Does the Bible ever contradict scientific observation?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Re: Does the Bible ever contradict scientific observation?

Post #101

Post by H.sapiens »

Volbrigade wrote:
Allow me to help your understanding. As I scientist, I'm sure you can appreciate the precision involved with generating a self-replicating molecule that is a code for living things, including human beings, and the brains within those human beings that are capable of understanding how that code operates, and of the proteins (themselves consisting of precise combinations of amino acids) that link to form the unique instructions for every living human (as well as all other living things) via their 4-"letter" combinations.

You ask me to believe that such a construct is possible in a universe that is mindless, unguided, and random? That this exquisite arrangement came into existence absence intelligence and design?

I say -- with all due respect -- that you're a brick shy of a load.
The brick, I fear, is missing from your pile. No one is claiming that the process is unguided and random. Rather we are specifying that it operates via Natural Selection. "Selection," of any sort, last time I checked. is a nonrandom process.
Volbrigade wrote: Otherwise --

It makes no difference how many scientists believe in m2m evolution. Relatively few work in a field directly related to it. Most are doing actual science. The guy who is utilizing science in the pursuit of developing the next generation of smartphone, computer, aircraft, TV, or automobile, may indeed "believe in (m2m) evolution." But it is a religious belief, indoctrinated into him via the secular culture he inhabits, and reinforced by the high priests of the religion in the education industry (ironically, in virtually the same way a shallow understanding of "the Christian religion" was formerly indoctrinated into the denizens of a society dominated by institutional "Churchianity").
Actually, all the ""Steves" are biological scientists ... check the list.
Volbrigade wrote: But many who have studied the matter closely, and who have the courage to be honest in their evaluation,
Please show me your list of scientists working in the field, like all the Steves.
Volbrigade wrote: have concluded that the conditions necessary for life to arise by random processes (and yes, that IS part of the theory, rik. To say otherwise is to engage in a duplicitous dodge),
No, the duplicity is yours, "selection" is not random, unless specified as "random selection." Natural Selection is quite non-random, it "chooses" those with higher fitness.
Volbrigade wrote: and then to proceed to "evolve" upwards through an endless series of fortuitous "copying errors", are so statistically remote as to be beyond "absurd", by several categorical factors.
Please share a peer-reviewed and consensus accepted journal article that so states it.
Volbrigade wrote: Something on the lines of, oh, say, flipping a coin once a second for a million years, and it coming up "heads" every time. And many -- but by no means all -- of those who have reached that conclusion, are now affiliated with groups like ICR, AIG, and CMI.
Please, stop back once you have gained an actual understanding of statistics.
Volbrigade wrote: Btw -- are you serious? A computer program designed to illustrate how m2m could work, is an argument AGAINST Intelligent Design? Does the phrase "rolling on the floor, laughing my >beep< off", mean anything to you? 8-)
The phrase means that you are singularly uncivil as it ridicules a forum member and adds nothing to the debate. In any case, simulations are often used to show that something is possible.
Volbrigade wrote: The evidences for a young creation are numerous, and continually growing. Of course, if you say "I refuse to accept them, because I don't agree with the premises of those that provide them..." -- well, that's your prerogative.
There are no such evidences. There are wrong headed criticisms of the ToE, but there are no evidences for ID.
Volbrigade wrote: I appreciate them (the scientists who provide the YEC evidences), because being, almost to a man, former secular-atheo-Whateverists, they provide that understanding of the data/material (e.g., the AIG article); as well as the rebuttal of it, from a Biblical view.
Once again, there are no YEC claims of evidences that are not easily falsified.
Volbrigade wrote: And I know, as sure as I'm sitting here, that there is one from a Biblical perspective, concerning the meteors. And it will reinforce the YEC view, just as the presence of C-14 in diamonds, and soft tissue in dinosaurs, does.
Please cite your sources.
Volbrigade wrote: I know this by FAITH.
Faith, that's what lets you believe what you know ain't true. Didn't Mark Twain say that?
Volbrigade wrote:
Ironically, my devotional reading this morning just happened to be Hebrews 11, the great chapter on faith, which is why I mention it. "There are no coincidences in God's Kingdom."

By Faith We Understand
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
That's real sweet now ... where is this "kingdom" and why do you bow down to foreign potentates? That's most unamerican!

User avatar
Posts: 17610
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Post #102

Post by otseng »

Volbrigade wrote: I say -- with all due respect -- that you're a brick shy of a load.
:warning: Moderator Warning

There's no such thing as respectfully insulting someone.

Please review our Rules.


Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Post Reply