Zone1 Science Confirms Biblical Creation

[onefour1]

Here is a video that shows science is not against what is in the Bible but confirms it.

 

[onefour1]

1hr and 9min video and the thumbs down came within a minute or so of posting. Obviously didn't watch the video.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This has been known for years. Many years. It's not not admitted. This personal discovery is part of what convinced me to turn to Christianity.

 

[alang1216]

Here is a video that shows science is not against what is in the Bible but confirms it.

Wrong. A quick scan tells me this is a rehash of debunked theories. Just about every science confirms evolution. Simple, end of story.

 

[onefour1]

Wrong. A quick scan tells me this is a rehash of debunked theories. Just about every science confirms evolution. Simple, end of story.

So... science is wrong now?

 

[Blues Man]

So... science is wrong now?

Where has it been proven that the god depicted in the Old Testament actually exists?

 

[alang1216]

So... science is wrong now?

You're free to call religion whatever you want but it is NOT science. A good example is 'kind', there is no scientific equivalent to his term.

 

[onefour1]

You're free to call religion whatever you want but it is NOT science. A good example is 'kind', there is no scientific equivalent to his term.

The scientific word for "kind" is "species". See the first definition in the Webster's Dictionary entry below:

species​

noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In

spe·cies | \ ˈspē-(ˌ)shēz , -(ˌ)sēz \
plural species

Definition of species​

(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: KIND, SORT
b: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common namespecifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive classconfessing sins in species and in number
c: the human race : human beings —often used with thesurvival of the species in the nuclear age
d(1): a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
(2): an individual or kind belonging to a biological species
e: a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion
2: the consecrated eucharistic elements of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Eucharist
3a: a mental imagealso : a sensible object
b: an object of thought correlative with a natural object

 

[onefour1]

Where has it been proven that the god depicted in the Old Testament actually exists?

Nobody is claiming that the video offers absolute proof of God. the claim is that science is aligning more with what is taught in the Bible than what Evolutionists claim.

 

[alang1216]

The scientific word for "kind" is "species". See the first definition in the Webster's Dictionary entry below:

Not a universally accepted equation among creationists but is so, are lions and tigers the same kind? Science says they are separate species, what say you?

 

[onefour1]

Not a universally accepted equation among creationists but is so, are lions and tigers the same kind? Science says they are separate species, what say you?

The video does make a distinction between "kind" and "species" but basically "species" are "kinds". Lions and Tigers are both cats. In this way they are both the same kind. In the video it mentions that scientists use the idea of not being able to procreate between species. Obviously Lions and Tigers have had offspring known as Ligers. I am not a scientist and am not completely familiar with the detailed definitions that scientists place upon the word, "species". From a basic standpoint, Lions and Tigers are both cats and in that way they are of the same kind, however, there may be some technical differences to scientists that make a distinction in the word, "species" that doesn't make them the same. But as I pointed out Lions and Tigers have bred Ligers and have been known to interbreed.

 

[alang1216]

The video does make a distinction between "kind" and "species" but basically "species" are "kinds". Lions and Tigers are both cats. In this way they are both the same kind. In the video it mentions that scientists use the idea of not being able to procreate between species. Obviously Lions and Tigers have had offspring known as Ligers. I am not a scientist and am not completely familiar with the detailed definitions that scientists place upon the word, "species". From a basic standpoint, Lions and Tigers are both cats and in that way they are of the same kind, however, there may be some technical differences to scientists that make a distinction in the word, "species" that doesn't make them the same. But as I pointed out Lions and Tigers have bred Ligers and have been known to interbreed.

Lions and Tigers are both the same kind, so to you they, are the same species? I don't think any biologist would agree. I think your "kind" is really a scientific 'family'.

Lions and Tigers can produce fertile offspring, horses and donkeys can interbreed but will not produce fertile offspring. Are they the same kind and the same species?

 

[onefour1]

Lions and Tigers are both the same kind, so to you they, are the same species? I don't think any biologist would agree. I think your "kind" is really a scientific 'family'.

Lions and Tigers can produce fertile offspring, horses and donkeys can interbreed but will not produce fertile offspring. Are they the same kind and the same species?

