An atheist-evolutionist called Dan wrote his objections: Atheist-Evolutionist's Dan's Response in brown, followed by my responses in ---blue:
Dan wrote: “First off I should explain that YES science changes all the time. The reason that science changes all the time?”
------------Because they got it wrong the 1st time. Yet you call anyone ignorant who doesn’t believe your belief which like you said in a few years will change.
Dan wrote: “The basic fundamental premise is because we QUESTION even the more obvious evidence!”
-----------Well some scientist have done, for example, Michael Behe, Jonathon Wells, A E Wilder Smith, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister (father of modern surgery). However evolutionists do not question the fact that evolution does not happen, because like yourself they do not want to believe the alternative.
Dan wrote: “What does religion do? Teaches you to accept what has been put before you.”
--------------The religion of evolution teaches you to accept what is put before you by the evolutionists. Which is what you have done Dan.
Dan wrote: “Science is not about proving 1 thing 1 time. That does not prove anything.”
--------------You’re awfully dogmatic about what by your own admission non of your arguments have one iota of proof.
Dan: “In order for an experiment or a clinical trial to be considered accurate by the scientific community, the test must be able to be repeated time and time again.?”
-----------Yes Dan, I already know evolution is not repeatable and testable and therefore evolution is not operational science, but is in fact a religious philosophy, which goes in the face of real scientific evidence that we can observe that things devolve by themselves, but not evolve.
Dan wrote: “How does religion measure up to that standard?”
-----------------------Well as we’ve observed the religion of evolution doesn’t measure up to repeatable testable science so instead you believe by blind faith that we evolved.
But as for true Biblical Christianity. Absolute truth is truth, “the Word of God stands for ever”.
Dan wrote: “Sure I can promise you that what we know today in science will change in the future.”
-------------Agreed. By your own admission you admit that evolutionist do not “know” and you promise they have got it wrong. That’s an awful lot of doubt to risk your eternity on.
Dan wrote: “The reason is that good scientists don't make assumptions, and they in fact QUESTION the evidence in front of them.”
---------------- Well as evolutionist assume evolution is true, and refuse to question the fact that evolution is not true then they mustn’t be good scientist. The reason evolutionist were fooled by Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Coelacanth, Haekel’s embryos, moths glued on trees, Archaeoraptor, Archaeopteryx, and many more for so long is because they were unwilling to question the evidence in front of them.
Dan, can you actually spend the time to read the article.
Dan wrote: “Now lets move on to the main point here of why you're brainwashed or an idiot. Religion is the one with presuppositions! I would think even you would see that is obvious!”
-------------Dan, take the time to actually read the article and tell me which of the presumptions you don’t agree that scientists make? “I would think even you would see that is obvious!”
Dan wrote: “Science goes out and tries to discover how old the universe is, it doesn’t make darn bit of difference to us what we come up with.
------------------That’s not true. If “science” says we need the universe to be a certain age for evolution to work, but then when they realize it’s not old enough, they have to make it older and so do. This has happened time and time again.
Dan wrote: “On the other hand your entire belief system rests on you coming up with an answer to support your beliefs!”
-----------------------That’s exactly what evolutionists do.
Dan wrote: “So you don’t look for how old the Earth is.”
----------------------If you are open minded which I doubt, I recommend spending the time listening to Dimension Theory/Time Theory by AE Wilder-Smith to paraphrase him 'anyone who claims he knows the age of the universe in terms of billions of years is a quack. Because which time are you talking about? Sun time? Moon time? Earth time? A star in a far away galaxy time? They are all different. Time is related to matter'.
Dan wrote: “ You already say, okay it has to be this (HORRIBLE science) let me find a way to make it appear that way. 4.3 billion 250 billion 1 million. None of it matters to us. BUT religion already knows what it is aiming for,”
------------------------------Evolutionist already know what they are aiming for.
Dan wrote: “THAT is a presupposition!” You start with a then try to find a way to prove that exists. You don’t look for the TRUTH, you simply look for ways to defend what you’ve already been told.”
------------------------That is exactly what evolutionists do. Thanks Dan that’s a great description of how evolutionists work.
Dan wrote: “Religion says the world was created in 6 days, science doesn’t care how many days it was made in. It simply tries to find how long it took.
---------------------As you reveal deep down everyone knows that the earth was “made”. “Out of the abundance of the heart a man speaks”
Dan wrote: “Then once it seems like there is evidence for something, religion changes it mind…..how convenient! The Earth was created in 6 days. Sure says religion for hundreds of years. Now that it is becoming obvious it wasn’t created in 6 days, religion tries to find mathematical ways to play with numbers to explain this! Oh each “day” was really a billion years long. Such nonsense! If the earth turned out to take literally 6 days to create you would be sitting here saying, oh oh look the bible got it exactly right.”
-----------------No, a day means a day. When the Bible says the world was created in 6 days, it means 6 literal 24 hour days. You “presumed” wrong!
Dan wrote: “The ONLY reason you know about the length of duration is because of science NOT because of religion. If you were to listen to religion we would all be thinking the Earth was created in 6 days.”
-------------------Well I know the Earth was created in six 24 hour literal days because God has revealed it to us in His Word. Which you’d do well to take the time to read.
