|
|
|
|
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 26 | |
| | Creation vs EvolutionPage 2 of 156 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41) | you equate me with the flat earth society?
Did you not read any of the links from :
home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
??
The comparison to FES is from a long list of de-bunked arguments offered up by creationists, from page after page containing many long lists of examples of mis-quoting, rhetorical semantics, and other gambits employed by those that seek to place religion based pseudo-science and science as equals in the context of science.
that website is incredibly accurate.
This site and others like it, are the subject of hundreds of pages that say otherwise, that also provide SPECIFIC examples of systemic innaccuracies that clearly illustrate the logical fallacies and dishonest practices that these anti-science sites base their conclusions on.
Do a google search on "logical fallacy" and creationism, .....see what this search yeilds in the 5,230 "hits", and then ask, "who doesn't want to have an 'honest interllectual(sic)' debate.
did not appreciate your sarcasm whatsoever.
I was NOT being sarcastic, nor do I "believe" there is any principled difference with this reference, NOR with the list of questions that still remains ignored, and unanswered.
For example, you offered this:
This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on.
Implying that science is a religion (your "belief" in this does not make it so), to equate "close-mindedness" is no different to me than saying that particle physics is invalid because it choses not to include the deductive process of "eenie, meenie, minee, moe."
how childish.
Hmmmm.... the ad hominum fallacy, ....how predictable.
you obviously dont want to have an honest interllectual(sic) debate but would rather chide others beliefs and simply refute what they say by purely by claiming ignorance.
No, my comparisons in rebuttal were consistant with the premise you built, in simply claiming that: science is invalid because it ignores pseudo-science, or by painting science as a "faith", shows that you refuse to accept the possibility that others hold evidence-based views on the subject.
it is also evident that you did not read ANY of the links on that page.......did you read anything on that page whatsoever? i doubt it.
I checked out many pages on that site, and found nothing that isn't already adequetly de-bunked.
Evident?
No, completely inaccurate.
Read this article. Its around 3 pages.
I see no "honest debate" here, ...... just conspiracy theory, mis-quotes, and the refusal "to accept the possibility that others hold evidence-based views on the subject". I also noticed that I could not find one page on this site that wasn't shilling it's books and magazine.
Read these pages:
brightline.typepad.com/law_evolution_science_and/
pandasthumb.org/
antievolution.org/topics/faces.html
talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
skepticnews.com/2005/01/law_evolution_s.html
Most importantly:
literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
(and please note the correct way to post URLs on these Fora)
How many links on youre page are to bad christian arguements?
home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
This page was a specific response to the page YOU keep citing, how is it not relevant?
there have been countless evolution hoaxes too. you want me to pull them out? doesnt refute anything just muddies the waters.
Yet, these hoaxes are refuted and condemned by evolutionary scientists, .....I see no similar process happening in the pseudo-science camp. The cite you reference is a gold mine of logical fallacy.
For example:
bobturf.org/aig.html
And several other critiques on answeringenesis:
The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
unless it complies with the Bible. Their priority is not science and the
scientific method, but upholding the authority of the Bible. Yet they
present themselves as scientific. That is wrong.
First of all, it isn't a Christian apologetic site.
It's a creationist site, the avowed purpose of which is to debunk
evolution and promote the YEC agenda. The tone is arrogant, the claims
are specious, the "science" is bogus, the arguments are fallacious and
the goal is obvious.
AIG resorts to distortion, misrepresentation and outright lies to
promote the creationist agenda. Even the site name is a sham. They
aren't there to provide any real answers.
.......... Yet I'm "childish" if I accept your cite at face value as being honest, when clearly it is not? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 7:12:22 AM | | Late, I did not read your entire post above but you clearly listen to and care about Peter's comments. I have to say that I think that is really sweet to see two men engaged in the thoughtful exchange of ideas. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 7:25:20 AM | Well I am not looking at why Evolution maybe erroneous, they are lots of threads for that.
We can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that we don’t like
We can replace the word 'science' with 'religion' and it is just as true.
