>>bwest said, "Read a bit more closely. On at least one occasion, probably more, I said that I have the utmost respect for those whose faith runs contrary to scientific findings. I include YECs, Biblical literalists, etc. in this category. However, inventing a phony science to prove the veracity of their faithful conclusions is a sign of weakness of faith.
When you speak of, "inventing a phony science," I must assume you are referring to the new-fangled Lyellian geology and Darwinian evolution, invented in the 1800's as a scheme to "free science from Moses":
"I am sure you may get into Q. R. what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the 'British Critic and Theological Review.' They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems. Eerussac has done nothing but believe in the universal ocean up to the chalk period till lately. Prevost has done a little, but is a diluvialist, a rare thing in France." [Letter to Poulett Scrope, Esq., 9 Crown Office Row, Temple, June 14, 1830, in Charles Lyell, "Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell Vol I." John Murray, 1881, Chap. XI, p.268]
Prior to the time of Lyell and Darwin, science progressed very well. Since that time, valuable time and resources have been wasted trying to prove Lyell and Darwin correct (e.g., trying to prove the unprovable,) rather than to promote the advancement of science.
Think about it! During the days of Einstein's heroes: Newton; Faraday and Maxwell; they, along with many other brilliant Christians sought to understand the mysteries of God in order to give Him glory. This is Newton from his book on Mathematics:
"The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.
"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Rider; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal. the Eternal of Israel the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where." [Isaac Newton, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, pp.504-505]
If evolutionists had performed like real scientists, and followed the scientific method, like Newton, they would have sought to falsify the works of Darwin and Lyell in the beginning (as some did,) rather than justify their theories in whatever way possible, even fraud. You seldom hear of that by the "establishment" these days, but fraud was rampant among evolutionists from the beginning. Evolution and old-earth "geology" was never about science, but "getting rid of God;" and Western Civilization has suffered the consequence, since. Speaking of fraud, have you ever heard of the Bathybius affair?
"The Bathybius affair was one of the first instances of false evidence being used to support Darwin's theory. It becomes clear that finding such evidence was of utmost importance to men like T.H. Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, and this clouded their judgment. When found out, Huxley admitted his error in 1875, but not whole-heartedly, leaving a measure of doubt in people's minds even in 1879. Haeckel continued to allow fictitious examples of 'Monera' to be used in textbooks for decades afterwards. The Duke of Argyll complained about such lack of integrity in science, that involved a failure to investigate properly, overconfident statements and attempted bullying of critics to gain their silence." [Andrew Sibley, "Bathybius Haeckelii and a 'Reign of Terror'." Journal of Creation, 23(1), 2009, p.123]
Many believe Haeckel's only offense was his fake Embryos (a fraud that even today some defend;) but he was rotten to the core. There has been a lot written in examination of his life, and the consequences for society.
******************
>>bwest said, "Those who choose to defend their faith-borne beliefs by touting the findings of “Creationism” necessarily subject themselves to the rigors of scientific method.
Are you for real? How about subjecting your religion -- evolutionism -- to the rigors of the scientific method? Try it and see what happens to you? I'll tell you what will happen. You will be mocked, ostracized, denied the right to publication, and, if you don't have tenure, will lose your career. If you do have tenure the Darwinian faithful will make your life miserable. The only difference between the tactics of the Inquisitions of the "scientific" orthodoxy of today, in the days of Darwin, and in the days of Galileo, is the method of punishment.
******************
>>bwest said, "If that’s what you consider belittling of faith, then so be it. I’m still right. I’m still a Christian."
Act like one.
******************
>>bwest said, "By the way, you do know that ToE does not address the origins of life, right?"
Baloney. Darwin, like many others in his day, believed in spontaneous generation. As aforementioned in the statement about the Bathybius affair, some deemed the origin-of-life to be important enough to seek evidence for it, a practice continuing until this day.
Mr. Kalamata
“>>bwest said, “By the way, you do know that ToE does not address the origins of life, right?”
Baloney. Darwin, like many others in his day, believed in spontaneous generation. As aforementioned in the statement about the Bathybius affair, some deemed the origin-of-life to be important enough to seek evidence for it, a practice continuing until this day.
