How God Creates

[Mazzy]

[quote="Audie"][quote="Mazzy"][

Audie said "Does faith require that you believe in the Flood? Just curious..
The Catholic Church does not seem to have a problem with accepting evolution as real."

No, faith does not require belief in the Flood, according to me. However the evidence for a flood and the reasonings that support it have as much credibility as other scenarios.

Individuals make up the Catholic church. Pope Paul in accepting evolution was offered flavour of the month as convincing evidence. Although I have much respect for the pope, one does not have to accept every notion he has.

[Audie]

One of the articles I cited was a research paper published in Nature. Is that what you are calling a brief summary for the average person?

Hi Mazzy. The thing that you posted was a sort of pop science summary. It was not a research paper. Did you read the original research paper?

I do not need to specify any detail I find untrue. I quoted two articles where the assumptions appear very obvious. For example, here is an assumption one may accept or challenge that was with the Nature article. "A second spill is LIKELY to have occurred some 200,000 years later, during the most recent ice age, when again ice would have blocked up the north and created a lake where today's North Sea lies.” You may appreciate that the term "likely' has no scientific credibility in the realm of 'empirical evidence'.

You may appreciate that the existence of the large body of water referred to and a significant flow of water, the continental glaciers, the lowered sea level etc are not matters in reasonable dispute.

There is nothing about the word "likely' that is problematic. Science does not do certainties, but rather, probabilities. The probability that the gas laws are reliable is so high that we call them laws, and depend on them.

A high level of probability, as deduced from a body of evidence, could be termed "likely".

There is no "assumption" involved. If you found some detail that you think is untrue, please say so. I did not find any

You perhaps would like to speak to what within these article you find untrue, given they support a biblical flood….

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... ticle=1729

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... ngaea.aspx

You may appreciate taht such articles can only find a publisher in a creationist site because they do not have any credibility in the scientific community.

I could look one up and it would not take me long to find where they go off the rails, but that is a bit of a digression.

Indeed, I am not off by any magitude as I contest current dating methods as fictitious and many believe the flood occured on Pangea.

Why do you think they are fiction?

I never said geologists THEORIES were fiction

I know. You said..
as I contest current dating methods as fictitious
but if you dont want to say why, thats ok.

I am claiming such theories to explain what is observed in strata are theories that are backed by flawed science and then passed off as if they are incontestable facts

I wonder if you are open to seeing any flaws in your own view of things?

There is nothing in science that is ever presented as incontestable fact. Anyone trying to pass anything off as that is a humbug. So if you are finding fault with someone here, its not with scientists, or science.

Since you like science, did you realize that science does not do "inconstestible fact"?

These so called 'facts' change like flavours of the month, untimately meaning none of these theories ever were credible nor did they have any merit, to begin with.

Secondly, on the thread topic, it has been proven beyond doubt that energy can turn to matter in an instant. Therefore biblical creationists that do not accept Big Bang theory have some hard science behind their claims.

Geologists and scientists that are also Creationists also have theories that hold as much merit as those that challenge a world wide flood.

As for evolution, I like to debate this topic. Indeed all observed data supports a creative event, not evolution. Data suggests all humans alive today are the decendants from one male and one female. It takes convoluted algorithms and assumptions to suggest other humans were present at the time and just so happend to have their entire lineage die out. Indeed breeders have been trying to breed larger and larger dogs. One will never breed a dog as big as an elephant and yet a bacteria supposedly evolved into a dinosaur.

You sure dont speak as someone who likes science, but maybe I am misunderstanding something.

Nobody says dinosaurs evolved from bacteria, btw. If you wish to find fault with evolution, thats fine, but use real examples if you have any, arguing against a position that the other does not hold is known as a 'strawman" areumbet.

Anyway, Im curious if you can see a couple of mistakes you made, one about bacteria-dinosaurs, and the other about "incontestible".

[Starhunter]

The "Word" is either figurative or is referring to a person, even if same is one of three. This being the case I suggest the "Word" also does not use magic to create, but actually used the laws of physics to create the universe and all we see in it.

Without trying to delve into the physical nature of God, God is more than matter in every sense, and matter by comparison is just a hologram. This does not reduce the physicality of matter in any way, because whatever God creates is designed to last as long as it should, it just means that God is the enduring One, the unchangeable One, the One with all power and substance, and reality.

