the Trinity with "perhaps God has three Persons", or "maybe God has three persons"…Abiogenesis is not taught dogmatically. See the difference?
Your example is invalid. There is no difference. Both are taught as true. Schools don’t present abiogenesis as maybe it happened and maybe it didn’t happen. That sort of questioning is not allowed, therefore abiogenesis is taught just as dogmatically in schools as the Trinity is in church.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 3:25:01 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:esquote:
quote:
So now you are going to claim that abiogenesis is scientifically valid, even though you admitted earlier that it is nothing more than dogma?
I did not admit any such thing.
My bad. You didn’t. You made the claim that abiogenesis is proven by the fact that physical life has not always existed and now does. You have thus far refused to admit the obvious truth of that being dogma. Please explain why you believe that is a scientific claim rather than a dogmatic claim.
quote:
Yawn. The fact that you are incorrigible and impervious to the scientific evidence is no fault of the evidence.
I am not gullible enough to accept faith-based interpretation as empirical evidence, and that is all that has ever been presented. Prove me wrong and I WILL shut up about evolution’s total lack of empirical support. All you need do to shut me up on it is actually present any empirical support for microbe to man evolution. Since NONE exists the concept of microbe to man evolution is nothing more than unsupportable dogma. It is NOT science.
quote:
Surely, saying that "we don’t know how abiogenesis happened" doesn't add any dogma (or nefarious interpretation)
Are you so blind that you can not see that saying "we don’t know how abiogenesis happened" is a claim that it did in fact happen? Lacking scientific support makes it dogma. BTW, even if ALL scientists believed abiogenesis was a reality that would still not give it scientific support.
quote:
to a fact that you yourself do not dispute. 'Maybe', 'perhaps', and 'possibly' are not the words of dogma.
I NEVER made any such concession. Please read what I said. Saying “maybe it happen this way or “perhaps” it happened that way does NOT question the reality of abiogenesis but rather confirms belief in its reality. To question the reality of abiogenesis one would have to say "“perhaps” abiogenesis did not happen", but if a teacher said that in the classroom he would loose his job.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 4:19:21 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:Veritasquote:
There's plenty of evidence for evolution. Morphology, fossil evidence, DNA evidence.
Here we go again. I ask for empirical evidence and you respond with materialistic interpretation. Do you not know the difference?
Fossils ARE empirical. The fact that DNA supports a nested hierarchy, as predicted by evolution, is empirically verifiable.
How do you define empirical?
quote:
quote:
According to my dictionary, dogma is defined as "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true".
When you state that “science doesn’t know how abiogenesis happened” but will not allow anyone to question if it did happen you are stating that abiogenesis is incontrovertibly true. By your own definition abiogenesis IS dogma.
No. There's no room for "perhaps" or "maybe" in dogma.
quote:
quote:
Christians don't present the dogma of the Trinity with "perhaps God has three Persons", or "maybe God has three persons"…Abiogenesis is not taught dogmatically. See the difference?
Your example is invalid. There is no difference. Both are taught as true. Schools don’t present abiogenesis as maybe it happened and maybe it didn’t happen. That sort of questioning is not allowed, therefore abiogenesis is taught just as dogmatically in schools as the Trinity is in church.
No difference?!?!? I'll agree there's no difference as soon as I see you post: "Perhaps God exists" or "Maybe God has three Persons." Until then, I see is a BIG difference. But if you don't see the difference, let's see you post "Perhaps Jesus rose from the dead."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 5:07:50 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
You made the claim that abiogenesis is proven by the fact that physical life has not always existed and now does.
That's all abiogenesis means. Just like gravity is a fact (things fall) and gravity is a theory (general relativity). Abiogenesis is a fact (physical life has not always existed) and abiogenesis also describes a number of competing scientific hypotheses.
quote:
All you need do to shut me up on it is actually present any empirical support for microbe to man evolution.
