Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: You give me far too much credit, Audie.

As I said before, the data just as easily and consistently fits into progressive creation, as it does to the theory of evolution. Actually, I'd say it fits better into PC.

I know you asserted that. But you've no basis for it, beyond personal whim.

Do you even have any idea what progressive creationism is, to make a statement like that?

Good, good, answer a quedtion with a question.

Takes fewer words to just say "I dont got no stinkin' data."

I have the same data that everyone else has, Audie.
For example, the same evidence that hughfarey lists here, fits in a progressive creation system.

In other words, if it fits in PC, it doesn't make evolution the fact that everyone makes it out to be.

PC is a belief system, not a theory. Plus it makes no predictions so it's not a science model at all. It is just a belief that God created stuff in steps. There's a vast difference between the two Rick. I am appalled that you can use these in a single sentence without blinking twice as if they both are somehow the same kind of thing.

The simple fact is, it's almost impossible for the average believer to accept or entertain the idea that they are not special creation. It goes against the core of our beliefs and stories we have learned and read in a way that we have never given thought to being not special in the eyes of God. I think the disdain and mistrust of science often rises up from here rather than anything else. So I actually empathize with people who'd rather believe in a science+religious doctrine rather than accept science for what it is. It's almost like hijacking everything and adding God into it, perhaps to justify and rationalize what otherwise can't reconcile wit religion or science alone.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
I know you asserted that. But you've no basis for it, beyond personal whim.

Do you even have any idea what progressive creationism is, to make a statement like that?

Good, good, answer a quedtion with a question.

Takes fewer words to just say "I dont got no stinkin' data."

I have the same data that everyone else has, Audie.
For example, the same evidence that hughfarey lists here, fits in a progressive creation system.

In other words, if it fits in PC, it doesn't make evolution the fact that everyone makes it out to be.

PC is a belief system, not a theory. Plus it makes no predictions so it's not a science model at all. It is just a belief that God created stuff in steps. There's a vast difference between the two Rick. I am appalled that you can use these in a single sentence without blinking twice as if they both are somehow the same kind of thing.

Neo,

Again, Hugh Ross has laid out predictions in his book that I asked you to read. So please stop saying there's no predictions.

It just shows your dishonesty when you keep saying that. Maybe you should be appalled at yourself, for continuing to say that, when you should know better.

neo-x wrote:The simple fact is, it's almost impossible for the average believer to accept or entertain the idea that they are not special creation. It goes against the core of our beliefs and stories we have learned and read in a way that we have never given thought to being not special in the eyes of God. I think the disdain and mistrust of science often rises up from here rather than anything else. So I actually empathize with people who'd rather believe in a science+religious doctrine rather than accept science for what it is. It's almost like hijacking everything and adding God into it, perhaps to justify and rationalize what otherwise can't reconcile wit religion or science alone.

You sure you're reading the same bible the rest of us are?

Humans aren't special compared to other creatures?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: Do you even have any idea what progressive creationism is, to make a statement like that?

Good, good, answer a quedtion with a question.

Takes fewer words to just say "I dont got no stinkin' data."

I have the same data that everyone else has, Audie.
For example, the same evidence that hughfarey lists here, fits in a progressive creation system.

In other words, if it fits in PC, it doesn't make evolution the fact that everyone makes it out to be.

PC is a belief system, not a theory. Plus it makes no predictions so it's not a science model at all. It is just a belief that God created stuff in steps. There's a vast difference between the two Rick. I am appalled that you can use these in a single sentence without blinking twice as if they both are somehow the same kind of thing.

Neo,

Again, Hugh Ross has laid out predictions in his book that I asked you to read. So please stop saying there's no predictions.

It just shows your dishonesty when you keep saying that. Maybe you should be appalled at yourself, for continuing to say that, when you should know better.

I don't remember the thread but we have had this discussion before about Ross's predictions and I remember even then explaining to you why they weren't really any or if so aren't already known. Which means they aren't original to PC at all.

Also, when you really claim that you then also mean that PC is falsifiable just like other theories that make predictions?

