There will always be niche communities, always be proponents that global warming is fake, always be proponents that the earth is flat. It's no different to me. My job isn't to seek and vet. My job isn't to spend my life trying to find every damn article about every little angle about every little thing that could be true or could be false. That's impossible.

Don't try to convince me I am just "majority bias". The vast majority of active research in science, you will find, are hotly debated. I have already said that if something in science has such profound, near ubiquitous consensus to be given the honor of being called a THEORY, then its well worth its merit, because something like this is incredibly difficult to achieve in such a hostile environment.

And yes, the multitude of studies do support evolution. Those little niche words? They are built off the founding principles of evolutionary biology. They are using it. Even a slight mention of it means they acknowledge and respect it.

A quick peruse through the "Journal of Creation" makes it seem to me that none of these "scholars" are actually conducting research, and rather content to pick apart at the flaws in recent studies, then make vague references to Genesis. Of course, I could be missing something, but this isn't research, its just pseudo-scientific blabber. Probably no suprise I did not encounter it on google scholar.

https://creation.com/valley-of-fire-nevada

"Figure 1. Valley of Fire State Park, Nevada. The red/orange colouring is due to iron minerals within the sandstone. The rocks were deposited during Noah’s Flood as the floodwaters were rising. The landscape was uplifted, faulted, and eroded in the second half of the Flood as the floodwaters were receding. The angular lines in the outcrop in the foreground are large-scale cross beds formed by the catastrophic water flows depositing the sand during the Flood."

"The first step is to find out what mainstream geologists have reported about the site. Then it is a matter of reinterpreting the geology within a biblical perspective, which can be done initially by applying an interpretation chart (or table). There is a good chart in the article about Wilpena Pound, Australia, which allows a preliminary reinterpretation of the mainstream geological information."

I'm going to give you a hint, when you're taking scientific information, and reinterpreting it to fit your worldview or agenda, it isn't science anymore. We have a term for what it is, maybe you've heard of it. It's called propaganda.

"I Googled Valley of Fire and found an article on Wikipedia.1 Although Wikipedia is not the most soundly based source and is written from a long-age evolutionary perspective, it is a helpful first stop and can give useful leads for further investigation. Google will allow you to find many other helpful articles too."

Scientific articles also certainly don't quote Wikipedia at me. They get quoted by Wikipedia, not the other way around.

The people writing for this site aren't scientists, they're people trying to make their religious views sound scientific, so that they are accepted by people who have a very simple understanding of the scientific method and don't realize how unscientific their postings are.

You mention that creationists are a small minority among scientists. This is true, but they're not even that when it comes to the scientists who are actually advancing their field of study. Virtually none of the worlds most prestigious scientists that are advancing their respective fields are creationists.

Edited 2/7/2020 02:44:00

https://creation.com/journal-of-creation-articles is what LND was referring to.

But the article nauz linked gave me a really good laugh for many of the same reasons he mentioned.

Also this:

"In fact, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey, American scientists are about half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher, universal power. Still, the survey found that the percentage of scientists that believe in some form of a deity or power was higher than you may think — 51 percent."

So 102% of non-scientific americans believe in God or a higher power. Nice.

Edited 2/7/2020 02:55:38

Also a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal usually costs thousands of dollars to publish in ... and not to mention don't ask for donations... and don't typically have an outward lying face towards the general public.

Let's take a look at one: The journal of hydrometeorology.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/journals/journal-of-hydrometeorology/

and an example volume:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/toc/hydr/19/12

Notice, no flairs or fancy titles, just RESEARCH. They have no intention on having any sort of layperson view this. Their audience is peer to peer. Expert to expert. This is a caucuss of discussion and debate. This is what you should be learning to look for (also the textbooks written by the most well-known of them) when you wish to find truly rigorous science.

Edited 2/7/2020 03:26:02

I will once again reiterate: Science should NOT be used to prove or disprove any religion. Science acts independently of religion and neither should be mixed with the other.

Okay, I'll use logic to refute god. Your god is almighty and overseer right?
If your answer is a big 'yes' then I can derive that any religion he makes must be flawless. By flawless I mean that there should not be a single defect or weakness in this so called god's religion.
Can you name a religion without any kind of frailty or weakness?

If your answer was 'no' then I'm afraid that either your god doesn't exist or he exists and is very lackadaisical to create a flawless religion.

the scientific method CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be used to prove anything

@marcus, it has now turned into a religion debate I guess.

give me a reason to not believe in the Bible and creation? there is over 25,000 manuscripts of The Old Testament and New Testament.

the most ever.

the second most ever is like 5,000


500 people saw Him after he arose. It was basically impossible to get 500 people to lie all about that back then.