Again, plenty has been presented. Apparently, the key to 'shutting you up' is to get you to accept any of it. But you've made it perfectly clear that you reject all so-called "origins science." So I've lost before I begin, not that I haven't tried.
quote:
quote:
Surely, saying that "we don’t know how abiogenesis happened" doesn't add any dogma (or nefarious interpretation)
Are you so blind that you can not see that saying "we don’t know how abiogenesis happened" is a claim that it did in fact happen?
You yourself do not dispute that "physical life has not always existed," which is all that abiogenesis implies.
quote:
quote:
to a fact that you yourself do not dispute. 'Maybe', 'perhaps', and 'possibly' are not the words of dogma.
I NEVER made any such concession. Please read what I said. Saying “maybe it happen this way or “perhaps” it happened that way does NOT question the reality of abiogenesis but rather confirms belief in its reality. To question the reality of abiogenesis one would have to say "“perhaps” abiogenesis did not happen"...
To say that would imply that physical life has always existed, which is not true.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 7:08:35 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I'm thinking KT was actually Essentialsaltes under a pseudonym, trying to get us riled up with sophomoric arguments and copy-paste statements from Talk Origins. Notice how you never see the two of them in the same place at the same time? I'm on to you ES.
As fond as I am of dead-pan humor, I would have appreciated a smiley at the end of that.
This comment came to mind the other day because I wasn't quite sure what you were talking about. I don't mean to suggest that YOU make sophomoric arguments, but merely to jest that this was you trying to get us riled up with sophomoric arguments. And I don't usually use smileys. They just aren't my thing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 10:39:14 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:esquote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
You made the claim that abiogenesis is proven by the fact that physical life has not always existed and now does.
That's all abiogenesis means.
Thanks for making it clear that you are arguing out of complete ignorance.
“Essentially, abiogenesis is an exercise in reductionism whereby we attempt to a) conceptualize life in progressively simpler and simpler components and b) imagine that history reversed this process of conceptualization, building up layer and layer of increasing complexity. The goal is to begin with the simplest components (along with minimally specific interactions) that could be generated by nonliving forces but that were also able to give rise to life. In other words, a smooth continuum is sought that shows that the chemistry of life and non-life are bridged by nothing more than the laws of chemistry and physics.” - http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis (emphasis mine)
quote:
Abiogenesis is a fact (physical life has not always existed) and abiogenesis also describes a number of competing scientific hypotheses.
Abiogenesis is the attempt to describe how life came from non-life, based on the materialistic dogma that the physical realm is all there is.
Creation is based on the belief that life cannot come from non-life. I.e. the source of physical life is a LIVING supernatural entity.
Science has NEVER observed life from non-life. Simply put, my dogma that life cannot come from non-life is more compatible with science than your dogma that life came from non-life.
Now, please explain why your dogma should be taught as science while denying the possibility that my dogma might be correct.
quote:
quote:
All you need do to shut me up on it is actually present any empirical support for microbe to man evolution.
Again, plenty has been presented.
Again, just another empty claim.
quote:
Apparently, the key to 'shutting you up' is to get you to accept any of it.
That means there are two ways to shut me up. The first is to actually present some empirical evidence. The second is to convince me that the interpretations you are gullible enough to accept are in fact empirical evidence. It has become obvious that the first is impossible as no such evidence actually exists. The second is possible, but not likely as my gullibility level is not all that low.
quote:
quote:
To question the reality of abiogenesis one would have to say "“perhaps” abiogenesis did not happen"...
To say that would imply that physical life has always existed, which is not true.
Only to someone totally ignorant of the meaning of abiogenesis and unwilling to accept the possibility that the source for physical life is a living supernatural entity.
< Message edited by unclemonkey -- 9/21/2008 10:48:22 PM >
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 10:54:19 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
In addition, the entire field of prehistoric archaeology contradict Genesis, as it is the study of human and proto-human artifacts of the Paleolithic period (200,000-20,000 BC). Nonsense! It is the faulty dating system on which incorrect interpretations of prehistoric archaeology are based that allegedly contradict Genesis. There was no 20,000 BC.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 12:01:47 AM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
In addition, the entire field of prehistoric archaeology contradict Genesis, as it is the study of human and proto-human artifacts of the Paleolithic period (200,000-20,000 BC). Nonsense! It is the faulty dating system on which incorrect interpretations of prehistoric archaeology are based that allegedly contradict Genesis. There was no 20,000 BC.