I am wondering what the basis is for Creation? Seems Evolution, although flawed, at least has a few potent points going for it. However the concept of Creation does not have enough to even be called a Hypothesis. Yet some want it taught in school with the same weight as reading, writing and arithmetic. Why?
All I get is what is wrong with evolution. I find more "proof" to support ideas that Aliens designed the Human race.
http://www.salemctr.com/newage/center31.html
If we need an alternative to evolution maybe that would be a better choice then a mythical creation.
So where's the Beef?
Show me the money!
How does Creation belong any where but Sunday School? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 7:50:52 AM | Science has this new thing called quantum physics which seems to disprove many laws and place doubt on many things that it once considered unquestionably correct. I think this shows that science does not attach itself to this statement.
We can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that we don’t like
However I do think that some religions could attach to this statement:
We can just define the bible to exclude everything that we don't like.
Creationism certainly belongs in mythological studies and should be part of the classroom.
Would you put your young child in a garden and expect him or her to stay away from the apple tree simply because you ask or warn him or her to do so? Surely God knew our nature better than that. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 8:01:12 AM | indeed, the link was a creationist site. and was not yours an evolutionist one? i still dont understand how that makes it wrong. i did look at some of the links and even before i was well aware many creationists misquoted things out of ignorance which is one of my own pet peeves. but is not this simply a straw man tactic? there are hundreds of articles on evolutionist misquotes, falsified information, hoaxes etc as well. piltdown man, nebraska man, the gil slit drawings, whale leg bones (ahahahaha) 'vestigal organs' such as the talebone and apendix, both of which do in fact provide important functions. all that does is muddies the waters as i said before. i maintain that the science on that site is incredibly accurate. arrogant? why b/c they believe something different than the norm? is it not you that claimed evolution is fact? christianity has no qualms with science. in fact, christians were the first scientists! but once again, i maintain that evolution is NOT science. that which is observable, repeatable. recreate the big bang for me why dont you? (i realize this has more to do with abiogenesis but the two in many cases do overlap, that is evolution and abiogenesis. it happened in the past, we can only theorize, but once again, this is beyond the realms of science. science deals with the present.
Creationist model:
Biblical creationists believe that God created the world in 6 literal days. He created different 'kinds' each taking after its own 'kind'. According to the bible there was a worldwide flood. The flood is very plausible, every ancient culture has a the 'myth' of a huge catastrophic flood in their background. The grand canyon no doubt was carved out quickly just as the stream below mt. saint helens was. the giant causeways in ireland, the hundreds of cities at the bottom or the mediteranean sea, some of which are evidenced to have even been freshwater port cities (freshwater fish fossils). Fossils found on mt tops around the world would make sense. Fossils all over the world period would be expected. We know water has to be involved in quickly burying an animal in order for fossilization to occur. why is a worldwide flood so far fetched to people? there is so much evidence for it. there is easily enough water were the plates of the earth to shift drastically to cover the entire planet. fossils of trees at the bottom of the ocean would make sense. the fact that we only have fossils of trees of which are a few thousand years old, 6 at most would make sense. given all the fossils wed expect to find oil deposits etc. theres plenty it explains. like i said before, science has no arguement with biblical christianity, just evolution, lol. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 9:26:25 AM |
The grand canyon no doubt was carved out quickly
Time frame is all wrong.
Around 35 million years ago the Kaibab Plateau begins to uplift and diverts the ancestral Colorado, which was already established on a course very similar to that of today, to the southeast. The cut-off western portion, now named the Hualapai Drainage System, contines to drain the western region.
About 12 million years ago the Colorado's path to the sea is blocked and a huge lake, Lake Bidahochi, is formed.
Eventually the Hualapai cuts back through the southern portion of the plateau and recaptures the Colorado. Lake Bidahochi is drained and becomes the Little Colorado River.
Well the first humans show up about 4 million years ago.
Fossils from several different early australopith species that lived between 4 million and 2 million years ago show a variety of adaptations that mark the transition from ape to human.
And as to:
every ancient culture has a the 'myth' of a huge catastrophic flood
I would think that every culture at some time was damaged by flooding. Just like today, it happens all the time. And at the time it must seem to the people caught in it, that the "whole" world is underwater. Like in Asian a few months back, I but some of them thought the whole world was a goner.