Mr. Kalamata “
It seems there are Christians who try to bridge the gap between Evolution and the Bible by resorting to an Aristotolian notion of God (or the uncaused Cause) setting into motion in the matter universe all the intricate series of causes and effects, much of it planned which would lead up to the gradual development of man as we know him today. The atheists in control of the high ramparts of of “Evolution-ism”(/s) aren’t having it of course, snearing at such attempts as back-door creationism.
Guided Panspermia or the notions that Earth’s evolutionary path was high-jacked somehow by ancient aliens has become more acceptable with some subsets of atheist scientists. To them, the possibility of interference in Earth’s genomic envelope answers some of the questions very neatly,I might add, that evolution theory would otherwise fall into disarray over. The whole “answer to God” business is thus neatly side stepped and they can continue on with their fashionably bigoted, wine and brie seminar sneers of the religious minded-/s. (of course then you have to question the origin of life of the ancient aliens who so seeded the Earth with panspermic life....but such a turn of questioning is often “tut-tutted” and cut short.)
I’ve been aware all my sentient life of the implicit anti-mosaic bias of many of the so called media savvy “scientists and the science writer pundit wannabe types”. Their whole modus operandi is exposed and derided in Psalms 2. Psalms 2 is actually a very good reference to put forth in this discussion in light of the postings you have shared and highlighted with me.
“Why do the nations so furiously rage together, why do the peoples imagine a vain thing? The kings of the Earth rise up; their rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his anointed saying let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their yokes from us!...Then He that dwelleth in Heaven shall laugh them to scorn, The Lord shall have them in derision, he shall dash them in pieces like a potters vessel...!
Mr. Mathis(well since we are using formal titles...)
PS. Berean is Believin’
Kalamata:
"If evolutionists had performed like real scientists, and followed the scientific method, like Newton, they would have sought to falsify the works of Darwin and Lyell in the beginning (as some did,) rather than justify their theories in whatever way possible, even fraud.
You seldom hear of that by the "establishment" these days, but fraud was rampant among evolutionists from the beginning." The fact is that over the past 150+ years many new ideas have been added to Darwin's basic evolution theory, but the theory itself has never been falsified.
Here is a list of evolution predictions later confirmed.
Here is a listing of "9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False" 
- Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
- Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong
The article falsely claims the famous Archaeopteryx fossil is a fraud, but there are 11 such fossils found so far plus many more similar in China and nobody has claimed they are all frauds.
So the anti-evolution case depends on lies.
- Scientific Fact No. 3 - Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches
- Scientific Fact No. 4 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
- Scientific Fact No. 5 - Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong
- Scientific Fact No. 6 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
- Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
- Scientific Fact No. 8 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
- Scientific Fact No. 9 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
In fact, none of these "prove" anything about Darwin's basic evolution theory -- 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection, long term, produce new species.
Even Danny Denier Kalamata, for all his boisterous claims, admits that the alleged "species barrier" is no real barrier at all and the supposedly "inviolable barriers" begin at the "Family" (aka "kind") taxonomic category.
Well, a lot of evolution happens before a population reaches the alleged "family barrier".
Kalamata's response: "that's not evolution".
But it is.
Here is a listing of facts which, if true, would actually falsify evolution.
This site lists several noteworthy frauds -- Piltdown, Haeckel, Nebraska & Protsch implying these represent the full body of scientific work on evolution over 150+ years.
In fact they represent only an infinitesimal fraction of it and even this site (eventually) concludes:
"Evolutionists are quick to point out that this is how science works—that it is self-correcting.
And there is a great deal of truth to that statement.
However, one must question how such scientists can continue to support evolution being taught as “fact,” knowing that much of what we believe to be true today will have to be “self-corrected” in the future."
Long-term evolution should never be taught as "fact" since it's a theory, a confirmed explanation, based on literal mountains of facts.
Short-term evolution, aka "adaptation" or "micro-evolution"
is observed fact, Kalamata's "heroic" efforts to define it away notwithstanding.
![]()