Dan wrote: “Religion says, we have to prove a way in which we can defend this . HOW is that not making a presupposition?!”
--------------Yep that’s what the religion of evolution says.
Dan wrote: “Also the age of the universe, our moon, our own solar system, multiple stars around the universe is known by more than just C-14 Dating. I could list them and show you how there is evidence from multiple sources but what difference does it make? It is obvious all you want to do is say Christianity is right. If C-14 dating were proven 100% accurate, your response would be how do you know God didn’t slow down the decay rate of C-14? Or how do you know that God didn’t appear in the lab where the scientist was working and alter the machine where the lab tech was working.”
---------------------Stating that carbon 14 dating gives a proof for “the age of the universe, our moon, our own solar system, multiple stars around the universe” shows you know nothing about c14 dating. No intelligent evolutionist would even claim we could know the age of the these things by C14 dating http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
Dan wrote: “The point here is BIAS. YOU have bias.”
----------------------We are all biased, the question is what is the best bias to be biased with.
Dan wrote: “I don’t care how old the earth is, I don’t care how old the universe is,"
----------------So then you’ll be open to the fact that it was created in six literal 24 hour days.
Dan wrote “and I don’t care how long it took to create the earth.”
--------------but as you reveal deep down we all believe the earth was created. “Out of the abundance of his heart a man speaks.”
Dan wrote: “You on the other hand WANT the earth to be certain amount of years old.”
------------------The evolutionists want the earth to be certain amount of years old. But the Creationist take the Word of the One who Created it. It’s not a matter of wanting to know, it just is!
Dan wrote: “THAT is called being biased. Bias in a scientific trial is always removed as much as possible.”
--------------This is not true otherwise the bias that evolution is true would be removed.
Dan wrote: “ALL of the scientific evidence (besides Christians working in their basement specifically to find a they want to be true) points towards the earth being billions of years old.”
------------1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.
If you’re really open minded and unbiased then take the time to read the details of the above arguments http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Dan wrote: “You did say one important thing that I had to respond to. How can we trust our eyes in experiments if light traveled erratically? In science, an eye witness is (and let me make this clear) THE WORST evidence you can possible have. This is why we use instruments, experiments, laboratories, controlled environments, mathematics, etc. etc.”
-------------Scientist who don’t believe in evolution also use the same equipment. Ultimately it comes back to the human’s interpretation and his bias anyway.
Dan wrote: “These are all more accurate than human beings who have fear, need, wants and desires. We have optical illusions, or people who simply don’t have the knowledge of certain things. If you were alive 2000 years ago clearly your explanation of how an earthquake happened would be different than today. What about seeing the Northern Lights? Remind me again, what does religion rely solely on? Human beings from 2000 years ago. So not only do we have the problem of, did they actually see what they thought they saw, but we also have the problem of did the game of “telephone” translate all the information 100% accurately.”
-------------show me a list of evolutionists who were prepared to be fed to lions, hung on a pole and covered with oil then set alight, burnt at the stake, scourged to death, crucified, beheaded, when all they had to escape these horrible deaths was to deny evolution. But all the early Christian who’d seen the risen Jesus had to do to escape these horrible deaths is deny Christ. But not one of them did.
And then you have the inbuilt proof of detailed and accurate Bible prophecy revealing to us beyond any doubt that the Bible is of super natural origin. But you Dan are unwilling to consider the Bible’s claims because you are biased.
Dan wrote: “As for the last part...you really have to wonder why scientists would get mad when you repeatedly quote the bible? I'll start quoting the Flying Spaghetti Monster in every passage and we'll see if you guys think its frustrating.”
--------------Well the flying spaghetti monster is less stupid than the fairy tale of evolution and at least it’s not racist and doesn’t when used correctly lead to the slaughter of 6 million Jews, the starvation of millions under Stalin. Two World Wars (in a century of what was predicted to be a century of peace, because society had left Christianity, but turned out to be the most blood thirsty century ever). So if you quoted from the flying spaghetti monster then at least you might start making a little more sense.
What is the difference between 'operational' (or 'normal') science and 'origins' science?
- Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias
- Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science (from Who's really pushing 'bad science'?)
Isn't 'creationism' a belief system that has nothing to do with science? Don't science and religion deal with different areas?
- Argument: Creationism is religion, not science (from Refuting Evolution 2)
- Argument: Evolution is compatible with Christian religion (from Refuting Evolution 2)
- Argument: Evolution is true science, not 'just a theory' (from Refuting Evolution 2)
- Bias and faith
- The biblical origins of science (book review)
- 'But Genesis is not a science textbook'
- Culture Wars: Bacon vs Ham
- Dare to question the materialist high priests
- Evolution as Religion
- Evolution is Religion—Not Science (ICR Impact 332)
- Games some people play
- Testing God: Killing the Creator
- Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
- Who turned the world upside down?
- A look at some myths about scientists
Are there creationists who are scientists?
- Can creationists be scientists?
- The myth that Evolution is 'a science that's leading to cures'
- How evolution harms science
- It helps to think creation
- Railroad wants monkey off its back
- Standing upright for creation
- Evolution Is Not Based on Natural Laws (ICR Impact 397)
Is there scientific evidence that shows the Bible is true?
Posts