As to Fossils on mountain tops, You have to again look at the ages. At some time every mountain was not a mountain, it was sea bed. Just as the artic was not always frozen and the deserts were not always dry.
why is a worldwide flood so far fetched..........there is easily enough water were the plates of the earth to shift drastically
Where is the geologic evidence? Such a shift would leave traces.
And how would any land animals have survived?
Noah got pairs of them "ALL" on to one Boat? (Queen Mary II would not be big enough)
How did he save the Kangaroos and polar bears? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 12:11:21 PM | | Geological evidence? there is plenty all across the world. the vast amount of fossils, the causeways in ireland, the list goes on. Noah and the ark is not as far fetched as ppl believe, noah simply needed to have a few pairs of each 'kind' of animal. all the genetic information contained therein could explain the vast array of different varieties we see today. in a previous post i showed how from a few pure bread dogs you can explain endless amounts of varieties simply by isolating different traits. to explain dinosaurs, there may have even been some on the ark if any were still alive. | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 33 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 12:41:11 PM |
Noah and the ark is not as far fetched as ppl believe, noah simply needed to have a few pairs of each 'kind' of animal. all the genetic information contained therein could explain the vast array of different varieties we see today.
In regards to "the ark", I will re-iterate the following questions (a select few from those posted previously, ....as yet unanswered):
9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.
9a. Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.
9b. Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.
9c. Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.
10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".
10a. Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.
10b. Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).
10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 2:24:08 PM | Great thread, Trewq .... and I must say, Late, the Flat Earth Society has popped into my thoughts a few times when I've read some of the posts on this topic.
I like your questions, Late, and have yet to see any sensible answers.
The most intriguing thing to me is that the creationists seem to be happy with the notion that creation just happened. No need for an explanation. My question would be if that is adequate? Is it our human destiny to just accept everything that goes on around us, or should we be doing all we can to explain how things happen? Evolution at least seems to be an attempt to explain our emergence. Should creationists be making some efforts to explain the mechanisms behind their version? I mean, I'd love to figure how to get so much work done so quickly - wouldn't you? I mean that would be SUCH a useful thing to figure out. Why aren't the creationists focussing their efforts on that instead of tearing down evolution. They could be doing us all a favor by figuring out how to be much more productive, plus blowing evolution away!!!!! Come on, creationists ... what's the hap's here? | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 35 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 2:49:18 PM | i maintain that the science on that site is incredibly accurate. arrogant? why b/c they believe something different than the norm?
1) No
is it not you that claimed evolution is fact?
2) ...and a theory.
christianity has no qualms with science.
3) Only when it co-opts it's definitions
in fact, christians were the first scientists!
4) What of:
Theophrastus, Eratosthenes, Archimedes, Eupalinus, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Pliny, Empedocles, Pythagoras, ........ et al ?
maintain that evolution is NOT science. that which is observable, repeatable. recreate the big bang for me why dont you? (i realize this has more to do with abiogenesis but the two in many cases do overlap, that is evolution and abiogenesis. it happened in the past, we can only theorize, but once again, this is beyond the realms of science. science deals with the present.
Please see 3)
Geological evidence?
How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
1) The extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
2) The relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
3) Why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
4) Why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
5) Why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
6) How coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
7) Why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
8) Why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
9) Why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants?
10) Why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
11) Will these questions be ignored too? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 3:10:43 PM | and another thing, excuse me if it take some time to answer the zillions of questions you post. i could do just the same asking questions about evolution. keeping up the best i can.
answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
i realize you have issues with this site and you dont appreciate the book advertisements but i assure you that the accuracy of the information is quite sound. in all honesty i dont have all the answers concerning the ark, but ill do my best to answer some of these.
9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.
the carnivores ate the same animals they eat today or substituted what they had to in order to survive. there was far more than just one pair of each animal, and in forty days im sure they produced a great deal more animals than what noah started off with. perhaps they lived off of left over meat that had been stored on the ark of partially substituted plants for a time. im not entirely sure to be honest.