Repeat any single one of the miracles mentioned in the Bible right before my eyes and I will convert.

how many of thise "manuscripts" is from before lets say 400 ad?

@ganymedes What's your definition of a flawless religion?

@Marcus Well we can't exactly do this over the internet. I've personally seen an old woman be able to lift her arm over her head after prayer when she wasn't able to before, along with other things. The biggest miracle is the fact that God forgave me from my sins.
Luke 16:30-31 - "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"
Matthew 16:4 - "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah." And He left them and went away.

@Njord https://www.bibletranslation.ws/manu.html Here's a table of those for the New Testament.
https://www.icr.org/bible-manuscripts
"The New Testament was written in first century A.D. There are some 25,000 early manuscripts in existence, almost 6,000 of which (many being only recognizable fragments) are Greek texts and the others being early translations of the Greek New Testament. The earliest textual evidence we have was copied not long after the original.
There are many more writings of the Church Fathers quoting sections of Scripture; we could reconstruct the entire New Testament from their writings alone. There were millions of man-hours spent in cross-checking the manuscripts. There remains only 1 percent of all New Testament words about which questions still exist; no questionable passage contradicts any Bible teaching.
The Old Testament has been more accurately transmitted to us than any other ancient writing of comparable age. The textual evidence is greater for both the Old and New Testaments than any other historically reliable ancient document. The ancient scribes were very meticulous. There were only 1,200 variant readings in A.D. 500.
The quotations from pre-Christian writing confirm the text. The New Testament accepts the Old Testament as authentic, confirming the traditional authors, quoting from at least 320 different passages, and confirming the supernatural events cited in the Old Testament."

I'd like to know if you'd question the validity of all the other historical books in existence too, because the bible has significantly more manuscripts.

i will surely question the validity very much of all historical accounts were the first fragments is from over a hundred years after the event. so yes...... historical documents are very unsure to say the least.... and many of thise does not even have supranatural events in them, still i would really take it whit a grain of salt what they are saying.

But the point is more that the 25000 is an obviously dishonest nummer....most of thise are over a 1000 years after the time they are describing and are clearly copy´s.... to give them any wheight at all is bonkers.... really giving even 200 years after decibstions is bonkers.

jjust because something has many copies does not make the claim in them any more true i hope you know that?

Edited 2/7/2020 16:32:50

the scientific method CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be used to prove anything

You think that all science has been doing this whole time is jerking off when they use this?

The scientific method is a tool used to constrain. It's designed such that it forces us to ask very specific, concrete, questions that can be shown experimentally to be true or false.

As a pretty simple example: Will spheres A and B, with same size and shape but separate masses, dropped simultaneously from height x from Earth surface, reach the ground at the same time?

This is straightforward. It's easy for mankind to get extremely close to the constraints of this problem. If I were to, persay run an experiment with a nearly ideal ball A and ball B, and drop them at nearly 10.00 m off the ground, say 100 times, could I not give you, with high confidence, what the result of said experiment is?

Sure, I can never get 100% proof because there will always be some imperfections and approximations in what we do, but sure as hell we can get really really really really really really damn close.

Also, a good scientist never assumed evolution was true. They look skeptically at reputable sources to come to this conclusion.

And yes, 1000s of studies have looked at biological evolution as their SUBJECT.

@Aura, I am not a scientist and do not plan to become one.

@Marcus, I cant do that. God doesn't just give his powers off to a random person like me

Of course more copies doesn't make something true. I'll just reply with some verses, since there's no real point in arguing with you.
John 7:17 - "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." - Jesus
Acts 5:34-39 - But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."

Consider the time period Christianity was founded... what profit was there for the apostles and the rest of the disciples for inventing such a story? Just to be killed for their faith? Why would so many people convert in a short period of time to an illegal religion which defied Roman authority and Jewish tradition? I believe it was a mistake to make Christianity the state religion of Rome (and any other nation for that matter), because real Christianity thrives best in persecution.

Edited 2/8/2020 04:54:53

[REDACTED]

Edited 2/9/2020 01:49:34

@ganymedes What's your definition of a flawless religion?

Flawless religion: A religion that doesn't have a single criticism against it or at least gives satisfactory answers to criticisms. And the religion should not have undergone any reformation.

every religion has incomplete answers. there is no flawless religion

every religion has incomplete answers. there is no flawless religion

There, that's what I'm trying to say. There is no religion that gives any complete or satisfactory answer.

If there was a god and he really made a religion then it would be totally flawless, cause this hypothetical god would know what is gonna happen in the future. And he would make a religion that no one will be able to question.

Edited 2/8/2020 15:40:34

"every religion has incomplete answers. there is no flawless religion"

I think this is evidence that religion is a human creation.

Edited 2/8/2020 18:55:38