EDIT: Why do you turn to Ross for authority, he's not even a biologist?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:The simple fact is, it's almost impossible for the average believer to accept or entertain the idea that they are not special creation. It goes against the core of our beliefs and stories we have learned and read in a way that we have never given thought to being not special in the eyes of God. I think the disdain and mistrust of science often rises up from here rather than anything else. So I actually empathize with people who'd rather believe in a science+religious doctrine rather than accept science for what it is. It's almost like hijacking everything and adding God into it, perhaps to justify and rationalize what otherwise can't reconcile wit religion or science alone.

You sure you're reading the same bible the rest of us are?

Humans aren't special compared to other creatures?

Actually, that explains why you have beliefs like PC or other, to perhaps justify the specialty with science added in. But it's cherry picking evidence which may support something that fits the belief but not the parts which don't.

Ofcourse they are special compared to other creatures, but not by creation. That is where the difference lie in our statements. I saying humans are unique, just not via creation.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Good, good, answer a quedtion with a question.

Takes fewer words to just say "I dont got no stinkin' data."

I have the same data that everyone else has, Audie.
For example, the same evidence that hughfarey lists here, fits in a progressive creation system.

In other words, if it fits in PC, it doesn't make evolution the fact that everyone makes it out to be.

PC is a belief system, not a theory. Plus it makes no predictions so it's not a science model at all. It is just a belief that God created stuff in steps. There's a vast difference between the two Rick. I am appalled that you can use these in a single sentence without blinking twice as if they both are somehow the same kind of thing.

Neo,

Again, Hugh Ross has laid out predictions in his book that I asked you to read. So please stop saying there's no predictions.

It just shows your dishonesty when you keep saying that. Maybe you should be appalled at yourself, for continuing to say that, when you should know better.

I don't remember the thread but we have had this discussion before about Ross's predictions and I remember even then explaining to you why they weren't really any or if so aren't already known. Which means they aren't original to PC at all.

Also, when you really claim that you then also mean that PC is falsifiable just like other theories that make predictions?

EDIT: Why do you turn to Ross for authority, he's not even a biologist?

Of course they're predictions.

And yes, the predictions made by Ross in his book, are falsifiable.

Ross is the Author of the book. He has biologists who work with him. And I only brought him up because you keep saying PC doesn't have predictions.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:The simple fact is, it's almost impossible for the average believer to accept or entertain the idea that they are not special creation. It goes against the core of our beliefs and stories we have learned and read in a way that we have never given thought to being not special in the eyes of God. I think the disdain and mistrust of science often rises up from here rather than anything else. So I actually empathize with people who'd rather believe in a science+religious doctrine rather than accept science for what it is. It's almost like hijacking everything and adding God into it, perhaps to justify and rationalize what otherwise can't reconcile wit religion or science alone.

You sure you're reading the same bible the rest of us are?

Humans aren't special compared to other creatures?

Actually, that explains why you have beliefs like PC or other, to perhaps justify the specialty with science added in. But it's cherry picking evidence which may support something that fits the belief but not the parts which don't.

Ofcourse they are special compared to other creatures, but not by creation. That is where the difference lie in our statements. I saying humans are unique, just not via creation.

If not by creation, how would you say humans are special? Am I wrong to assume that even though you believe in evolution, you still believe God was the creator of what started evolution?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:The simple fact is, it's almost impossible for the average believer to accept or entertain the idea that they are not special creation. It goes against the core of our beliefs and stories we have learned and read in a way that we have never given thought to being not special in the eyes of God. I think the disdain and mistrust of science often rises up from here rather than anything else. So I actually empathize with people who'd rather believe in a science+religious doctrine rather than accept science for what it is. It's almost like hijacking everything and adding God into it, perhaps to justify and rationalize what otherwise can't reconcile wit religion or science alone.

You sure you're reading the same bible the rest of us are?

Humans aren't special compared to other creatures?

Actually, that explains why you have beliefs like PC or other, to perhaps justify the specialty with science added in. But it's cherry picking evidence which may support something that fits the belief but not the parts which don't.