9a. Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.
this one isnt too difficult. even today if you selected a few mixed breeds of dogs for instance, and cross breeded them and isolated different characteristics, you could come up with tons of varieties.
9b. Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.
this is clearly a misunderstanding on your part. there was not just a single pair of each. far from the case.
9c. Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.
both parties were on board the ark so i dont see how that is a problem. parasites? what about the vast amount of host animals on the ark? the floating mats of vegetation left from the onslaught of the flood? surely insects and the like could survive on that.
answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/diseases.asp
10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word “kind”.
answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
this articles is very good and directly answers the question of how noah fit all the animals on the ark. it directly addresses the meaning of the word kind, the different kinds of cattle, etc. etc. im not just posting this link as a cop out, i found the article to be quite good. i read it thoroughly and fully agree with it. it very specifically deals with what youve asked in this question.
10a. Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.
very detailed calculation provided.
answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp
10b. Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).
God cause all the animals to cooperate. it was a supernatural occurence. all the animals came to the ark. there is no ‘scientific’ explanation i can give you on that one b/c it was not science that brought them there. dont have all the answers but a few more are at this link.
answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp
10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.
perhaps they did not have those social trends at the time or they still carried them out on the ark. im not sure. there have been many cases were the same species in different locations have different social arrangements. they could of been developed later in time.
When i said you were being childish i was referring to you equating me with the flat earth society. btw. i could say the same thing about your site as being biased with its own agenda. this site does not lie. it even has an apologetics section in the q&a which goes over many arguements some christians have used that are simply not true. Yes, the people who run the site believe the bible is the word of God and that creation did in fact occur, but this fact doesnt debunk their ‘science’ as you put it. Among all the articles the reference thousands of secular sources.
To the other guy:
before we ate the fruit from the tree we had a different nature than we do now. we were perfect. that was the fall. and yes, God did know our nature very well, and what we would do, before the creation of the world he knew he knew he would have to send his son to die for our sins. the bible is clear on this. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 3:35:07 PM | ‘Science’, in the strong sense, deals with repeatable events under precisely controlled conditions, and these testable results are to be valid across time, location and experimenter. Although all conclusions should still be treated as tentative descriptive models, even incomplete understanding can lead to advances in technology and medicine. Christians certainly approve of this form of knowledge acquisition, when applied in beneficial ways not contrary to God’s commandments. However, scientific methodologies available to interpret historical and geological events are, unfortunately, far less reliable.
Hard-core science, which allows us to send astronauts to the moon and to build bridges many kilometres long, cannot provide answers to many important human problems.
‘First, science at best gives us only factual or instrumental knowledge, not knowledge of ultimate purposes. From science we may learn a great deal about how the world works, and how to get whatever it is that we want, but unless we have another source of knowledge we will have no way to reason about the purpose of life or exactly what it is that a rational person ought to want.’
The materialist wishes to speak with authority, with the kind of credibility we reserve for empirical, repeatable research conclusions. He is forced to the conclusion that intelligence is derived from the properties of inanimate matter and that the existence of sentient beings just happened. Are such scientists equipped to answer the deepest issues which trouble us? Why should my personal worth and value be greater than that of a virus, which isn’t even truly living? Do my thoughts accurately reflect an external reality? Does death end it all? Are good and evil merely arbitrary concepts of transient definition? Do I really have a free will? Will I be held accountable by God some day for my actions? The answers the materialist offers to these most important of questions are based on unverifiable and self-serving assumptions. The conclusions follow the unjustified premises and nothing more. | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 38 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 3:39:31 PM | i could say the same thing about your site as being biased with its own agenda
The agenda that science holds that what is accepted as fact: can change when observable data allows makes this not a self-serving one.
Information is proccessed into ideas and tested and considered and always open to "new data".
It can be wrong, ......that's an important facet of science, the most important.
From your perspective, can Christianity be wrong?
As for "Flat earth", what about:
Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, ...]
