Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Evidence for God from Science

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



Hi! Jagoe here. I've decided to create this article because Mister Deem's page is no close to Answers in Genesis. By one part, he actually understands thermodynamics and cell biology, so his arguments against a naturalistic development of the world are harder to counterargue and are at least, better researched. Due to the aforementioned reason, the site makes new, more interesting "fine tuning" arguments. Finally, Old-Earth Creationists aren't commented about as much as Young-Earth Creationists.--Jagoe (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to RW! I haven't seen too many refutations of old Earth creationism, so this page could be interesting. Certainly, it is more rational than young earth creationism, but that isn't saying much. --Samstr (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to the "fine-tuning argument" for example, Rich Deem defends that lightning is necessary to produce nitric oxide, which many organisms need to live.[1] He's right, but a mere Wikipedia search reveals that internal combustion engines yield 230% more nitric oxide than lightnings. However, what's the point of needing lightnings when cyanobacteria can use nitrogenase? This enzyme simply reduces atmospheric N2 into ammonia. Biological sources do it much better, since lightnings only perform 8% of the nitrogen fixation at best.[2][3] But setting science aside however, any layman can point out that, if everything acts accordingly to God's plan, then he could have figured out a way to make lightnings fall on uninhabitated land. --Jagoe (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Day-age interpretation problems[edit]

Deem gives a day-age interpretation of the Genesis creation myth. I'll soon put what are the problems with it by writting them side-by-side, along with pointing out where he is being dishonest.[1] --Jagoe (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Update. I'll be short of time for some period. Help with this article would be greatly appreciated. --Jagoe (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References are on the way[edit]

Sorry for adding so much text without backing it up, but thanks to RW I just came across with the appropriate term (cargo cult science) that defines this website. EFGFS looks serious when it goes back to Hebrew etymologies to back up its claims, but on second thought you realize how absurdly "liberal" this interpretations are. They truly deserve their own section, like a small, a short side-by-side rebuttal, in this article. They will be added this month eventually. --Jagoe (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)