Ahh, I see.
So the 100,000+(guesstimate) extinct prehistoric animals, plants, and proto-humans for which fossilized remains have been found (presumably all killed by the flood), all lived OT times yet not a single one is described in the OT?
BTW: You still didn't answer my original question. What areas of science that do not conflict with the OT are as flawed as the areas that do?
< Message edited by KaseyTom -- 9/22/2008 12:13:43 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 8:40:37 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ahh, I see. No, I don't think so.
quote:
So the 100,000+(guesstimate) extinct prehistoric animals, plants, and proto-humans for which fossilized remains have been found (presumably all killed by the flood), all lived OT times yet not a single one is described in the OT? Well, you certainly won't find any "proto-humans" described in the Bible!  Have you actually read the detailed description of the behemoth in Job 40? Let's talk about OT zoology when you're better informed. KT.
quote:
BTW: You still didn't answer my original question. What areas of science that do not conflict with the OT are as flawed as the areas that do? BTW, I answered it on the previous page. You just didn't like my answer.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 8:44:39 AM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4932
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
Okay, everyone, you can cut out the insulting remarks please.
Sincerely,
Lisa Luper
Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 9:34:57 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
Ahh, I see.
So the 100,000+(guesstimate) extinct prehistoric animals, plants, and proto-humans for which fossilized remains have been found (presumably all killed by the flood), all lived OT times yet not a single one is described in the OT?[/qutoe]
I don't think this argument holds much water because there are a lot of things in the fossil record that are still alive today that were never described in the OT. Strangely, the fossil record is chock full of things that are still alive and unchanged today, and we suppose that they represent a 500,000,000 year old ancestor.
quote:
BTW: You still didn't answer my original question. What areas of science that do not conflict with the OT are as flawed as the areas that do?
I'd like to participate also, but I really don't understand this question.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 12:56:06 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:esquote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
You made the claim that abiogenesis is proven by the fact that physical life has not always existed and now does.
That's all abiogenesis means.
Thanks for making it clear that you are arguing out of complete ignorance.
Like evolution, abiogenesis has two related meanings - the fact & the scientific theories and hypotheses that explain the fact.
quote:
quote:
Abiogenesis is a fact (physical life has not always existed) and abiogenesis also describes a number of competing scientific hypotheses.
Abiogenesis is the attempt to describe how life came from non-life, based on the materialistic dogma that the physical realm is all there is.
These hypotheses attempt to explain the fact using the principles of scientific methodology.
quote:
Creation is based on the belief that life cannot come from non-life. I.e. the source of physical life is a LIVING supernatural entity.
As far as I know, your god does not metabolize or reproduce, so whatever kind of life it has, it is not like physical life.
quote:
Science has NEVER observed life from non-life.
Science has NEVER observed life from deity.
Indeed, you frequently emphasize the fact that creatures only come from their own kind, with only 'microevolutionary' differences between them. If monkeys only produce monkeys, then gods can only produce gods. A god miraculously creating an amoeba is not the same as life coming from life through reproduction. Miraculous creation has never been observed in the lab; far worse, miraculous explanations have no place in science.
quote:
Now, please explain why your dogma should be taught as science while denying the possibility that my dogma might be correct.
The fact of abiogenesis (that physical life has not always existed) is obvious, and the hypotheses about abiogenesis are not taught dogmatically. There is always room for miraculous possibilities - however, they are not a part of science. The theory of evolution does not reject the possibility that gods watch over and direct every mutation; such an idea is simply not part of the field of knowledge that is science.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 2:53:10 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I don't think this argument holds much water because there are a lot of things in the fossil record that are still alive today that were never described in the OT. Strangely, the fossil record is chock full of things that are still alive and unchanged today, and we suppose that they represent a 500,000,000 year old ancestor.