The ark, revisited:
Caring for the Animals
Special diets. Many animals, especially insects, require special diets. Koalas, for example, require eucalyptus leaves, and silkworms eat nothing but mulberry leaves. For thousands of plant species (perhaps even most plants), there is at least one animal that eats only that one kind of plant. How did Noah gather all those plants aboard, and where did he put them?
Other animals are strict carnivores, and some of those specialize on certain kinds of foods, such as small mammals, insects, fish, or aquatic invertebrates. How did Noah determine and provide for all those special diets?
Fresh foods. Many animals require their food to be fresh. Many snakes, for example, will eat only live foods (or at least warm and moving). Parasitoid wasps only attack living prey. Most spiders locate their prey by the vibrations it produces. [Foelix, 1996] Most herbivorous insects require fresh food. Aphids, in fact, are physically incapable of sucking from wilted leaves. How did Noah keep all these food supplies fresh?
Food preservation/Pest control. Food spoilage is a major concern on long voyages; it was especially thus before the inventions of canning and refrigeration. The large quantities of food aboard would have invited infestations of any of hundreds of stored product pests (especially since all of those pests would have been aboard), and the humidity one would expect aboard the Ark would have provided an ideal environment for molds. How did Noah keep pests from consuming most of the food?
Ventilation. The ark would need to be well ventilated to disperse the heat, humidity, and waste products (including methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia) from the many thousands of animals which were crowded aboard. Woodmorappe (pp. 37-42) interprets Genesis 6:16 to mean there was an 18-inch opening all around the top, and says that this, with slight breezes, would have been enough to provide adequate ventilation. However, the ark was divided into separate rooms and decks (Gen. 6:14,16). How was fresh air circulated throughout the structure?
Sanitation. The ungulates alone would have produced tons of manure a day. The waste on the lowest deck at least (and possibly the middle deck) could not simply be pushed overboard, since the deck was below the water line; the waste would have to be carried up a deck or two. Vermicomposting could reduce the rate of waste accumulation, but it requires maintenance of its own. How did such a small crew dispose of so much waste?
Exercise/Animal handling. The animals aboard the ark would have been in very poor shape unless they got regular exercise. (Imagine if you had to stay in an area the size of a closet for a year.) How were several thousand diverse kinds of animals exercised regularly?
Manpower for feeding, watering, etc. How did a crew of eight manage a menagerie larger and more diverse than that found in zoos requiring many times that many employees? Woodmorappe claims that eight people could care for 16000 animals, but he makes many unrealistic and invalid assumptions. Here are a few things he didn't take into account:
Feeding the animals would take much longer if the food was in containers to protect it from pests.
Many animals would have to be hand-fed.
Watering several animals at once via troughs would not work aboard a ship. The water would be sloshed out by the ship's roll.
Many animals, in such an artificial environment, would have required additional special care. For example, all of the hoofed animals would need to have their hooves trimmed several times during the year.
Not all manure could be simply pushed overboard; a third of it at least would have to be carried up at least one deck.
Corpses of the dead animals would have to be removed regularly.
Animals can't be expected to run laps and return to their cages without a lot of human supervision.
‘Science’, in the strong sense, deals with repeatable events under precisely controlled conditions, and these testable results are to be valid across time, location and experimenter. Although all conclusions should still be treated as tentative descriptive models, even incomplete understanding can lead to advances in technology and medicine. Christians certainly approve of this form of knowledge acquisition, when applied in beneficial ways not contrary to God’s commandments. However, scientific methodologies available to interpret historical and geological events are, unfortunately, far less reliable.
Hard-core science, which allows us to send astronauts to the moon and to build bridges many kilometres long, cannot provide answers to many important human problems.
‘First, science at best gives us only factual or instrumental knowledge, not knowledge of ultimate purposes. From science we may learn a great deal about how the world works, and how to get whatever it is that we want, but unless we have another source of knowledge we will have no way to reason about the purpose of life or exactly what it is that a rational person ought to want.’