Too often God is ghosted away and our existence made to be more significant, when really it is the opposite.

[Mazzy]

"Audie" said re dating methods "but if you dont want to say why, thats ok. I wonder if you are open to seeing any flaws in your own view of things?


There are a plethora of reasons why I do not accept dating methods as valid. Here is just one. 146Sm is used to date the solar system. IN 2012 the half life was recalibrated and dropped by around a whopping 30%. Then our intelligence is insulted once more when these researchers suggest such a difference in half life over the supposed 5-6 billion years only changed the dating by an insignificant amount of time.

BTW, this article is not a 'pop' science article from the Womens Weekly. In case you do not know it is research published in Science magazine. If you do not know what 'publishing' means in relation to science articles let me know and I will explain further.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1614

As for seeing any flaws in my own view. Well sure, I have flaws for example I have no clue how old the universe is any more than these researchers actually do. I am not a YEC but believe the earth is much younger than current estimates. This brings us back to the fact that every theoretical view, including a variety of creationists views have as much merit in relation to the age of the universe and the solar system as 'current scientific thinking'.

[Mazzy]

Audie said "You sure dont speak as someone who likes science, but maybe I am misunderstanding something."

Nobody says dinosaurs evolved from bacteria, btw. If you wish to find fault with evolution, thats fine, but use real examples if you have any, arguing against a position that the other does not hold is known as a 'strawman" areumbet.

Anyway, Im curious if you can see a couple of mistakes you made, one about bacteria-dinosaurs, and the other about "incontestible".

You are misundertanding me big time. I love science. Your first mistake is that you do not understand evolutionary thinking and do not know how to engage me in a scientific conversation. You have already admitted you know nothing about physics which is a flaw I do not share with you. Secondly, most certainly evolutionists believe that a single celled organism evolved through variations to become a dinosaur. There is no added information put into the system/genetic code per se, just a rearrangement, duplication or deletion of genetic material.

Hence I repeat. Breeders have been trying to breed larger dogs for a very long time. They will never breed a dog as big as an elephant, let alone a dinosaur, yet evolutionists would have us believe that a single celled organism such as bacteria evolved over time into a dinosaur. Creationists accept adaptation, but 'adaptation' is limited.

I can quote many articles written by evolutionary researchers on negative epistasis and diminishing returns, which in simplistic terms means so called beneficial mutation working together to cause a drop in the fitness landscape.

Indeed scientific thinking in relation to abiogenesis has undergone evolution itself. From DNA first, to RNA first to the most recent theories around Proteins first. The paradigms actually have become worse over time. Even I know that proteins do not exist in their own right yet these researchers would have us believe that short stranded protiens were magically floating around the ocean, or swamp or whatever the latest flavour of the month is. Protiens disintegrate when taken out of the host. They cannot float around for thousands or millions of years waiting to 'evolve'. Proteins require a host to exist. The host, a complex factory of reproduction, must come first for DNA, RNA or Protiens to exist. It is a real 'HELLO' moment for these scientists that think life can arise spontaneously without the hand of a great designer.

[Audie]

Audie said "You sure dont speak as someone who likes science, but maybe I am misunderstanding something."

Nobody says dinosaurs evolved from bacteria, btw. If you wish to find fault with evolution, thats fine, but use real examples if you have any, arguing against a position that the other does not hold is known as a 'strawman" areumbet.

Anyway, Im curious if you can see a couple of mistakes you made, one about bacteria-dinosaurs, and the other about "incontestible".

You are misundertanding me big time. I love science. Your first mistake is that you do not understand evolutionary thinking and do not know how to engage me in a scientific conversation. You have already admitted you know nothing about physics which is a flaw I do not share with you. Secondly, most certainly evolutionists believe that a single celled organism evolved through variations to become a dinosaur. There is no added information put into the system/genetic code per se, just a rearrangement, duplication or deletion of genetic material.

Hence I repeat. Breeders have been trying to breed larger dogs for a very long time. They will never breed a dog as big as an elephant, let alone a dinosaur, yet evolutionists would have us believe that a single celled organism such as bacteria evolved over time into a dinosaur. Creationists accept adaptation, but 'adaptation' is limited.

I can quote many articles written by evolutionary researchers on negative epistasis and diminishing returns, which in simplistic terms means so called beneficial mutation working together to cause a drop in the fitness landscape.