I know you want to argue over semantics about the definition of "species" or "kind". As I have shown you, Webster's and other dictionaries do define the word, "species", by using the word, "kind". So, in a general sense they are quite similar. However, on a technical scientific definition of "species" they may vary in some degree from how Christians interpret the word, "kind" as used in the Bible. Basically they are the same except for some of these technical definitions. So give me you definition of "species" which would show the difference between Lions and Tigers even though they are both cats and can interbreed. What makes them a different species? From my perspective, if they are both cats, and can interbreed, then they are the same kind. In a general sense, they are the same species but I am sure that some scientists have found a difference that they consider them to be separate species. Explain to me what that difference is, please.

 

[onefour1]

Here is an article trying to explain the difference:

Are Lion and Tigers the Same Species?

Basically because in most cases their offspring are infertile they consider them different species. According to the articel, they are both of the same genus (Panthera), and family (Felidae). So now technically if their offspring cannot breed, they are considered different species. To me this shows that they are basically the same kind, ie A Cat. However, some technical definitions make them different species.

In the video, the speaker tell of how some mosquitos, because of a loss of genetic information were unable to breed with regular mosquitoes and therefore were considered a different species even though they were still mosquitoes. This is the same argument and it is all likely due to a loss of genetic information over time and they are still of the same kind or family or genus. They are cats.

 

[alang1216]

I know you want to argue over semantics about the definition of "species" or "kind". As I have shown you, Webster's and other dictionaries do define the word, "species", by using the word, "kind". So, in a general sense they are quite similar. However, on a technical scientific definition of "species" they may vary in some degree from how Christians interpret the word, "kind" as used in the Bible.

I think you're exactly right. Though in general usage they are synonyms, scientifically 'kind' has no place. Here is a case where science and theology do not agree.

Basically they are the same except for some of these technical definitions. So give me you definition of "species" which would show the difference between Lions and Tigers even though they are both cats and can interbreed. What makes them a different species? From my perspective, if they are both cats, and can interbreed, then they are the same kind. In a general sense, they are the same species but I am sure that some scientists have found a difference that they consider them to be separate species. Explain to me what that difference is, please.

Species do not generally interbreed with other species, if they do they are the same species. Lions and tigers occupy different habitats and have different mating rituals. They will mate only under extraordinary circumstances. Their populations have only been separated for a short time (geologically speaking) so their genes are still similar enough to produce fertile offspring. Horses and donkeys have been isolated long enough that their genes are sufficiently different they do not produce fertile offspring. Humans and chimps have been separated long enough that they are unable to mate and give birth.

Regardless of the technical minutia, what is generally accepted by science is that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Every 'kind' and every species have a common ancestor.

 

[onefour1]

The man in the video argues that if most life forms we know today originated from a bacteria then that bacteria would have experience a gain of information to create things that are not present in the bacteria DNA information. However, notable scientists have shown that there is no increase in information in DNA through the process of procreation. A living organism inherits information from the two parents of that organism and receive no new information to their DNA. They can lose information but cannot increase in information. So for a bacteria to to suddenly grow eyes or noses etc, they would need to gain information. But the science is saying that there is no gain of information in the process. So it disproves evolution to a different kind. Mutations are possible through a loss of information and this how we get differing breeds and sometimes new species according to science but there is no gain of information to allow evolution to a different kind. Mutations within the kinds are limited to that specific kind due to lack of information and not an increase of information. This is the argument the man in the video is making. Thus he argues that current science tends to bolster the creation argument over the evolution argument. I know that very vocal people in the field of science have proclaimed that evolution is to be generally accepted but it goes against already established scientific laws. As far as I know, evolution has never made it out of the realm of theory. Here are some articles that argue that evolution breaks already established laws of science.

Is Evolution a Science​

Reasons Why Evolution Is False​

How Does Evolution Work​

The Contradiction of Evolution and Death​

I believe the arguments made in the video and these links are valid and show that evolution is not really good science and our information stored in our DNA does not get added to to produce a differing kind. Scientists have been known to be wrong at times and I think in the case of evolution I think they are.

 

[alang1216]

The man in the video argues that if most life forms we know today originated from a bacteria then that bacteria would have experience a gain of information to create things that are not present in the bacteria DNA information. However, notable scientists have shown that there is no increase in information in DNA through the process of procreation. A living organism inherits information from the two parents of that organism and receive no new information to their DNA. They can lose information but cannot increase in information.

That whole premise is a fallacy. It is well known that bacteria can incorporate DNA from other bacteria species into their own genes. They can gain DNA from viruses too.

So for a bacteria to to suddenly grow eyes or noses etc, they would need to gain information.

That's not how evolution works. To grow eyes organisms repurposed existing structures.