The materialist wishes to speak with authority, with the kind of credibility we reserve for empirical, repeatable research conclusions. He is forced to the conclusion that intelligence is derived from the properties of inanimate matter and that the existence of sentient beings just happened. Are such scientists equipped to answer the deepest issues which trouble us? Why should my personal worth and value be greater than that of a virus, which isn’t even truly living? Do my thoughts accurately reflect an external reality? Does death end it all? Are good and evil merely arbitrary concepts of transient definition? Do I really have a free will? Will I be held accountable by God some day for my actions? The answers the materialist offers to these most important of questions are based on unverifiable and self-serving assumptions. The conclusions follow the unjustified premises and nothing more.
From: "Dare to question the materialist high priests"
(Answers in Genesis Ministries International)
- Phillip Johnson, Law Professor
Is "Law" science now too?
materialist
n 1: someone with great regard for worldly possessions 2: someone who thinks that nothing exists but physical matter
Who's a materialist?
How did he save the Kangaroos and polar bears?
More ............"Science" ???
from May 25, 2001 Answers in Genesis Ministries International.
Q: Why are kangaroos found only in Australia?
A: This may surprise lots of people, but that's not the case.
It's interesting: at our Answers in Genesis seminars, we ask our audience:
How many of you believe kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? No one puts up their hands. Then we ask: How many believe that Noah's Flood was a real event? All hands go up.
How many believe that Noah's Ark was a real boat? Yes, they agree to that, too. How many believe that two of every kind of land animal, including kangaroos, went on the Ark? Yes, they accept that.
Then we ask: How many people believe that the Ark landed in the Middle East? Up go the hands. How many people now believe that kangaroos came off the Ark after the Flood? They start to chuckle as they put their hands up.
Then we say, how many believe kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? All the hands now go up.
You see, when we think from a Biblical perspective, we know that all land animals must've once lived in the Middle East.
This is how science should be taught in schools? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 5:11:33 PM | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agenda that science holds that what is accepted as fact: can change when observable data allows makes this not a self-serving one
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts are not neutral. Evidence has to be interpreted. Interpretation is largely based off of a persons presuppositions as ive said before. therefore 'facts' already have a spin on them.
msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
consider this:
scientists have discovered soft tissue and red blood cells from a T. rex. but its fact that red blood cells dont last millions of years. how do the evolutionists respond to these findings? i would guess that theyd reinterpret the evidence to fit their own presuppositions. something along the lines of 'there must be some unknown scientific process by which these red blood cells and soft tissue were preserved for millions of years'. heaven forbid they question the age of the earth, that maybe the T. rex lived only a few thousand years ago. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 5:24:04 PM | SWEET GODDESS OF THE MOON you people make some long post's! Look at some of these wow!! You guy's are like angry squirrl's!! 
I agree with everything you've said so far Late, exept I dont see how an Idea can be both theory and fact at the same time, and what about this "Flat earth sociaty" Someone's going to have to help me wrap my puney mind around that one! Do you mean as many time's as we've ventured into space and as many picture's there are people still think the earth is flat??!!
Personally I maintain that the divine shaped "evolution." and it work's for Christian's too! I mean how would you know how a god measure's time?? I saw a post the other day, Pete it's not JUST a matter of what the animal's ate, but the sheer magnatude of a ship it would have taken to transport all those animal's, and then to distribute them to their various continent's where there found today? "it would have had to be the size of 2 football feild's" | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 41 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 5:28:39 PM |
scientists have discovered soft tissue and red blood cells from a T. rex. but its fact that red blood cells dont last millions of years.
It's a fact!
how do the evolutionists respond to these findings?
Facts
i would guess that theyd reinterpret the evidence to fit their own presuppositions.
Could it be you're projecting?
something along the lines of 'there must be some unknown scientific process by which these red blood cells and soft tissue were preserved for millions of years'. heaven forbid they question the age of the earth, that maybe the T. rex lived only a few thousand years ago.