Indeed scientific thinking in relation to abiogenesis has undergone evolution itself. From DNA first, to RNA first to the most recent theories around Proteins first. The paradigms actually have become worse over time. Even I know that proteins do not exist in their own right yet these researchers would have us believe that short stranded protiens were magically floating around the ocean, or swamp or whatever the latest flavour of the month is. Protiens disintegrate when taken out of the host. They cannot float around for thousands or millions of years waiting to 'evolve'. Proteins require a host to exist. The host, a complex factory of reproduction, must come first for DNA, RNA or Protiens to exist. It is a real 'HELLO' moment for these scientists that think life can arise spontaneously without the hand of a great designer.

Four years of undergrad and a year of grad study in biology here...but never mind.
I wont disturb you further.

[Starhunter]

Someone said to me the other day "we are all brainwashed, just on different things" and he is a Christian.
For a moment I thought "don't go down that road please" but then after some consideration, yes we do think and act according to our education and upbringing. Perhaps that is why God considers spiritual education vital.

Some children are raised with the concept that their leader of the country has special powers, like making the sun rise etc.

So we believe what we are taught, and what society accepts as well. A few generations ago nearly everybody was exposed to some form of Christianity, today it's evolution. And some are in between.

Science, like religion, is not immune to influences and trends either. The way we perceive and interpret the world around us, affect our scientific conclusions. It's the dog chasing its tail. We think that physical realities such as the laws of physics gives us the proper platform on which to build, until we try to define how that can be, how matter exists, and there again philosophy, trends and influences mark the path of thought.

As with religion, science needs one focal point, one reference of truth, one measure by which to test theories, and according to Jesus, it is the word of God. Apart from that reference, we have humanism ruling religion and philosophy ruling science, both have the thoughts of men as the great measure of truth.

[Mazzy]

Audie said "You sure dont speak as someone who likes science, but maybe I am misunderstanding something."

Nobody says dinosaurs evolved from bacteria, btw. If you wish to find fault with evolution, thats fine, but use real examples if you have any, arguing against a position that the other does not hold is known as a 'strawman" areumbet.

Anyway, Im curious if you can see a couple of mistakes you made, one about bacteria-dinosaurs, and the other about "incontestible".

You are misundertanding me big time. I love science. Your first mistake is that you do not understand evolutionary thinking and do not know how to engage me in a scientific conversation. You have already admitted you know nothing about physics which is a flaw I do not share with you. Secondly, most certainly evolutionists believe that a single celled organism evolved through variations to become a dinosaur. There is no added information put into the system/genetic code per se, just a rearrangement, duplication or deletion of genetic material.

Hence I repeat. Breeders have been trying to breed larger dogs for a very long time. They will never breed a dog as big as an elephant, let alone a dinosaur, yet evolutionists would have us believe that a single celled organism such as bacteria evolved over time into a dinosaur. Creationists accept adaptation, but 'adaptation' is limited.

I can quote many articles written by evolutionary researchers on negative epistasis and diminishing returns, which in simplistic terms means so called beneficial mutation working together to cause a drop in the fitness landscape.

Indeed scientific thinking in relation to abiogenesis has undergone evolution itself. From DNA first, to RNA first to the most recent theories around Proteins first. The paradigms actually have become worse over time. Even I know that proteins do not exist in their own right yet these researchers would have us believe that short stranded protiens were magically floating around the ocean, or swamp or whatever the latest flavour of the month is. Protiens disintegrate when taken out of the host. They cannot float around for thousands or millions of years waiting to 'evolve'. Proteins require a host to exist. The host, a complex factory of reproduction, must come first for DNA, RNA or Protiens to exist. It is a real 'HELLO' moment for these scientists that think life can arise spontaneously without the hand of a great designer.

Four years of undergrad and a year of grad study in biology here...but never mind.
I wont disturb you further.

What on earth were they teaching you over 4 years of biology given you are unable to engage me in even a basic scientific discussion and how long ago? You certainly should know more about the evolutionary process than you have come up with so far.

[Mazzy]

Someone said to me the other day "we are all brainwashed, just on different things" and he is a Christian.
For a moment I thought "don't go down that road please" but then after some consideration, yes we do think and act according to our education and upbringing. Perhaps that is why God considers spiritual education vital.

Some children are raised with the concept that their leader of the country has special powers, like making the sun rise etc.

