www.livingwaters.com

It's often said that creationism is a matter of faith, while evolution has scientific evidence. But this isn't true. Darwinian evolution doesn't pass the scientific test. It cannot be observed or tested. It is impossible to observe and test something that supposedly happened millions of years ago.

However, we can observe and test creation to see if it matches the biblical creation account.

Genesis says that every animal was created to bring forth after its own kind. Of the over one million different kinds of fish, birds, insects and animals (as well as human beings) each brings forth after its own kind. Nothing changes kinds, although there are many changes WITHIN kinds.

Changes within kinds is not Darwinian evolution (as Richard Dawkins likes to call it).

Genesis also says the God created male and female, and we see male and female in over one million different kinds of birds, fish, animals and insects, as well as in human beings.

Darwinian evolution necessitates blind faith. Creationism passes the scientific method. It can be observed and tested.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort5 5 February 2015 ·

vaxx:


The good thing about scientific theory is that it provide an avenue to falsified itself. that is why some scientist are not comfortable with evolution theory today. so do not also treat creationist ideology as scientific. if you must do so, you should also provide how it can be falsified like scientific theory.

OLAADEGBU:

Darwinian evolution necessitates blind faith. Creationism passes the scientific method. It can be observed and tested.

OLAADEGBU:
How the fine tuning of the universe points directly to God.

http://reasonsforjesus.com/how-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-points-directly-to-god/

budaatum:


I suggest you set up a crowdfund appeal. Your educating needs to be paid for.

Martinez19:


you mean yahweh?

MrMystrO:
Hahaha this guy! I will humbly suggest to you that you leave science alone Please. Stick to preaching your bible gospel message to people who are interested in it and stop meddling in affairs you Know NOTHING about, Honestly your attempts at trying to discredit science makes you look Extremely stupid and i don't want to believe you're that stupid because you should Know They Don't go Hand in Hand. Stick to What you Know!! I've told you before, if you want to dispute scientific facts, Start by throwing away your Phone and creating your own phone and internet which you and your kind can use But if you can't do that then Stop displaying your Ignorance here on a daily basis, Its getting extremely boring!

DoctorAlien:
Christians are not trying to discredit science.

www.nairaland.com/4113600/there-really-war-science

In fact, Christians practise science too, and have pioneered, and continue to pioneer researches in different areas of science.

Be properly informed. Don't be deceived by the efforts of evolutionists to paint Bible-believing Christians as anti-science.

DoctorAlien:


The kind of science that gave us phones and modern healthcare is observational science, which involves repeatable experiments. It is different from historical science, which deals with origins, and unrepeatable events such as molecules-to-man evolution.

Niflheim:
"that is why some scientist are not comfortable with evolution theory today."..................................Some? Like who? Can you mention their names?


But surely, if Evolution were a fraud, they would have presented their evidence and won a Nobel Prize by now?

But are you sure those scientists even know the definition of Evolution?

Most people who "claim" that Evolution does not add up can easily be classified into one of 3 groups...........................

1.Argument from Ignorance

2.Argument based on personal incredulity

3.Outright dishonesty(the truth will expose my pastor)

DoctorAlien:


The kind of science that gave us phones and modern healthcare is observational science, which involves repeatable experiments. It is different from historical science, which deals with origins, and unrepeatable events such as molecules-to-man evolution.

vaxx:
how can you justify the claim bible made concerning Joshua, that he ask God to stop the world for a day? am sure you know it is scientifically impossible

vaxx:
how can you justify the claim bible made concerning Joshua, that he ask God to stop the world for a day? am sure you know it is scientifically impossible

MrMystrO:


Please Enlighten me on what Radio carbon dating is, Because i do know that is the modern dating technique used for historical verification right now, So how is that not an observational and experimental science? Don't fool yourself anymore please.

DoctorAlien:


How I can justify it? The God who is able to create the universe is able to do anything.

But if the question is, "how did it happen?", I suggest you read the different answers already proposed to it by many people. They are there on the Internet.

vaxx:
All scientist evidence are base on observational principle,

in evolution theory for instance which you may consider an historical science.Thousands of human fossils were studied, researched were also carried on Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record.

In human genetics evidence were also observed on how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and that indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances of technology in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved. any science without observation is simply pseudoscience .... observational method is the bedrock of scientific findings.

DoctorAlien:


All the evidences for Biblical models are based on observational principles too. Bible-believing scientists observe what evolutionists observe too.



The fossils were studied and findings recorded. But the interpretations given to these findings are different, because starting assumptions are different. Perhaps to help you: have you observed how ready evolutionists are to interpret any new finding in such a way as to make it fit into the evolutionary model? Have you asked yourself why evolutionists may be ready to drop Natural Selection as the driving force of evolution and look for another mechanism, but are not ready to abandon evolution?