Heaven forbid indeed, I already answered this one, but, ...this time I'll leave you with the closing statement on this little piece of fraud -
Answers in Genesis Ministry generally, and Carl Wieland CEO-Australia specifically, are the principal sources of the creationists' repeated falsehood that dinosaurs are modern because blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in fresh bone. There are in fact four gross errors in just those few words that originated with Wieland and Answers in Genesis. These falsehoods are found commonly repeated throughout the creationist literature. We have demonstrated above that Carl Wieland, writing for Answers in Genesis, falsely represented this research to his readers. Minimally any objective reader should be satisfied that within the scientific literature, a) "red blood cells" have not been found in dinosaur bone, b) Schweitzer did not say that there were "red blood cells" in her specimens, c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone, e) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than "willful ignorance", and has actively lied to a trusting public. Schweitzer did make some early remarks to news reporters that were easily exploited by creationists such as Wieland. Even the popularized version of Schweitzer's work was distorted through selective quoting and direct misrepresentation. This is a common problem when trying to communicate science - anything that can be misinterpreted by creationists probably will be. But the test of science is in the scientific literature, and at no point did her speculative remarks enter the scientific dialog. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 5:29:56 PM | if you dont believe in God, then you are a naturalist / materialist, only matter exists, no spiritual realm, etc.
how was the arguement on kangaroos invalid? noahs ark no doubt is incredible, but far from impossible with God's help. oh, and the bible does not ever say the earth is flat. that is just plain not true. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 5:34:34 PM | | "With God's help" so god made him build a ship that was wayyyy to small, compacted the animal's somehow, shrink wraped them perhap's? Then beam's them to there various home's, O.k. and this is assumeing the OLNY thing god couldnt do is keep them afloat....I mean cmon | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 44 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 5:35:35 PM | if you dont believe in God, then you are a naturalist / materialist, only matter exists, no spiritual realm, etc.
What about those that don't believe in god and also know that "other than" matter exists, .....?
how was the arguement on kangaroos invalid?
I see why we don't see eye to eye vis a vis: Science | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 5:46:15 PM | | perhaps i was broad in that statement. yes i know there are people who believe in spiritual things apart from matter who also dont believe in God, they would not be naturalists then either, you are correct. | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 46 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 6:06:41 PM | | I know time exists, radiation, music, memory, gravity,........... I'm a Reasonist. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 6:19:18 PM |
you obviously dont want to have an honest interllectual debate but would rather chide others beliefs and simply refute what they say by purely by claiming ignorance. how childish. once again. please. many christians may be ignorant on this subject, i however, am NOT ONE OF THEM!!!
Peter, how extensive is your knowledge and experience of Christianity, both from your experiences within the church, and from your knowledge of the bible?
You applied the term of "religion" to evolutionary theory. This is interesting, because in so doing you imply that religion is LESSER than science. You confirm this by your above statement, in that you say that many Christians are ignorant about the issue of evolution (and perhaps of other things as well), but YOU are not.
Yes, I am aware that some believers do not wish to call their belief system a "religion", because they feel that the term is somehow lacking. However, in practical terms, the reason for your perspective is that you personally feel that religion is all about believing and not about empirical evidence or intellectualism. If that is your perspective, fine.
However, given that it is very well-established from a strictly theological perspective that faith is the foundation upon which your relationship with God is established, why then do you make yourself out to be superior to your fellow believers who believe without knowledge of science? In other words, are you telling us that nearly 2 millenia of Christian theology is now suddenly wrong, in that you are concluding that you are choosing the correct path to God by placing science either above or at the same level as shear faith?
Sometimes it's easy to allow your desire to be respected by intellectuals and scientists to keep your from noticing that, at all levels, the Bible in no way suggests that faith is inferior to any form of belief, nor does it call wise those who hesitate to believe. What do you think Paul was addressing when he referred to the "foolishness" of the present world? Was he not referring to the very students of philosophy who's teacher's principles would ultimately become the catalyst for the development of modern science?
I really must emphasize that you are going so far as to make Christianity a kind of science, or making science the foundation upon which your faith is built. How could this be? The faith which you believe in was never built upon science at all, but belief. You were introduced to Christianity long after hundreds of thousands of believers were matyred for their faith. You were introduced to Christianity during a time when bibles are available at nearly every bookstore, whereas their faith endured through times of vast intellectual, theological, and spiritual darkness. What did they know about the earth? What did they know of science? They knew practically nothing, and yet they still believed. Are they not the very ideal that Christians are called by the bible itself to strive for?