So we believe what we are taught, and what society accepts as well. A few generations ago nearly everybody was exposed to some form of Christianity, today it's evolution. And some are in between.

Science, like religion, is not immune to influences and trends either. The way we perceive and interpret the world around us, affect our scientific conclusions. It's the dog chasing its tail. We think that physical realities such as the laws of physics gives us the proper platform on which to build, until we try to define how that can be, how matter exists, and there again philosophy, trends and influences mark the path of thought.

As with religion, science needs one focal point, one reference of truth, one measure by which to test theories, and according to Jesus, it is the word of God. Apart from that reference, we have humanism ruling religion and philosophy ruling science, both have the thoughts of men as the great measure of truth.

We do not have to know how God created to be saved. However, such a topic is interesting. Indeed being able to offer plausible or scientific theories as to how God created is of interest to me.

I don't care how God created. I don't care if God created all life instantly, used a process somewhat like evolution, or a mix, or none of the above. Maybe God developed life in a giant petri dish on some other planet in some other dimension.

We now know that matter, the stuff all life is made of, can be created instantly. The American airforce is now experimenting in matter transfer and have had some success. We know that protons can do weird things like change their behaviour from behaving like a particle to behaving like a wave, when being watched. We have so much to learn. Yet, to me, it appears that instant creation by a higher non corporeal being is the more like scenario. There is more evidence in physics and observed science than for any other scenario.

The bible is not a science book. Even though the bible says In the beginning God created, it also says that the earth brought forth this and that. Therefore how the Word accomplished anything is still up for grabs as far as the bible goes.

[1over137]

Many times discussion between two people ends when they (or at least one of them) are prideful. The moment personal comments are made it is lost. I am speaking generally now. I have seen this too often. It's a pity.

[Mazzy]

Many times discussion between two people ends when they (or at least one of them) are prideful. The moment personal comments are made it is lost. I am speaking generally now. I have seen this too often. It's a pity.

Agreed. Replying with unsubstative cheap shots is not progressing the discussion.

[1over137]

Many times discussion between two people ends when they (or at least one of them) are prideful. The moment personal comments are made it is lost. I am speaking generally now. I have seen this too often. It's a pity.

Agreed. Also, I was hoping for a scientific discussion with someone that actually had some idea what I was talking about rather than someone taking cheap shots at me that had no substance.

Audie having studied biology probably 'had some idea'. I know you read scientific magazines on many fields.
You two could have some nice biology discussion.

Personal comments were made on both sides, if I see correctly.

[Mazzy]

Many times discussion between two people ends when they (or at least one of them) are prideful. The moment personal comments are made it is lost. I am speaking generally now. I have seen this too often. It's a pity.

Agreed. Also, I was hoping for a scientific discussion with someone that actually had some idea what I was talking about rather than someone taking cheap shots at me that had no substance.

Audie having studied biology probably 'had some idea'. I know you read scientific magazines on many fields.
You two could have some nice biology discussion.

Personal comments were made on both sides, if I see correctly.

I edited my post before I saw your post. Suggesting Audie has no credentials is a reflection of his/her inability to actually respond to the discussion I was hoping to have with a substantive reply. The comment was not meant to be a personal attack. I have debated undergrads in biology on other forums and I do not think Audie has quals as claimed. Maybe I am wrong in which case I am happy to apologize.

I hope Audie comes back with a sensible comment. For example, Why would he/she suggest I meant that a bacteria evolved directly into a dinosaur without any intermediate species then ask me to fix my mistake? Such a response suggests Audie simply does not want to address the substance of my post or any point I am making and would rather insult me.

A reply that actually addresses my post would be welcomed.

[Audie]

Many times discussion between two people ends when they (or at least one of them) are prideful. The moment personal comments are made it is lost. I am speaking generally now. I have seen this too often. It's a pity.

Am I being prideful?

The thing about "loving science" was entered into evidence of some reasonably extensive knowledge
of same. I noticed the highly critical and dismissive attitude toward everyone in a field of science, and so I asked
something about how that squares with loving science.

I intended no negative personal remark.

If you read the unkind personal remarks made to me here and elsewhere
including from mod you might see how I find this forum to be a very unfair
and unwelcoming place for any sort of "diverse" viewpoint.

[1over137]

You mentioned Mazzy made mistakes.

May I ask what are they?