Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4964
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?


Post by abelcainsbrother » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:36 pm

Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?

You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.

If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.

It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.

You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.

Prease exprain, talk genetics.

If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".
I have already told you and explained what normal variation means. I even told you what you need to do to know,but yet you did'nt. Why should I keep telling you? Read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" because he assumed life evolves based on variation,it was the very thing that caused him to believe life evolves and this is why it cannot be used for evidence life evolves today and yet it is as I've showed you. The salamanders I posted clearly shows normal variation in reproduction. And about mutations? You have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,you only have evidence that shows normal variation in reproduction. So we must go by the evidence and mutations does not cause life to evolve when all you have to show for evidence is normal variation in reproduction.

It must be demonstrated mutations causes life to evolve,we cannot assume they do based on normal variation in reproduction.If we did assume? We would be right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on normal variation and we cannot do that.

You cant answer the peekapoo / wolf question, you cannot answer anything about genetics, which is, after all, what gives variation. Genetics. But nothing on that from you. So you dont know what you are talking about when you say "natural variation". You just say it. Over and over. You didnt say if you think mutations are part of normal variation, just the same chant about Darwin and assumptions.

"Why should you keep telling me"? No need to, you've shown your hand.

"Why should you keep telling me?" "assumed life evolves based on variation"

You should not.
I dunno why you keep saying it over and over and over in every post. You should stop. Its not true, and its is not good to keep repeating falsehoods.

It is impossible to be a creationist such as yourself of any of the variants, and also be informed and honest.

Your post has two massive fails, the "variation" thing, and the "mutations causes life to evolve" thing that nobody claims and is as such a classic strawman fallacy.,
People who know what they are talking about dont need fallacies.

I think you at least make a moderate effort to be honest, but you sure are uninformed.
You have no evidence in evolution science that demonstrates mutations causes life to evolve
Mutations do not cause evolution, nobody says they do.
and that is very important,but you keep ignoring it,yet believing it by assuming they do.
It is very important that you attempt ;to understand evolution before saying it is wrong.
How can you be so scientifically smart and not know what "normal variation" means?
I was trying to get you to show if you undrestand it.
I understand it fine. If you understood it and could explain it, you could ansser the q about whether a pair of wolves could have a baby peekapoo. Or vice versa.

I post a link to you showing you that scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves like the salamanders using it for evidence for MACRO-evolution,not micro-evolution

Three problems:
-You posted a link to an article that you did not understand.
-it did not say what you think it says
-even if it did, one article about one salamander does not stand for all of
geology, biology, genetics, paleontolo gy etc. No more than David Karesh stood for all Christians.
You are assuming it is true based on being taught it,but overlooked the lack of evidence.
You have a habit of drifting too far from the shore, making statements of facts not in evidence, which is actually indistinguishable from making things up. In court, we call it perjury.

a) I am not "assuming" what you think, nor thinking it in any way shape or form.
Mutations does not cause evolution any more than a wheel causes a car to go.

b. You are making the false and insulting assumption that I think it is "true" because it is what I was taught. So, that I just soak up and believe as "true" (science does not do "true" btw) whatever I am told, no thinking, no understanding, no investigation?

One of your sycophants made the same deliberately offensive statement about me, also perjuring himself before such god as he may have.

c. There is no "lack of evidence" for evolution. There is tho, very obviously a lack of education on your part. It is not the same thing.

First off I'm not committing perjury. I'm going on what you've said. You said mutations causes life to evolve and when I point out you have no evidence? You claim I'm just making up things.Are you denying now you believe life evolves? Because you have made it clear you do believe life evolves,so how have you not believed what you were taught overlooking the lack of evidence?

I'm just going on what you have said and when confronted with it? It is an offensive statement? Even when you have made fun of how I write? I have not attacked you personally at all. All I've done is try to show you something about evolution.

The salamanders are used for evidence for MACRO-evolution,I give you a link and you claim it is just one person saying it,implying it don't matter because its not apart of Biology,Geology.Paleontology,etc? You dismiss it eventhough it is used for evidence for MACRO-evoluton in evolution science. I could post another link to prove it but you seem to not believe the links I post. They are wrong eventhough they are promoting and teaching evolution science.

Why do you take it personal that I don't accept evolution based on its own evidence and explain to you why you should'nt believe it and try to show you why? I even told you don't get mad at me because we disagree. I hope that I have helped you see the truth and oneday you will acknowledge it.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?


Post by Audie » Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:11 am

Three is no anger, nothing personal. So quit saying it.

I did not say mutations cause evolution. So quit saying I did.

Your opinion that there is "no evidence" is massively wrong. You might try "I have not seen it" or, "I do not understand it". You may not have seen Pago Pago, either. That is hardly a basis for saying it does not exist.

Stating opinions as fact is, in court, called perjury.

First you said it was PROOF, now you say the salamanders are used for EVIDENCE
for evolution. Which is it?

When are you going to explain whether a wolf could give birth to a peekapoo?
You keep dodging that.

When are you going to give me one fact contrary to ToE? You keep dodging that.

See, Ab, the way it works is that it is not enough to say you dont believe a theory, and cite your failure of diligence as proof. That has zero evidentiary value, it convinces nobody.

You have to come up with solid facts contrary to the theory.

Give it a try. Maybe when you realize that you cannot come up with anything at all,
you will begin, however slowly, to get the hint.

Post Reply