What? Was Jesus a scientist, or an intellectual? Far from it. He believed His Father, period.
The disciples left everything the moment Jesus called them. Why should they have believed him before anything had been revealed to them (i.e., miracles, etc.)? Obviously, they possessed the ideal (biblically), but you are placing their resolve to take Jesus at his word only below that of those who seek to establish their "faith" upon scientific evidence. Obviously, the Holy Spirit is presented as being the source of the conviction of truth, not human wisdom, not human intelligence. No, the Holy Spirit is the one who leads all mankind to Christ, not by your mind, by in your spirit, in your heart.
Is this principle unfamiliar to you?
You have committed an enormous theological error. You are not allowing the biblical text to speak for itself, but instead, you are assuming that you are somehow choosing a better approach.
What is your goal then? Are you determined to prove others wrong, to win debates? Or are you determined to believe and trust the bible all the more? The latter is not achieved through the means which you are now pursuing. There are countless writings from Christian scholars and theologians on this subject matter, and I would advise you to take the time to read about the topic of faith from a strictly theological/biblical perspective. Philosophy and science are not partners with faith. Faith is not confidence. Scientists have confidence in science, but the kind of faith which the bible refers to is not confidence, but merely a choice. Yo decide to believe or not. God rewards those who believe, but condemns those who do not. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but if you study the topic of faith within its biblical context, I am certain that you will ultimately realize the science and philosophy are not compatible with biblical faith.
Do yourself a favor and STUDY your own faith more carefully, not to prove it better than this or that, but to determine what it really is all about. This you clearly have not done. | |
|
Nibe
| | Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 48 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 6:30:15 PM | The Fact of the matter is it is both creation, and evolution. Science has proven evolution of some species of animals and bugs. It is my belief that there is a intellegence behind this evolution, either God, or Angels. Let me also say, the human did not come from a monkey, as it says he was created of the dust of the earth, but lets bear in mind the moment god says something in regard to his creation. Which is; Genesis 1:26 "Then God said "Let US make man in our image, in our likeness, and let let them...ect..ect..
Well the key word is US? Who is God speaking to, and I believe he is speaking to angels, that started out with a monkey blueprint in their minds, or on paper, then did as God commanded made a sentient being...a being that would thus be in the image of the angels and god. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 6:33:26 PM |
9a. Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.
this one isnt too difficult. even today if you selected a few mixed breeds of dogs for instance, and cross breeded them and isolated different characteristics, you could come up with tons of varieties.
Are you stating this as a valid source of such variation? If so, what do you actually know about cross-breeding, or what authorities on the subject have informed you? The phrase "tons of varieties" doesn't sound like something quantifiable. If cross-breeding is presented as a possible explanation, it should first be proven to be capable of producing the results you imply that it could. Some definite facts or references are needed here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 6:42:56 PM | Peter, I've noticed that in a few instances, you resorted to including God specifically in enabling certain things to happen. In other words, God was needed to enable the ark to survive the flood. God enabled the animals to survive and later to flourish and repopulate the earth. Obviously, this leads to the conclusion that these things were actually IMPOSSIBLE by natural means alone. Your position necessitates the conclusion that these events included divine intervention at several levels, not only in the bringing of the animals to the ark. Now, with this in mind, it should be noted that divine intervention is not subject to scientific explanation. Miracles are supernatural. I'm finding this difficult to word exactly, but basically, you are describing the flood as being valid from a naturalistic perspective (the ark could have been built, animals could have had enough food to eat WITHOUT need of a miracle), but then you include God at some points when (apparently) you do not see any practical means to explain the account except by including God.
THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.
You are attempting to explain something as being scientifically valid, but then you jump off into divine intervention.
This is the issue with most creationists. Whenever you fail to find an explanation for something within the boundaries of science, you then appeal to God. However, it is this which makes your position unscientific, and it also begs the question: why were you trying to establish scientific validity of these stories in the first place? | |
|
|
|
|
Page
2
of
156 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
|
|
Home
login