Ofcourse they are special compared to other creatures, but not by creation. That is where the difference lie in our statements. I saying humans are unique, just not via creation.

If not by creation, how would you say humans are special? Am I wrong to assume that even though you believe in evolution, you still believe God was the creator of what started evolution?

I think we are special because we do things other creatures don't. But also because God chose to interact with us. And rather I truly think it's because of the latter that we are special. I.e It's God's selection that makes us special and not the other way around.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote: I have the same data that everyone else has, Audie.
For example, the same evidence that hughfarey lists here, fits in a progressive creation system.

In other words, if it fits in PC, it doesn't make evolution the fact that everyone makes it out to be.

PC is a belief system, not a theory. Plus it makes no predictions so it's not a science model at all. It is just a belief that God created stuff in steps. There's a vast difference between the two Rick. I am appalled that you can use these in a single sentence without blinking twice as if they both are somehow the same kind of thing.

Neo,

Again, Hugh Ross has laid out predictions in his book that I asked you to read. So please stop saying there's no predictions.

It just shows your dishonesty when you keep saying that. Maybe you should be appalled at yourself, for continuing to say that, when you should know better.

I don't remember the thread but we have had this discussion before about Ross's predictions and I remember even then explaining to you why they weren't really any or if so aren't already known. Which means they aren't original to PC at all.

Also, when you really claim that you then also mean that PC is falsifiable just like other theories that make predictions?

EDIT: Why do you turn to Ross for authority, he's not even a biologist?

Of course they're predictions.

And yes, the predictions made by Ross in his book, are falsifiable.

Ross is the Author of the book. He has biologists who work with him. And I only brought him up because you keep saying PC doesn't have predictions.

I am sorry but I have gone through Ross' predictions before and never found them worth it.

EDIT: Reason being that they weren't original, testable, and sometimes plain silly.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:The simple fact is, it's almost impossible for the average believer to accept or entertain the idea that they are not special creation. It goes against the core of our beliefs and stories we have learned and read in a way that we have never given thought to being not special in the eyes of God. I think the disdain and mistrust of science often rises up from here rather than anything else. So I actually empathize with people who'd rather believe in a science+religious doctrine rather than accept science for what it is. It's almost like hijacking everything and adding God into it, perhaps to justify and rationalize what otherwise can't reconcile wit religion or science alone.

You sure you're reading the same bible the rest of us are?

Humans aren't special compared to other creatures?

Actually, that explains why you have beliefs like PC or other, to perhaps justify the specialty with science added in. But it's cherry picking evidence which may support something that fits the belief but not the parts which don't.

Ofcourse they are special compared to other creatures, but not by creation. That is where the difference lie in our statements. I saying humans are unique, just not via creation.

If not by creation, how would you say humans are special? Am I wrong to assume that even though you believe in evolution, you still believe God was the creator of what started evolution?

I think we are special because we do things other creatures don't. But also because God chose to interact with us. And rather I truly think it's because of the latter that we are special. I.e It's God's selection that makes us special and not the other way around.

And aren't we created with the capacity to do things that other creatures can't? Are we not endowed with an ability and desire to have a relationship with our creator?

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:
PC is a belief system, not a theory. Plus it makes no predictions so it's not a science model at all. It is just a belief that God created stuff in steps. There's a vast difference between the two Rick. I am appalled that you can use these in a single sentence without blinking twice as if they both are somehow the same kind of thing.

Neo,

Again, Hugh Ross has laid out predictions in his book that I asked you to read. So please stop saying there's no predictions.

It just shows your dishonesty when you keep saying that. Maybe you should be appalled at yourself, for continuing to say that, when you should know better.

I don't remember the thread but we have had this discussion before about Ross's predictions and I remember even then explaining to you why they weren't really any or if so aren't already known. Which means they aren't original to PC at all.

Also, when you really claim that you then also mean that PC is falsifiable just like other theories that make predictions?

EDIT: Why do you turn to Ross for authority, he's not even a biologist?