Mutations are possible through a loss of information and this how we get differing breeds and sometimes new species according to science but there is no gain of information to allow evolution to a different kind. Mutations within the kinds are limited to that specific kind due to lack of information and not an increase of information.

Another fallacy. If a mistake is made in the copying of DNA during reproduction, entirely new functions are possible. Those mistakes include duplication of genes ore transcribing of sequences. Both are new information. This is not speculation, it has been demonstrated in the lab.

This is the argument the man in the video is making. Thus he argues that current science tends to bolster the creation argument over the evolution argument. I know that very vocal people in the field of science have proclaimed that evolution is to be generally accepted but it goes against already established scientific laws. As far as I know, evolution has never made it out of the realm of theory.

Gravity is a theory.

 

[Hollie]

Here is a video that shows science is not against what is in the Bible but confirms it.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Jason Lisle actually has a PhD in astrophysics (not just a diploma mill degree), and he has actually published scientific papers in astrophysics. You’d never have guessed from the drivel that flows from his pen and mouth. He currently works full time for Answers in Genesis (AiG). He is a master of the Ham Hightail, is one of the most central defenders of Young Earth Creationism alive, has deployed every creationist canard in the book, and boosts his points by appeal to epistemic relativism – in his writings you’ll find nuggets like this (long quote, but has to be given in full):

“Our worldview is a bit like mental glasses. It affects the way we view things. In the same way that a person wearing red glasses sees red everywhere, a person wearing “evolution” glasses sees evolution everywhere. The world is not really red everywhere, nor is there evolution everywhere, but glasses do affect our perception of the world and the conclusions we draw. We will find in [his book “The Ultimate Proof of Creation"] that the Bible is a bit like corrective lenses. Without "biblical glasses," the world appears fuzzy and unclear. But when our thinking is based on the Bible, the world snaps into focus: it makes sense […] evolutionists "see" the world differently than creationists. We have the same facts. But what we make of those facts is colored by our worldview. Thus, creationists and evolutionists interpret the same facts differently.”


So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.


Now Lisle is probably an intelligent guy in some respects (though his abilities are severely compartmentalized), and he is a good speaker who sometimes manage to hide the fact that all his claims are based on assuming (not providing evidence for) the inerrancy of the Bible, and then shoehorning (by twisting to the unrecognizable) other observations to fit that premise (he has to deny some substantial ones, such as relativity). But logic just isn’t his strong side. This hilariously ignorant rant has several times been given as a spot-the-fallacies exercise to critical thinking intro students (it is also discussed here). He has, oblivious to the fact that he wouldn’t recognize a sound argument if it hit him in the head, claimed that the existence of logic proves creation.


Fortunately he also expends energy attacking Old Earth Creationists. His book “Old Earth Creationism on Trial” (with Tim Chaffey) deals with the fallacies of OEC. As usual, Lisle is at pains to recommend keeping an open mind: “All ideas and theories should be subjected to rigorous self-examination, yet a similar self-critique is long overdue from the old-Earth creationists”. And follows it (many pages later) with: “Since the Bible undisputedly teaches a young earth, when someone claims that scientific evidence proves otherwise, we can be certain they are mistaken.” He doesn’t even begin to see the tension between these two claims. A discussion pointing out the most hilarious bits can be found here.


As a fitting conclusion, let’s bring on this quote (from an online debate): “I said I believe that to end the terrorist attacks, you need to kill ALL MUSLIMS. Which part of that was “cryptic” to you? Which one of those two words did you misunderstand?”



Diagnosis: Confirmation bias run wild – über-crank Lisle is apparently blissfully unaware of the fact that he has made an art of arguing in circles. He is pretty vocal but important mostly as the scientific alibi of Ken Ham’s gang (and what an alibi).

 

[badbob85037]

Wrong. A quick scan tells me this is a rehash of debunked theories. Just about every science confirms evolution. Simple, end of story.

You clowns crack me up. You think you are above God Never giving back to the country that gave you your freedom you have never cried yourself to sleep sucking the bottom of a muddy hole. Try it some time. It will restore your faith.

 

[alang1216]

You clowns crack me up. You think you are above God Never giving back to the country that gave you your freedom you have never cried yourself to sleep sucking the bottom of a muddy hole. Try it some time. It will restore your faith.

You know what cracks me up? People who believe God created this world but close their eyes as to how He actually did it. I'd think they would want to understand God for themselves and not have to depend on what others tell them.