Imagine if all the thousands of species of dinosaurs that lived during some part of the 160 million years spanning the Triassic to the Cretaceous period lived together at the same time. There would dinosaurs of all shapes as sizes everywhere. Add to the all the other extinct species of animals that lives at one time or another during the last 500 million years. There would be bazaar and exotic animals covering every foot of the land. The air would be full of flying reptiles and foot long insects. The sea would be full of massive reptiles and sharks as big as whales and the beaches covered with thousands or species of crabs. Then consider the all the extinct plants.
I don't think a single mention of a Leviathan adequately covers this bizarro world. The whole concept is preposterous.
Then there is also the issue of striation. The fossilized remains of plants and animals that lived at different periods are usually found in different strata of rock, clay, shale, and earth (sometimes geologic events mix them up). Had they lived at the same times their remains should be found all jumbled together.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I'd like to participate also, but I really don't understand this question.
If the OT is literally true, the fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong. Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong.
The only way science could be this wrong is if the scientific method is completely broken. If the scientific method was this broken it would impact all fields of science, not just those that conflict with the ot.
So I was asking for examples of fields of science that don't conflict with the OT that are as spectacularly wrong as those that do.
Or alternatively, some other explanation as to why the fields of science that conflict with the OT are so broken and other fields are not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 2:55:54 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong. KT's interpretation of Scripture - WRONG!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 3:01:53 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong. KT's interpretation of Scripture - WRONG!
This was not an interpretation of scripture, it was an example of spectacularly wrong science. The same magnitude of wrongness science would have to be if the OT were literally true.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 3:15:23 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Like I said, it is wrong to claim that a true interpretation of Scripture supports either a flat earth or geocentrism.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 3:29:02 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Like I said, it is wrong to claim that a true interpretation of Scripture supports either a flat earth or geocentrism.
Are you attempting to goad me into insulting your intelligence to get me banned or something?
Not only did I make no such claim, I made a second post clarifying that I made no such claim just for you. Here is the paragraph:
If the OT is literally true, the fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong. Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong.
How do you interpret this paragraph as implying scripture makes any statement the sun revolves around the earth or the earth is flat?
< Message edited by KaseyTom -- 9/22/2008 3:37:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 4:00:40 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7837
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
As much as I appreciate the convo (and am guilty of taking threads off topic) could we nudge this one back to the original OP?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 5:00:44 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
could we nudge this one back to the original OP?
And make this thread the lone exception???????????
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 5:12:59 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:esquote:
quote:
quote:
That's all abiogenesis means.
Thanks for making it clear that you are arguing out of complete ignorance.
Like evolution, abiogenesis has two related meanings - the fact & the scientific theories and hypotheses that explain the fact.
I take back my charge of ignorance. You are desperately trying to lay a smoke screen. The fact remains that abiogenesis, regardless of which proposed scenario you chose to consider, is nothing more than an attempt to explain how life arose by purely materialistic means. Calling a proposed scenario a ‘scientific theory’ doesnn’t make it scientific. It is a game of semantics intended to give the dogma of abiogenesis the illusion of being scientific.
You call abiogenesis a “fact”. It is no such thing. It is nothing more than a belief, i.e. materialist dogma.
Everything that science understands of life confirms the concept that life ONLY comes from life. Abiogenesis (life from non-life) not only lacks empirical support, it contradicts what science does understand of life.
quote:
Science has NEVER observed life from deity.
I have NEVER said that schools should teach in science class that life has a supernatural origin, only that the arbitrary exclusion of that possibility is not teaching science but promoting materialist dogma.
However, your attempt at misdirection here hasn’t gone unappreciated. It adds support to my contention that you are desperately trying to lay a smoke screen.
quote:
Indeed, you frequently emphasize the fact that creatures only come from their own kind, with only 'microevolutionary' differences between them.
Ah, more misdirection. Thanks.
One problem with your claim here though is the fact that I don’t use the term ‘microevolutionary’. Evolutionists use the term because it is vague and is conducive to presenting a false sense of continuity. I dislike the term and avoid its use for the same reasons.
quote:
If monkeys only produce monkeys, then gods can only produce gods.