Of course they're predictions.

And yes, the predictions made by Ross in his book, are falsifiable.

Ross is the Author of the book. He has biologists who work with him. And I only brought him up because you keep saying PC doesn't have predictions.

I am sorry but I have gone through Ross' predictions before and never found them worth it.

Hey, that's fine. You don't agree with them. That doesn't mean they're not predictions. I find the Theory of Evolution wanting. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a legitimate theory.

If you're honest, you'll stop saying PC doesn't have any predictions. It's almost as bad as someone who says life isn't evolving.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote: You sure you're reading the same bible the rest of us are?

Humans aren't special compared to other creatures?

Actually, that explains why you have beliefs like PC or other, to perhaps justify the specialty with science added in. But it's cherry picking evidence which may support something that fits the belief but not the parts which don't.

Ofcourse they are special compared to other creatures, but not by creation. That is where the difference lie in our statements. I saying humans are unique, just not via creation.

If not by creation, how would you say humans are special? Am I wrong to assume that even though you believe in evolution, you still believe God was the creator of what started evolution?

I think we are special because we do things other creatures don't. But also because God chose to interact with us. And rather I truly think it's because of the latter that we are special. I.e It's God's selection that makes us special and not the other way around.

And aren't we created with the capacity to do things that other creatures can't? Are we not endowed with an ability and desire to have a relationship with our creator?

What ability is that?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote: Neo,

Again, Hugh Ross has laid out predictions in his book that I asked you to read. So please stop saying there's no predictions.

It just shows your dishonesty when you keep saying that. Maybe you should be appalled at yourself, for continuing to say that, when you should know better.

I don't remember the thread but we have had this discussion before about Ross's predictions and I remember even then explaining to you why they weren't really any or if so aren't already known. Which means they aren't original to PC at all.

Also, when you really claim that you then also mean that PC is falsifiable just like other theories that make predictions?

EDIT: Why do you turn to Ross for authority, he's not even a biologist?

Of course they're predictions.

And yes, the predictions made by Ross in his book, are falsifiable.

Ross is the Author of the book. He has biologists who work with him. And I only brought him up because you keep saying PC doesn't have predictions.

I am sorry but I have gone through Ross' predictions before and never found them worth it.

Hey, that's fine. You don't agree with them. That doesn't mean they're not predictions. I find the Theory of Evolution wanting. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a legitimate theory.

If you're honest, you'll stop saying PC doesn't have any predictions. It's almost as bad as someone who says life isn't evolving.

Actually no. I have reasons for why they are not predictions and why pure science doesn't also consider them predictions. There is a reason that is so. You may have missed the edit on my previous post on this.

You may say PC has predictions, but if they can't be tested then they are merely words. They are not legitimate at all. Perhaps as a belief they may work but not as science alone.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:
I don't remember the thread but we have had this discussion before about Ross's predictions and I remember even then explaining to you why they weren't really any or if so aren't already known. Which means they aren't original to PC at all.

Also, when you really claim that you then also mean that PC is falsifiable just like other theories that make predictions?

EDIT: Why do you turn to Ross for authority, he's not even a biologist?

Of course they're predictions.

And yes, the predictions made by Ross in his book, are falsifiable.

Ross is the Author of the book. He has biologists who work with him. And I only brought him up because you keep saying PC doesn't have predictions.

I am sorry but I have gone through Ross' predictions before and never found them worth it.

Hey, that's fine. You don't agree with them. That doesn't mean they're not predictions. I find the Theory of Evolution wanting. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a legitimate theory.

If you're honest, you'll stop saying PC doesn't have any predictions. It's almost as bad as someone who says life isn't evolving.

Actually no. I have reasons for why they are not predictions and why pure science doesn't also consider them predictions. There is a reason that is so. You may have missed the edit on my previous post on this.

You may say PC has predictions, but if they can't be tested then they are merely words. They are not legitimate at all. Perhaps as a belief they may work but not as science alone.

So, you're saying one celled life to human evolution, is testable and verifiable?