Relatedness of organisms can serve as evidence for a common Creator as much as it can serve as evidence for a common ancestor. Nay, I say that it serves better as an evidence for a common Creator than as an evidence for a common ancestor.

vaxx:
This is where the problem start, bible is not a scientific model, applying scientific techniques to justify biblical truth will amount to treating biblical evidence as scientific theory which can be upset or falsify at anytime..... how can you justify that God indeed stop the world for a day as bible indicate, can it be observed? how can you justify that first creation was truly Adam? can it be observed? any fossil of Adam to buttress your point? science and biblical evidence are two separate field that actually do not intertwined. biblical evidence is not dynamic ....it is meant to be so till eternity. how is it science?

Starting assumptions must be base on observational method that do not rely on any existing assumption that go against scientific principle, if the starting assumption is base on biblical assumption ,then it is not science anymore. bible itself is not a benchmark for science so why base the assumption on a wrong tools. natural selection is the major available evidence now, for any hypothesis to be consider , it must meet the theorem of scientific principle. if natural selection will be replaced today, the next mechanism will derived its assumption from basic observational findings which is the bedrock of science....science works with data and not tales or myths .

scientist may argue that common ancestor may not equate common creator ...... look at pig and hippopotamus ..... both are almost identical yet they live in different world, hippopotamus is more closer to whales genetically that pig....


relying on biblical evidence may not be too good for your reason, while science too may also not be enough since it has limitations.... why dont you just enjoy yourself and learn...... instead of trying to justify what already contradict themselves....

Starting assumptions must be base on observational method that do not rely on any existing assumption that go against scientific principle,

DoctorAlien:


Adam and Joshua's long day, as recorded in the Bible, cannot be observed today. And so is molecules-to-man evolution. Nobody saw any unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one billions of years ago.

I've created a topic on this before:
https://www.nairaland.com/4113600/there-really-war-science

DoctorAlien:


Vaxx, what is this scientific principle you're talking about?

vaxx:
False, an intelligence hypothesis had been made on how unicellular organism turned into multi cellular organism .... visit this page..... it explained better than i can do..... sooner or later, a theory will be established on it . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism#Hypotheses_for_origin..... Am not asking you about Adam or Joshua as historical figure, i am asking you, can you simply justify the claim made about them according to the bible scientifically? Joshua asking yhwh to stop the world for a day. and if probably you can justify Adam scientifically as the first man on earth? since you are treating bible as an observation evidence.

i will vist the link you posted

DoctorAlien:


You don't get it, do you?

I have not asked you to describe for me how a unicellular could turn into a multicellular one. You could come up with a very detailed description of how a unicellular organism could turn into a multicellular one, but that is not a proof that a unicellular organism turned into a multicellular one billions of years ago, since no one was there to observe it. Just like my coming up with a very detailed description of how my great grandfather could have drowned in my village stream does not mean that my great grandfather really drowned in my village stream(supposing that there is no one today who can tell anything about anything that happened during my grandfather's era)

That said, no one has ever even observed any unicellular organism turn into a multicellular one, nor do scientists even have a single convincing description of how that could have happened. Even the Wikipedia page you provided listed the myriad of mechanisms all proposed to explain how unicellular organisms could turn into multicellular ones, and of course with the various problems that face them.

vaxx:
Yes i do get you , science in general do not need to adopt superfluous proposition....natural event that happens today, yesterday, tomorrow or even in the next twenty minute is historical , observable and testable. if not the purpose of forensic science will be useless as no jury will be able to convict a criminal as the jury was not there personally to wittiness the crime.... and effort made to study the past natural event to prevent the damage effect of earthquake or volcanoes too on human will be useless.... relying on eye wittiness account only is very ridiculous ,illogical and it contradict science....

Do you need an eye wittiness account for DNA test? if DNA can tell you that you share a common ancestor with your 10th cousins, why do you think it is wrong when it suggests that we share common ancestors with our 1,000th or 10,000th cousins? Or else, why do you think it is necessary to know the biographies of these common ancestors to accept that they really existed? the description of how unicellular turn to multi cellular is not so compelling for now but the findings is yet to be totally falsified.

Science is capable of falsifying its own theory, you can see how the theory was able to state the problem of each hypothesis.... that is the beauty of science. ability to falsify itself.

vaxx:
Science is capable of falsifying its own theory, you can see how the theory was able to state the problem of each hypothesis.... that is the beauty of science. ability to falsify itself.

DoctorAlien:


Are you sure you're not alone in saying that this "evolutionary science" of yours is falsifiable?

"First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. The offspring of most living organisms, for example, are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands or even millions of years. Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they are by nature “unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.” Dobzhansky concludes that the “applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted.” Finally, evolutionist Paul Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution “cannot be refuted by any possible observations” and thus is “outside of empirical science.”

Here's the full quote:

"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." [Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, Sydney University). Nature, Apr 22,1967, p.352.]

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-theory-fact-or-law/

Before you inundate me with the "different ways in which evolution" could be falsified, I have one request to make: show me the very first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one.

By the way, here is an evolutionist, Paul Ehrlich agreeing that there is something called empirical science(aka operational science), as against historical science.