Are you saying that as a scientific claim?
quote:
Miraculous creation has never been observed in the lab;
That is why real science CANNOT claim a supernatural origin of life as “fact”. You are using a two-edged sword here. Abiogenesis (life from non-life) has never been observed in the lab either. Ergo, real science CANNOT claim abiogenesis as “fact” either.
quote:
far worse, miraculous explanations have no place in science.
What is far worse is the claim that just because an explanation is materialistic it is scientific.
quote:
The fact of abiogenesis (that physical life has not always existed) is obvious,
Abiogenesis is life from non-life. That is NOT a fact. It is a belief, i.e. dogma.
quote:
and the hypotheses about abiogenesis are not taught dogmatically.
Ah, more misdirection. You can change gears anytime now. You have provided more than sufficient evidence of your attempted smoke screen.
I have NEVER claimed that the proposed scenarios are taught dogmatically. Abiogenesis (the materialistic dogma that life arose from a purely materialistic process) itself is taught dogmatically.
quote:
There is always room for miraculous possibilities
Then why is it a crime to state in a school science class that life “MAY HAVE” a supernatural origin?
quote:
however, they are not a part of science.
Nor are materialistic explanations simply because they are materialistic.
quote:
The theory of evolution does not reject the possibility that gods watch over and direct every mutation;
Nice attempt at misdirection. However, what do you think would happen to a teacher who suggests to his class that they consider that possibility?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 5:46:40 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:esquote:
quote:
quote:
That's all abiogenesis means.
Thanks for making it clear that you are arguing out of complete ignorance.
Like evolution, abiogenesis has two related meanings - the fact & the scientific theories and hypotheses that explain the fact.
I take back my charge of ignorance. You are desperately trying to lay a smoke screen. The fact remains that abiogenesis, regardless of which proposed scenario you chose to consider, is nothing more than an attempt to explain how life arose by purely materialistic means.
Yes, and Newtonian mechanics is nothing more than an attempt to explain classical mechanics by purely materialistic means. I can't help it if you don't like what science is and how it works.
quote:
quote:
The theory of evolution does not reject the possibility that gods watch over and direct every mutation;
Nice attempt at misdirection. However, what do you think would happen to a teacher who suggests to his class that they consider that possibility?
If presented, briefly, as an 'option' of how some people think about evolution: nothing.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/22/2008 5:57:25 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I don't think this argument holds much water because there are a lot of things in the fossil record that are still alive today that were never described in the OT. Strangely, the fossil record is chock full of things that are still alive and unchanged today, and we suppose that they represent a 500,000,000 year old ancestor.
Imagine if all the thousands of species of dinosaurs that lived during some part of the 160 million years spanning the Triassic to the Cretaceous period lived together at the same time. There would dinosaurs of all shapes as sizes everywhere. Add to the all the other extinct species of animals that lives at one time or another during the last 500 million years. There would be bazaar and exotic animals covering every foot of the land. The air would be full of flying reptiles and foot long insects. The sea would be full of massive reptiles and sharks as big as whales and the beaches covered with thousands or species of crabs. Then consider the all the extinct plants.
I don't think a single mention of a Leviathan adequately covers this bizarro world. The whole concept is preposterous.
Then there is also the issue of striation. The fossilized remains of plants and animals that lived at different periods are usually found in different strata of rock, clay, shale, and earth (sometimes geologic events mix them up). Had they lived at the same times their remains should be found all jumbled together.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I'd like to participate also, but I really don't understand this question.
If the OT is literally true, the fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong. Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong.
The only way science could be this wrong is if the scientific method is completely broken. If the scientific method was this broken it would impact all fields of science, not just those that conflict with the ot.
So I was asking for examples of fields of science that don't conflict with the OT that are as spectacularly wrong as those that do.
Or alternatively, some other explanation as to why the fields of science that conflict with the OT are so broken and other fields are not.
Fine, Jack. I'll take my business elsewhere. This discussion is going to a new thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
